3 ms·

Personally, I would prefer to work exclusively with those who value meritocracy more because diversity proponents are very often believers in the ideology of pe

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
      > 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? Everybody has biases. SJWs have biases as well. James Damore pointed out some of them and he got slandered, shamed, death threats, robbed of his livelihood and his future ability to provide for his family. After that experience, I think its reasonable to conclude that SJWs are not acting in good faith when it comes to having an open discussion about biases. Furthermore, there is ZERO scientific evidence for unconscious bias and microaggressions against "marginalized groups". I cite the research of Psychology professor Scott Lilienfeld of Emory University: “Microaggressions: Strong Claims, Inadequate Evidence.” Re: > The ideology is just marxism with the white male as the new villain instead of the bourgeoisie. While it may be true that SJWs are not fully aware of the historical origins of their ideology, it is a fact that postmodernism was borne when the french intellectuals (marxists) confronted with the horrors of communism chose to reformulate their philosophy to concentrate on identity politics instead of class war. The following book provides a good history of this: Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault (Expanded Edition) by Stephen R. C. Hicks
      - zimpenfish 9y ago
        > death threats That should never have happened. > robbed of his livelihood and his future ability to provide for his family No, he was legally fired and he can get another job somewhere else. If anything, running straight to alt-right commentators for interviews has done more to damage his future prospects than being fired from Google.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
  - sctb 9y ago
    > Eschew flamebait. Don't introduce flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

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
    > 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? Everybody has biases. SJWs have biases as well. James Damore pointed out some of them and he got slandered, shamed, death threats, robbed of his livelihood and his future ability to provide for his family. After that experience, I think its reasonable to conclude that SJWs are not acting in good faith when it comes to having an open discussion about biases. Furthermore, there is ZERO scientific evidence for unconscious bias and microaggressions against "marginalized groups". I cite the research of Psychology professor Scott Lilienfeld of Emory University: “Microaggressions: Strong Claims, Inadequate Evidence.” Re: > The ideology is just marxism with the white male as the new villain instead of the bourgeoisie. While it may be true that SJWs are not fully aware of the historical origins of their ideology, it is a fact that postmodernism was borne when the french intellectuals (marxists) confronted with the horrors of communism chose to reformulate their philosophy to concentrate on identity politics instead of class war. The following book provides a good history of this: Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault (Expanded Edition) by Stephen R. C. Hicks
    - zimpenfish 9y ago
      > death threats That should never have happened. > robbed of his livelihood and his future ability to provide for his family No, he was legally fired and he can get another job somewhere else. If anything, running straight to alt-right commentators for interviews has done more to damage his future prospects than being fired from Google.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- sctb 9y ago
  > Eschew flamebait. Don't introduce flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html