4 ms·

How do you know the (heavily politicized, myopically chosen, inescapably coarse-grained) identity groups they're targeting offer a form of diversity that actual

How do you know the (heavily politicized, myopically chosen, inescapably coarse-grained) identity groups they're targeting offer a form of diversity that actually has value in the realm of Rust? Why do you believe that these identity group traits correlate strongly with intellectual diversity that is necessary for the project's health? If anything, this process (and the efforts from which it stems) seem purposefully designed to eliminate intellectual diversity, in favor of a rigid monoculture maintained by empowering political officers in the enforcement of right-think.

civilitty 9y ago
Based on your choice of words and other comments you've made, I believe you fear change and people who are different from you. I doubt there is anything I can say to convince you in the face of your prejudices, whatever they may be. > If anything, this process (and the efforts from which it stems) seem purposefully designed to eliminate intellectual diversity, in favor of a rigid monoculture maintained by empowering political officers in the enforcement of right-think. If your idea of a monoculture is a place where people have to be respectful of other people & cultures and not use culturally charged words then I think almost everyone in the Rust community would be happy with that outcome. If you want to provide evidence that the Rust community is trying to eliminate intellectual diversity in favor of superficial qualities instead of sincerely trying to outreach to underrepresented communities that may have a lot to offer, I'm sure they (and we here on HN) will be happy to have a rigorous, respectful debate with the express goal of improving the experience for as many people in the community as possible, including you. Until then, you are free to grind your axe elsewhere, perhaps somewhere without multiculturalism to make you so uncomfortable.
- DaiPlusPlus 9y ago
  I don't think it's "fear of change" or "fear of people who are different" - not even "fear". I feel the sentiment felt is closer to "think poorly-of". Southern US racists certainly aren't "afraid" of black people: I believe they've been conditioned by negative racial stereotypes combined with their own sense of superiority ("blacks are lazy, no-good", "blacks are criminals", et cetera) so the idea of racial equality simply strikes them as silly - take that concept and apply it to today's debates: ("feminists are loud and unruly", "transgender people are freaks", "the other side are all fat women with purple hair who spend too much time complaining on their blogs instead of instigating real change"). I stress these are stereotypes, and certainly not representative, but doubling-down in response seems to reinforce certain negative stereotypes and make it harder to sell the idea of the "new normal". I believe their concerns about the loss of "intellectual diversity" are genuinely felt - but frame it as someone who genuinely believes themselves and their opinions to be level-headed and that these new voices, who are telling them that their opinion are wrong, will of course put someone on the defensive, it's only natural to feel a creep of thoughtcrime policing. I hate to use a cop-out cliché but I feel that "both sides" need to apply empathy when engaging in debate with their opposition: those that feel out of place and get defensive, or simply think these are overblown matters, are not deliberately out to actually oppress anyone - and those campaigning for more equitable treatment are not being opportunistic.
  - teacup50 9y ago
    Well, an open challenge that might help someone understand what I actually think, at least along one axis: Let's say I want to objectively evaluate the notion that there is such a thing as an arbitrary, self-declared, non-binary "gender" (or "gender identity") that can range across any number of "genders". In that case, can you specify the set of propositions used to classify something as a "gender"? Is your definition purely self-referential (cyclic)? Does your definition exclude other social self-identifications, such as "goth" or "emo"? Why or why not? Does your definition rely on references to "biological sex" (e.g. male/female)? If so, what are the sexes "male" and "female"?
    - civilitty 9y ago
      That's like refusing a fresh cheeseburger because you're afraid that by the time you bite into it, it'll develop botulism - even as you're minutes away from starving to death. You're nitpicking tiny details and dismissing a clear improvement because it does not conform perfectly to your idealized standards. Life is messy, people make mistakes. That just means we keep moving forward and self correcting when we need to not when we make up entirely hypothetical downsides, most of which never end up happening anyway. I repeat, again: you have provided zero evidence for your claims that the Rust team is doing the wrong thing or heading in the wrong direction. This insistence on using hypotheticals instead of providing evidence screams fear; not a rational evaluation of the community and its plans. It's the same tired strategy used by conservatives for thousands of years to fight literacy, education, suffrage, abolition of slavery, welfare, universal healthcare, and pretty much everything good that has happened in human society. No one but its rhetorical peddlers take it seriously because it is purely self defeating: if you're too paralyzed by hypothetical issues to take the first step, then those issues will never be resolved, freeing you from facing the uncomfortable change ahead.
      - teacup50 9y ago
        That's not an answer.
    - DaiPlusPlus 9y ago
- teacup50 9y ago
  The science is bad and the politics are deleterious. That has nothing to do with prejudices on my part; thinking that the methodology and behavior is naively toxic at best doesn't mean I disagree with the egalitarian aims that are claimed to be the motivating factor behind this political ideology.
  - civilitty 9y ago
    What science and what politics? Why are they bad or deleterious? Why are they naively toxic? Can you provide any examples? I'd be happy with just one because even an isolated incident can be learned from and used to improve the community. You can't claim to agree with their egalitarian aims and then absolutely refuse to provide constructive feedback or even any evidence of your claims that their behavior is naive, myopic, counter-productive, etc. It's the logical equivalent of "I'm not racist but..." followed with a comment about how other races have smaller brains as if its a statement of fact with no evidence to back it up. Don't tell us, show us.
    - teacup50 9y ago
      You're being remarkably disingenuous; please consider your comments an example of deleterious politics.

civilitty 9y ago

Based on your choice of words and other comments you've made, I believe you fear change and people who are different from you. I doubt there is anything I can say to convince you in the face of your prejudices, whatever they may be. > If anything, this process (and the efforts from which it stems) seem purposefully designed to eliminate intellectual diversity, in favor of a rigid monoculture maintained by empowering political officers in the enforcement of right-think. If your idea of a monoculture is a place where people have to be respectful of other people & cultures and not use culturally charged words then I think almost everyone in the Rust community would be happy with that outcome. If you want to provide evidence that the Rust community is trying to eliminate intellectual diversity in favor of superficial qualities instead of sincerely trying to outreach to underrepresented communities that may have a lot to offer, I'm sure they (and we here on HN) will be happy to have a rigorous, respectful debate with the express goal of improving the experience for as many people in the community as possible, including you. Until then, you are free to grind your axe elsewhere, perhaps somewhere without multiculturalism to make you so uncomfortable.

DaiPlusPlus 9y ago
I don't think it's "fear of change" or "fear of people who are different" - not even "fear". I feel the sentiment felt is closer to "think poorly-of". Southern US racists certainly aren't "afraid" of black people: I believe they've been conditioned by negative racial stereotypes combined with their own sense of superiority ("blacks are lazy, no-good", "blacks are criminals", et cetera) so the idea of racial equality simply strikes them as silly - take that concept and apply it to today's debates: ("feminists are loud and unruly", "transgender people are freaks", "the other side are all fat women with purple hair who spend too much time complaining on their blogs instead of instigating real change"). I stress these are stereotypes, and certainly not representative, but doubling-down in response seems to reinforce certain negative stereotypes and make it harder to sell the idea of the "new normal". I believe their concerns about the loss of "intellectual diversity" are genuinely felt - but frame it as someone who genuinely believes themselves and their opinions to be level-headed and that these new voices, who are telling them that their opinion are wrong, will of course put someone on the defensive, it's only natural to feel a creep of thoughtcrime policing. I hate to use a cop-out cliché but I feel that "both sides" need to apply empathy when engaging in debate with their opposition: those that feel out of place and get defensive, or simply think these are overblown matters, are not deliberately out to actually oppress anyone - and those campaigning for more equitable treatment are not being opportunistic.
- teacup50 9y ago
  Well, an open challenge that might help someone understand what I actually think, at least along one axis: Let's say I want to objectively evaluate the notion that there is such a thing as an arbitrary, self-declared, non-binary "gender" (or "gender identity") that can range across any number of "genders". In that case, can you specify the set of propositions used to classify something as a "gender"? Is your definition purely self-referential (cyclic)? Does your definition exclude other social self-identifications, such as "goth" or "emo"? Why or why not? Does your definition rely on references to "biological sex" (e.g. male/female)? If so, what are the sexes "male" and "female"?
  - civilitty 9y ago
    That's like refusing a fresh cheeseburger because you're afraid that by the time you bite into it, it'll develop botulism - even as you're minutes away from starving to death. You're nitpicking tiny details and dismissing a clear improvement because it does not conform perfectly to your idealized standards. Life is messy, people make mistakes. That just means we keep moving forward and self correcting when we need to not when we make up entirely hypothetical downsides, most of which never end up happening anyway. I repeat, again: you have provided zero evidence for your claims that the Rust team is doing the wrong thing or heading in the wrong direction. This insistence on using hypotheticals instead of providing evidence screams fear; not a rational evaluation of the community and its plans. It's the same tired strategy used by conservatives for thousands of years to fight literacy, education, suffrage, abolition of slavery, welfare, universal healthcare, and pretty much everything good that has happened in human society. No one but its rhetorical peddlers take it seriously because it is purely self defeating: if you're too paralyzed by hypothetical issues to take the first step, then those issues will never be resolved, freeing you from facing the uncomfortable change ahead.
    - teacup50 9y ago
      That's not an answer.
  - DaiPlusPlus 9y ago
teacup50 9y ago
The science is bad and the politics are deleterious. That has nothing to do with prejudices on my part; thinking that the methodology and behavior is naively toxic at best doesn't mean I disagree with the egalitarian aims that are claimed to be the motivating factor behind this political ideology.
- civilitty 9y ago
  What science and what politics? Why are they bad or deleterious? Why are they naively toxic? Can you provide any examples? I'd be happy with just one because even an isolated incident can be learned from and used to improve the community. You can't claim to agree with their egalitarian aims and then absolutely refuse to provide constructive feedback or even any evidence of your claims that their behavior is naive, myopic, counter-productive, etc. It's the logical equivalent of "I'm not racist but..." followed with a comment about how other races have smaller brains as if its a statement of fact with no evidence to back it up. Don't tell us, show us.
  - teacup50 9y ago
    You're being remarkably disingenuous; please consider your comments an example of deleterious politics.