5 ms·

You can't really have one without the other. It's not really meritocracy if you're excluding a large portion of your candidate pool due to bias.

alexryan 9y ago
Not a logical statement. It is entirely possible to value merit over diversity.
- Consultant32452 9y ago
  I would submit that the two are in contention with one another.
  - slavapestov 9y ago
    How so? Like I said, a more inclusive workplace is about having a larger pool of candidates to draw from. I haven't seen anyone suggest that diversity is to be achieved by lowering hiring standards, that is a strawman.
    - Consultant32452 9y ago
      Opening the pool to as many potential candidates as possible is not the same as taking an active role in making sure the people you bring on are actually diverse.
aqme28 9y ago
I really don't understand this meme. I've never seen a company where I felt like straight white males (myself being one of them) were excluded due to diversity initiatives. We're still pretty well-represented at even the most staunchly pro-diversity companies.
- alexryan 9y ago
  Personally, I would prefer to work exclusively with those who value meritocracy more because diversity proponents are very often believers in the ideology of perpetual victimhood. As such they are always in conflict with everyone and generally suck the joy out of life. I find them intolerable and want to keep them as far away from me as possible.
  - slavapestov 9y ago
    > Personally, I would prefer to work exclusively with those who value meritocracy more because diversity proponents are very often believers in the ideology of perpetual victimhood. I think you're projecting. The only displays of victimhood I've seen in this context is from white males who (incorrectly) believe that an increased focus on diversity means they are somehow being discriminated against. If you create value for your employer and can demonstrate a minimum level of competence when it comes to technical and people skills you really have nothing to fear from diversity. It is ridiculous that this even needs to be pointed out.
    - alexryan 9y ago
      Diversity is a smoke screen that sjws use to seize power for themselves and inflict their ideology on the organization with their codes of conduct with prohibitions against microaggressions and unconscious bias like they have at google. You're not fooling anyone anymore. The ideology is just marxism with the white male as the new villain instead of the bourgeoisie. If you genuinely cared about diversity, James Damore would still be employed by google.
      - slavapestov 9y ago
        Ok, it looks like I triggered a snowflake here, and you've failed to address any of my points in a meaningful way, but I'll play along, hopefully for your own education, or at least, others who might be reading this thread. > Diversity is a smoke screen that sjws use to seize power for themselves and inflict their ideology on the organization with their codes of conduct with prohibitions against microaggressions and unconscious bias like they have at google. Surely you must agree that any kind of unconscious bias (or conscious, for that matter) is undesirable? How can an organization claim to be a meritocracy if members of marginalized groups are treated unfairly compared to members of the majority group? At its core, a code of conduct stipulates that the members of a community should try to evaluate the contributions of fellow members in an objective manner, and debate any disagreements respectfully without resorting to personal attacks, stereotypes or bigotry. Why do you see that as a bad thing? > You're not fooling anyone anymore. On the contrary, you're resorting to sophistry while I'm trying to bring clarity to the situation by calmly explaining a point of view you disagree with. It would serve you well to assume I'm acting in good faith here. > The ideology is just marxism with the white male as the new villain instead of the bourgeoisie. As a white male myself, I have never felt like anyone is trying to typecast me as a "villain". Nor do I feel like my contributions have been marginalized at any point in my career, on the contrary I've been extremely successful so far. If you genuinely feel otherwise, perhaps some self-reflection is in order, because I think you're having an irrational, emotional reaction that is preventing you from understanding the key issues here. When people talk about diversity (or lack thereof) in tech, it's really not about _you_. Trust me. Rather, it's about creating communities where the broadest possible cross section of the population can participate in a constructive manner, and be judged on the merits of their contributions alone. We want people who are not white males to also have a voice -- that's completely different from suggesting excluding white males on the basis of their gender or race alone. Why is that a bad thing? > If you genuinely cared about diversity, James Damore would still be employed by google. This is a non-sequitor. I myself don't work at Google, nor am I privy to any insider information about the events leading up to the end of his rather short tenure there. All I have to work with are the facts that have been made public. A most charitable interpretation is that in his actions he demonstrated an amazing lack of self-awareness, something which probably hamstrung his performance as an engineer in other ways. At worst, he acted in bad faith, precipitating an outcome that would guarantee his while doing maximum damage to the well-being of his coworkers as well as creating bad press for his employer. Remember, it was recently revealed that he lied about having obtained a PhD from Harward. It is also quite possible he was on some kind of performance improvement plan already due to inadequate technical output or difficulty working with others, and the public events that led to his termination were just the last straw before management decided to terminate him. That you would elevate him as some kind of hero while having zero knowledge of his actual technical contributions at his former company shows that you, unfortunately, exhibit unconscious bias...

alexryan 9y ago

Not a logical statement. It is entirely possible to value merit over diversity.

Consultant32452 9y ago
I would submit that the two are in contention with one another.
- slavapestov 9y ago
  How so? Like I said, a more inclusive workplace is about having a larger pool of candidates to draw from. I haven't seen anyone suggest that diversity is to be achieved by lowering hiring standards, that is a strawman.
  - Consultant32452 9y ago
    Opening the pool to as many potential candidates as possible is not the same as taking an active role in making sure the people you bring on are actually diverse.

aqme28 9y ago

I really don't understand this meme. I've never seen a company where I felt like straight white males (myself being one of them) were excluded due to diversity initiatives. We're still pretty well-represented at even the most staunchly pro-diversity companies.

alexryan 9y ago
Personally, I would prefer to work exclusively with those who value meritocracy more because diversity proponents are very often believers in the ideology of perpetual victimhood. As such they are always in conflict with everyone and generally suck the joy out of life. I find them intolerable and want to keep them as far away from me as possible.
- slavapestov 9y ago
  > Personally, I would prefer to work exclusively with those who value meritocracy more because diversity proponents are very often believers in the ideology of perpetual victimhood. I think you're projecting. The only displays of victimhood I've seen in this context is from white males who (incorrectly) believe that an increased focus on diversity means they are somehow being discriminated against. If you create value for your employer and can demonstrate a minimum level of competence when it comes to technical and people skills you really have nothing to fear from diversity. It is ridiculous that this even needs to be pointed out.
  - alexryan 9y ago
    Diversity is a smoke screen that sjws use to seize power for themselves and inflict their ideology on the organization with their codes of conduct with prohibitions against microaggressions and unconscious bias like they have at google. You're not fooling anyone anymore. The ideology is just marxism with the white male as the new villain instead of the bourgeoisie. If you genuinely cared about diversity, James Damore would still be employed by google.
    - slavapestov 9y ago
      Ok, it looks like I triggered a snowflake here, and you've failed to address any of my points in a meaningful way, but I'll play along, hopefully for your own education, or at least, others who might be reading this thread. > Diversity is a smoke screen that sjws use to seize power for themselves and inflict their ideology on the organization with their codes of conduct with prohibitions against microaggressions and unconscious bias like they have at google. Surely you must agree that any kind of unconscious bias (or conscious, for that matter) is undesirable? How can an organization claim to be a meritocracy if members of marginalized groups are treated unfairly compared to members of the majority group? At its core, a code of conduct stipulates that the members of a community should try to evaluate the contributions of fellow members in an objective manner, and debate any disagreements respectfully without resorting to personal attacks, stereotypes or bigotry. Why do you see that as a bad thing? > You're not fooling anyone anymore. On the contrary, you're resorting to sophistry while I'm trying to bring clarity to the situation by calmly explaining a point of view you disagree with. It would serve you well to assume I'm acting in good faith here. > The ideology is just marxism with the white male as the new villain instead of the bourgeoisie. As a white male myself, I have never felt like anyone is trying to typecast me as a "villain". Nor do I feel like my contributions have been marginalized at any point in my career, on the contrary I've been extremely successful so far. If you genuinely feel otherwise, perhaps some self-reflection is in order, because I think you're having an irrational, emotional reaction that is preventing you from understanding the key issues here. When people talk about diversity (or lack thereof) in tech, it's really not about _you_. Trust me. Rather, it's about creating communities where the broadest possible cross section of the population can participate in a constructive manner, and be judged on the merits of their contributions alone. We want people who are not white males to also have a voice -- that's completely different from suggesting excluding white males on the basis of their gender or race alone. Why is that a bad thing? > If you genuinely cared about diversity, James Damore would still be employed by google. This is a non-sequitor. I myself don't work at Google, nor am I privy to any insider information about the events leading up to the end of his rather short tenure there. All I have to work with are the facts that have been made public. A most charitable interpretation is that in his actions he demonstrated an amazing lack of self-awareness, something which probably hamstrung his performance as an engineer in other ways. At worst, he acted in bad faith, precipitating an outcome that would guarantee his while doing maximum damage to the well-being of his coworkers as well as creating bad press for his employer. Remember, it was recently revealed that he lied about having obtained a PhD from Harward. It is also quite possible he was on some kind of performance improvement plan already due to inadequate technical output or difficulty working with others, and the public events that led to his termination were just the last straw before management decided to terminate him. That you would elevate him as some kind of hero while having zero knowledge of his actual technical contributions at his former company shows that you, unfortunately, exhibit unconscious bias...