7 ms·

Slightly less comfortable for the most-privileged people on earth; probably more comfortable for everyone else. cf. Every other American industry's initial for

Slightly less comfortable for the most-privileged people on earth; probably more comfortable for everyone else. cf. Every other American industry's initial foray into diversity.

PeCaN 10y ago
Personally, I don't think I would be very comfortable knowing I was hired because company X has to meet diversity quotas and not solely because I was the best candidate for the job. I think it's an offense to hackers in general—I'm hired based on merit.
- clevernickname 10y ago
  This is where affirmative action is a step backwards. The unconscious assumption goes from "they're an X in this field, they have to be good" to "they're an X in this field, they're probably just here to fill a quota" and makes matters worse for everybody.
dijit 10y ago
Oh, it's fine that it's racist, because I as a white male have it so good? Seems odd to me mate, there are things that being white certainly doesn't buy, it's not a ticket to middle-class. Being cis doesn't make me any more worse at my job than being gay would, don't judge me on that merit it's bullshit. FWIW I grew up incredibly poor and my "advantage" in IT was that people don't care about your background. If I had wanted to be a lawyer or doctor I would bet my life that I would have failed. Tech is definitely inclusive as hell by default and making it less so is rather stupid. If there are people who are actively stopping women in tech or downplaying them then those people are at fault, I would argue as at fault as a company that wont interview me based on my skin colour or gender.
- mynameisvlad 10y ago
  > Being cis doesn't make me any more worse at my job than being gay would Gender identity and sexual orientation are not the same thing.
  - dijit 10y ago
    Ok... My point was really: > In my opinion being heterosexual does not make me better or worse at my job in IT than being homosexual.
- balls187 10y ago
  > Seems odd to me mate, there are things that being white certainly doesn't buy, it's not a ticket to middle-class. Perhaps not. But there are things that being white does grant you: 1. Police won't hassle you for driving a nice car. 2. Police won't hassle you for walking in a nice neighborhood. 3. People won't report you as "suspicious looking" for wearing a hoodie and walking in a neighborhood. 4. Police won't be as likely to use force to resolve a situation. 5. People will be less likely to have negative assumptions about your career, your intelligence, and your capabilities. // Being white is not a ticket to success, but it's not a hindrance either. That's the difference.
  - Futurebot 10y ago
    Exactly. This is a frequently misunderstood set of points. Having non-economic privileges does not automatically make you wealthy or even non-poor, and it doesn't automatically give you the best jobs or even any job. Some non-econ privileges are also relative not just to each other, but to each other in a geographic sense (skin color privilege helps you a lot more in Atlanta than in a town in Appalachia, for example.) What it can do, for example, is help keep you from getting shot by the police on the way to your interview.
    - balls187 10y ago
      > Having non-economic privileges I can't stand referring to my comment as "white privilege." It's just another way to discount a person simply because of their race. Being white is like starting a race at the starting line. Being black can be like starting that same race 10 feet back. Starting at the starting line, isn't a privilege--it's just how a race should be, in order to be fair for everyone participating. What it also means is that being black means you just have to run faster to win. > What it can do, for example, is help keep you from getting shot by the police on the way to your interview. Which we should solve the problem, not badger whites to feel guilty by calling it a privilege.
      - Futurebot 10y ago
        It shouldn't be a privilege, but that's how things worked out. History made it a privilege. If we ever reach a place in societal development where everyone starts at the same place, we can, and perhaps will, stop calling it that. Until then, it is a privilege, and people will continue calling it that. No one should feel guilty for having it, and others shouldn't being trying to make others feel guilty for having it (both of those things obviously happen, and people should speak against that, too. Some in the social justice world do exactly that.) Social Justice language is sometimes used as a cudgel, used opportunistically, used cynically, and abused in half a dozen ways (non-identarian left vs identarian liberal fights are often over these issues.) That doesn't mean the language is all wrong, or the meaning is wrong, it means bad people can use tools just like good ones can. Those with some privileges, but without economic privilege or other similar power can help by speaking out, and may change some minds; those with all kinds of privileges can help even more. When Sam Altman talks about diversity hiring, for example, he does the work of potentially thousands of non-Sam Altmans. It's not about guilt, it's about using power for purposes of a more equitable society.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
jshevek 10y ago
No. Giving irrational ideologues structural power in the workplace can make any thinking person uncomfortable, regardless of their privilege points.

Slightly less comfortable for the most-privileged people on earth; probably more comfortable for everyone else. cf. Every other American industry's initial foray into diversity.

PeCaN 10y ago

Personally, I don't think I would be very comfortable knowing I was hired because company X has to meet diversity quotas and not solely because I was the best candidate for the job. I think it's an offense to hackers in general—I'm hired based on merit.

clevernickname 10y ago
This is where affirmative action is a step backwards. The unconscious assumption goes from "they're an X in this field, they have to be good" to "they're an X in this field, they're probably just here to fill a quota" and makes matters worse for everybody.

dijit 10y ago

Oh, it's fine that it's racist, because I as a white male have it so good? Seems odd to me mate, there are things that being white certainly doesn't buy, it's not a ticket to middle-class. Being cis doesn't make me any more worse at my job than being gay would, don't judge me on that merit it's bullshit. FWIW I grew up incredibly poor and my "advantage" in IT was that people don't care about your background. If I had wanted to be a lawyer or doctor I would bet my life that I would have failed. Tech is definitely inclusive as hell by default and making it less so is rather stupid. If there are people who are actively stopping women in tech or downplaying them then those people are at fault, I would argue as at fault as a company that wont interview me based on my skin colour or gender.

mynameisvlad 10y ago
> Being cis doesn't make me any more worse at my job than being gay would Gender identity and sexual orientation are not the same thing.
- dijit 10y ago
  Ok... My point was really: > In my opinion being heterosexual does not make me better or worse at my job in IT than being homosexual.
balls187 10y ago
> Seems odd to me mate, there are things that being white certainly doesn't buy, it's not a ticket to middle-class. Perhaps not. But there are things that being white does grant you: 1. Police won't hassle you for driving a nice car. 2. Police won't hassle you for walking in a nice neighborhood. 3. People won't report you as "suspicious looking" for wearing a hoodie and walking in a neighborhood. 4. Police won't be as likely to use force to resolve a situation. 5. People will be less likely to have negative assumptions about your career, your intelligence, and your capabilities. // Being white is not a ticket to success, but it's not a hindrance either. That's the difference.
- Futurebot 10y ago
  Exactly. This is a frequently misunderstood set of points. Having non-economic privileges does not automatically make you wealthy or even non-poor, and it doesn't automatically give you the best jobs or even any job. Some non-econ privileges are also relative not just to each other, but to each other in a geographic sense (skin color privilege helps you a lot more in Atlanta than in a town in Appalachia, for example.) What it can do, for example, is help keep you from getting shot by the police on the way to your interview.
  - balls187 10y ago
    > Having non-economic privileges I can't stand referring to my comment as "white privilege." It's just another way to discount a person simply because of their race. Being white is like starting a race at the starting line. Being black can be like starting that same race 10 feet back. Starting at the starting line, isn't a privilege--it's just how a race should be, in order to be fair for everyone participating. What it also means is that being black means you just have to run faster to win. > What it can do, for example, is help keep you from getting shot by the police on the way to your interview. Which we should solve the problem, not badger whites to feel guilty by calling it a privilege.
    - Futurebot 10y ago
      It shouldn't be a privilege, but that's how things worked out. History made it a privilege. If we ever reach a place in societal development where everyone starts at the same place, we can, and perhaps will, stop calling it that. Until then, it is a privilege, and people will continue calling it that. No one should feel guilty for having it, and others shouldn't being trying to make others feel guilty for having it (both of those things obviously happen, and people should speak against that, too. Some in the social justice world do exactly that.) Social Justice language is sometimes used as a cudgel, used opportunistically, used cynically, and abused in half a dozen ways (non-identarian left vs identarian liberal fights are often over these issues.) That doesn't mean the language is all wrong, or the meaning is wrong, it means bad people can use tools just like good ones can. Those with some privileges, but without economic privilege or other similar power can help by speaking out, and may change some minds; those with all kinds of privileges can help even more. When Sam Altman talks about diversity hiring, for example, he does the work of potentially thousands of non-Sam Altmans. It's not about guilt, it's about using power for purposes of a more equitable society.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

jshevek 10y ago

No. Giving irrational ideologues structural power in the workplace can make any thinking person uncomfortable, regardless of their privilege points.