3 ms·

Your "strong feelings" are misguided. As a society or [sub]culture we are not judged on our efforts or philosophies but on our outcomes. And the stakes are high

Your "strong feelings" are misguided. As a society or [sub]culture we are not judged on our efforts or philosophies but on our outcomes. And the stakes are higher proportional to the power we collectively wield. If women or other minorities are disproportionately under-represented in our communities then that fact, that outcome, deserves direct acknowledgement, attention, and recompense.

Oxitendwe 10y ago
>that fact, that outcome, deserves direct acknowledgement, attention, and recompense. Why? Your statement has an implicit assumption - that all demographics have equal interest and potential in every field and community. This has not been proven and if it is not true, then what is the point of making sure everyone has equal representation in every field?
- sagichmal 10y ago
  CS is not just another field/community, like tradesmen, garbage collectors, or astronomers. It is a field/community that is accruing disproportionate economic and political power. Society owes equal opportunity (minimally) and representation (ideally) to all of its constituents into the halls of power. This is why, not coincidentally, criticisms of affirmative action in tech that point at the relative lack of interest in e.g. teachers or garbagemen fall flat. Those positions and communities don't broker power.
  - Oxitendwe 10y ago
    Well, it's nice at least that you recognize this for what it is - a power grab by the left to seize control of a powerful and influential industry with which they can impose their agenda on everyone else. I don't agree, however, with your statement "Society owes equal opportunity (minimally) and representation (ideally) to all of its constituents into the halls of power". This is an industry. Nobody is owed equal representation in every field of employment. They have to earn it the same as everyone else or you're playing favorites, and since it's a zero-sum game, by doing so you put another group at a disadvantage.
19182381 10y ago
The success difference between first and {second,third,...} borns is probably higher than the one between male/female. Do you support affirmative action for second-borns?
- mjmsmith 10y ago
  Even assuming your dubious hypothesis, please cite the evidence that second-borns have historically been subjected to systemic discrimination in the workplace.
4ad 10y ago
Society is only the collection of individuals, you are ascribing features to it, and implying some sort of moral order when there is no such thing. The society is not judged by anybody and there is no universal moral rule that distributes outcomes to demographics. There are only people interacting with other people. As a human, I am concerned about the personal freedom of individuals. I will do whatever it is in my power to make sure any human being truly has the individual liberty of pursuing life and happiness. I know from personal experience how difficult is to fight for one's freedom alone, so ethics compels me to join the fight in anyone's struggle. I instil in my children moral guidelines that I believe preserve individual choice and individual freedom because that is the world I want to live in and the world I consider just for my children. At absolutely no point groups of individuals have intrinsic moral rights, and the whole idea of gradually shifting vocabulary from individuals to groups until established terms such as "gay's rights" and "women's rights" form is nothing more than a subtle effort of obscuring the original drive behind class struggle. Suddenly established language shorthands become legal concepts and the whole ethical struggle about ensuring individual freedom becomes a debacle about demographics. It is bad to discriminate black people because it restricts the individual freedom of every black person, not because there is some intrinsic moral charter that codifies blacks. If I were a black person I would not want to be discriminated against, so my ethics make me fight against any specific examples of discriminating against blacks. It is bad to discriminate gay people because it restricts the individual freedom of every gay person, not because there is some intrinsic moral charter that codifies gays. If I were a gay person I would not want to be discriminated against, so my ethics make me fight against any specific examples of discriminating against gays. It is bad to discriminate women because it restricts the individual freedom of every individual person of feminine sex, not because there is some intrinsic moral charter that codifies women. If I were a women I would not want to be discriminated against, so my ethics make me fight against any specific examples of discriminating against women. And so on ad ad infinitum. However we can talk about black people, gay people, or women purely as groups of individuals where the rights of the group (if we can talk about such things) is the collection of the individual rights of its constituents. It's an extrinsic concept that arises from the way we look at groups through generalisation. We haven't imbued any distinct, intrinsic right to the group. The group does not exist outside its members, and its members are concrete living human beings, not abstractions. Forgetting this crucial fact is a insidious strategy to make people take decisions that infringe upon individual freedom in the name of the freedom of some group.

Oxitendwe 10y ago

>that fact, that outcome, deserves direct acknowledgement, attention, and recompense. Why? Your statement has an implicit assumption - that all demographics have equal interest and potential in every field and community. This has not been proven and if it is not true, then what is the point of making sure everyone has equal representation in every field?

sagichmal 10y ago
CS is not just another field/community, like tradesmen, garbage collectors, or astronomers. It is a field/community that is accruing disproportionate economic and political power. Society owes equal opportunity (minimally) and representation (ideally) to all of its constituents into the halls of power. This is why, not coincidentally, criticisms of affirmative action in tech that point at the relative lack of interest in e.g. teachers or garbagemen fall flat. Those positions and communities don't broker power.
- Oxitendwe 10y ago
  Well, it's nice at least that you recognize this for what it is - a power grab by the left to seize control of a powerful and influential industry with which they can impose their agenda on everyone else. I don't agree, however, with your statement "Society owes equal opportunity (minimally) and representation (ideally) to all of its constituents into the halls of power". This is an industry. Nobody is owed equal representation in every field of employment. They have to earn it the same as everyone else or you're playing favorites, and since it's a zero-sum game, by doing so you put another group at a disadvantage.

19182381 10y ago

The success difference between first and {second,third,...} borns is probably higher than the one between male/female. Do you support affirmative action for second-borns?

mjmsmith 10y ago
Even assuming your dubious hypothesis, please cite the evidence that second-borns have historically been subjected to systemic discrimination in the workplace.

4ad 10y ago

Society is only the collection of individuals, you are ascribing features to it, and implying some sort of moral order when there is no such thing. The society is not judged by anybody and there is no universal moral rule that distributes outcomes to demographics. There are only people interacting with other people. As a human, I am concerned about the personal freedom of individuals. I will do whatever it is in my power to make sure any human being truly has the individual liberty of pursuing life and happiness. I know from personal experience how difficult is to fight for one's freedom alone, so ethics compels me to join the fight in anyone's struggle. I instil in my children moral guidelines that I believe preserve individual choice and individual freedom because that is the world I want to live in and the world I consider just for my children. At absolutely no point groups of individuals have intrinsic moral rights, and the whole idea of gradually shifting vocabulary from individuals to groups until established terms such as "gay's rights" and "women's rights" form is nothing more than a subtle effort of obscuring the original drive behind class struggle. Suddenly established language shorthands become legal concepts and the whole ethical struggle about ensuring individual freedom becomes a debacle about demographics. It is bad to discriminate black people because it restricts the individual freedom of every black person, not because there is some intrinsic moral charter that codifies blacks. If I were a black person I would not want to be discriminated against, so my ethics make me fight against any specific examples of discriminating against blacks. It is bad to discriminate gay people because it restricts the individual freedom of every gay person, not because there is some intrinsic moral charter that codifies gays. If I were a gay person I would not want to be discriminated against, so my ethics make me fight against any specific examples of discriminating against gays. It is bad to discriminate women because it restricts the individual freedom of every individual person of feminine sex, not because there is some intrinsic moral charter that codifies women. If I were a women I would not want to be discriminated against, so my ethics make me fight against any specific examples of discriminating against women. And so on ad ad infinitum. However we can talk about black people, gay people, or women purely as groups of individuals where the rights of the group (if we can talk about such things) is the collection of the individual rights of its constituents. It's an extrinsic concept that arises from the way we look at groups through generalisation. We haven't imbued any distinct, intrinsic right to the group. The group does not exist outside its members, and its members are concrete living human beings, not abstractions. Forgetting this crucial fact is a insidious strategy to make people take decisions that infringe upon individual freedom in the name of the freedom of some group.