5 ms·

No, the only people you are making unwelcome are either: 1) those who don't know the time and place for their non community relevant outbursts ('meat is murder

No, the only people you are making unwelcome are either: 1) those who don't know the time and place for their non community relevant outbursts ('meat is murder', 'homosexuality is a sin' are both irrelevant to 99% of tech or other industry community/work discussions) -- leave that for your vegan blog, or your church group. 2) those who are unable to behave courteously in the presence of someone they know holds differing views in some area they are passionate about. Just because I have read Jennys vegan blog, and know and disagree with her 'meat is murder' sentiment doesn't mean I can't work effectively with her. People need to be able to separate their general leanings and passions from their commitments to a job or other community.

SolaceQuantum 9y ago
Being a minority is not a general leaning or a passion. Knowing your superior wants you dead(white supremacists) or psychologically tortured(conversion therapy) or inherently doesn't believe in your competence(sexism, racism, what have you) is not something one just shrugs off. Choosing to to be apolitical is a political stance. It would be nice if we could magically divorce people's work from their stance, but their stance will affect how they treat their peers and juniors- this is how patterns of oppression become systems. If a person has beliefs that women are inherently less capable of work, they will be unlikely to volunteer women for promotions or even see their women coworkers as having performed the work done. If a person has beliefs that black people are more violent or thuggish, they are unlikely to view that black coworker asserting that a technology requirement is utterly stupid in the same light as a white coworker asserting the same. I should emphasize these are not conscious, malicious behaviors. We are taught things about our peers and these teachings change our views on the context of the work of our peers. People rarely consciously, maliciously try to prevent the advancement of a disenfranchised group. Instead, their beliefs of that group prevent them from seeing that a member of the group deserves advancement. People do not differentiate from the contexts of their pervasive views on how they view every other person around them. They do not cease being sexist because their workplace claims to be apolitical. It merely means they no longer have repercussions within their workplace for their beliefs, regardless of the countless absolutely unprovable ways these beliefs bleed into work.
- cs1717p 9y ago
  For each of the questions you have listed, there is opposite viewpoints of some (questionable) legitimacy: White supremacists would argue that it is multiculturalists who seek the abolition of the white race through introduction of millions of high birth rate other demographics into white countries. Pro-conversion therapy anti gay people would argue they are saving the individuals from mental problems, social difficulties, and other negative side effects of what they believe is a consciously modifiable behaviour. "Racists" and "sexists" would argue that being aware of mean average behavioural differences in different demographics is not a negative thing. However invalid these arguments may, or may not, be, it is not our job to attempt to generalise our expertise and judge anyone who holds a differing view. Simple statistics says that there is at least one or two major issues which you are extremely passionate about, but simply mistaken. Same for me, same for anyone else. That does not matter. As long as my opinions do not measurably affect my behaviour within a specific community, then it is not relevant. People should be judged by their individual actions within a given 'organism'/community/company/etc, not their viewpoints on tangentially related subjects shared with others in other communities. Your logic is exactly what led to the exclusion of gays, blacks, communists, non christians, and other groups, in the 1950s and before. You risk going so far in the other direction that you become exactly what you opposed.
  - SolaceQuantum 9y ago
    All of your given examples are false equivalencies, as they assume that the desire to control the disenfranchised groups is the same as the real harm done to the disenfranchised group as a result of being controlled. A person can change beliefs about how you should treat gay people. A gay person cannot change their homosexuality to accommodate anti-gay people, and trying actively harms them. " As long as my opinions do not measurably affect my behaviour within a specific community, then it is not relevant." I am arguing that, in fact, opinions supporting the disenfranchisement of minorities affects the behavior of a specific community. Please see my previous example that someone who believes black people are inherently violent is more likely to view a black coworker asserting that a technical spec is stupid differently than a white coworker doing the same. Also see my previous example that a person who believes women are less capable in code is more likely to overlook achievements of their women coworkers. I don't understand what you mean by my logic excluded other groups, and then you lumped in inherent traits (race, sexuality) with beliefs about how governments should form (communism). Race, sexuality, and gender are not leanings or passions. They are things that people cannot change about themselves, things that they cannot avoid the brunt of any oppressive belief or behavior regarding.
Kalium 9y ago
One thing I have noticed in several tech companies is that what is or isn't the time or place for a non community relevant outburst is determined to a surprising degree by the contents of the outburtst. A VP of Engineering making anti-Trump comments (in a context without other relevance to the business or matter at hand) at a company all-hands is deemed relevant. A person of similar rank making pro-Trump comments would have been treated very differently. People are very bad at separating the personal from the professional. Indeed, many people seem to think it's their right to use the one to advance the other. I felt alienated by that VP's comments. Not because of their contents, but because he felt so free to abuse his position.
jakobegger 9y ago
Off topic, but could you explain where that vegan hate is coming from? I‘ve met lots of vegans, and none of them have ever said anything like your quote, and none of them have ever told me that I should stop eating meat.

SolaceQuantum 9y ago

Being a minority is not a general leaning or a passion. Knowing your superior wants you dead(white supremacists) or psychologically tortured(conversion therapy) or inherently doesn't believe in your competence(sexism, racism, what have you) is not something one just shrugs off. Choosing to to be apolitical is a political stance. It would be nice if we could magically divorce people's work from their stance, but their stance will affect how they treat their peers and juniors- this is how patterns of oppression become systems. If a person has beliefs that women are inherently less capable of work, they will be unlikely to volunteer women for promotions or even see their women coworkers as having performed the work done. If a person has beliefs that black people are more violent or thuggish, they are unlikely to view that black coworker asserting that a technology requirement is utterly stupid in the same light as a white coworker asserting the same. I should emphasize these are not conscious, malicious behaviors. We are taught things about our peers and these teachings change our views on the context of the work of our peers. People rarely consciously, maliciously try to prevent the advancement of a disenfranchised group. Instead, their beliefs of that group prevent them from seeing that a member of the group deserves advancement. People do not differentiate from the contexts of their pervasive views on how they view every other person around them. They do not cease being sexist because their workplace claims to be apolitical. It merely means they no longer have repercussions within their workplace for their beliefs, regardless of the countless absolutely unprovable ways these beliefs bleed into work.

cs1717p 9y ago
For each of the questions you have listed, there is opposite viewpoints of some (questionable) legitimacy: White supremacists would argue that it is multiculturalists who seek the abolition of the white race through introduction of millions of high birth rate other demographics into white countries. Pro-conversion therapy anti gay people would argue they are saving the individuals from mental problems, social difficulties, and other negative side effects of what they believe is a consciously modifiable behaviour. "Racists" and "sexists" would argue that being aware of mean average behavioural differences in different demographics is not a negative thing. However invalid these arguments may, or may not, be, it is not our job to attempt to generalise our expertise and judge anyone who holds a differing view. Simple statistics says that there is at least one or two major issues which you are extremely passionate about, but simply mistaken. Same for me, same for anyone else. That does not matter. As long as my opinions do not measurably affect my behaviour within a specific community, then it is not relevant. People should be judged by their individual actions within a given 'organism'/community/company/etc, not their viewpoints on tangentially related subjects shared with others in other communities. Your logic is exactly what led to the exclusion of gays, blacks, communists, non christians, and other groups, in the 1950s and before. You risk going so far in the other direction that you become exactly what you opposed.
- SolaceQuantum 9y ago
  All of your given examples are false equivalencies, as they assume that the desire to control the disenfranchised groups is the same as the real harm done to the disenfranchised group as a result of being controlled. A person can change beliefs about how you should treat gay people. A gay person cannot change their homosexuality to accommodate anti-gay people, and trying actively harms them. " As long as my opinions do not measurably affect my behaviour within a specific community, then it is not relevant." I am arguing that, in fact, opinions supporting the disenfranchisement of minorities affects the behavior of a specific community. Please see my previous example that someone who believes black people are inherently violent is more likely to view a black coworker asserting that a technical spec is stupid differently than a white coworker doing the same. Also see my previous example that a person who believes women are less capable in code is more likely to overlook achievements of their women coworkers. I don't understand what you mean by my logic excluded other groups, and then you lumped in inherent traits (race, sexuality) with beliefs about how governments should form (communism). Race, sexuality, and gender are not leanings or passions. They are things that people cannot change about themselves, things that they cannot avoid the brunt of any oppressive belief or behavior regarding.

Kalium 9y ago

One thing I have noticed in several tech companies is that what is or isn't the time or place for a non community relevant outburst is determined to a surprising degree by the contents of the outburtst. A VP of Engineering making anti-Trump comments (in a context without other relevance to the business or matter at hand) at a company all-hands is deemed relevant. A person of similar rank making pro-Trump comments would have been treated very differently. People are very bad at separating the personal from the professional. Indeed, many people seem to think it's their right to use the one to advance the other. I felt alienated by that VP's comments. Not because of their contents, but because he felt so free to abuse his position.

jakobegger 9y ago

Off topic, but could you explain where that vegan hate is coming from? I‘ve met lots of vegans, and none of them have ever said anything like your quote, and none of them have ever told me that I should stop eating meat.