9 ms·

Good response by aphyr. If I’m reading right, the original poster left because LLVM partnered with an organization designed to create internship opportunities f

by alew1 8y ago

Good response by aphyr. If I’m reading right, the original poster left because LLVM partnered with an organization designed to create internship opportunities for groups traditionally underrepresented in tech. In particular, LLVM agreed to take on one intern from that organization. Everyone is entitled to their own reasons for leaving. But I do find it frustrating that the left gets saddled with names like “snowflake” when such small & reasonable actions routinely ruffle feathers on the right.

naasking 8y ago
> such small & reasonable actions routinely ruffle feathers on the right. I'm not sure why you'd assume the person who left was on the right just because they disagreed with the direction LLVM was taking. When I read the message, it seemed like he had grave concerns that technical merit was now taking a back seat to a political agenda. That seems like a legitimate concern for an open source project.
- danharaj 8y ago
  > I'm not sure why you'd assume the person who left was on the right just because they disagreed with the direction LLVM was taking. Bayesian priors.
  - naasking 8y ago
    Bayesian priors would also suggest that certain minorities are more likely to be criminals. Should we therefore treat people from such minorities as criminals? Bayesian priors don't guide all of our ethics. My Bayesian priors suggest that the OP wanted an easy way to dismiss the person's concerns without addressing them.
    - danharaj 8y ago
      I think having an expectation about someone's further political beliefs based on information about some of their political beliefs is a little less unethical than presuming criminality, my friend. But you're right tho, I think it's easier to cut out the middle man and dismiss his concerns because I think his concerns are shit, regardless of his other politics.
  - forgottenpass 8y ago
    >Bayesian priors. Is your point anything more than saying "political stereotyping" using verbiage that suggests you agree with the assessment? Even my attempt to find lay-person verbiage for your idea ("stereotyping") found words that carry a negative connotation.
    - danharaj 8y ago
      I cannot parse your verbiage.
      - forgottenpass 8y ago
        I'm implying your showy language classed up an idea that that people would be more likley to dismiss on it's face if described plainly. I've attempted an edit for clarity.
        danharaj 8y ago
        Well, my choice of words was tongue in cheek, haha only serious, but also knowing my crowd. Bayesian inference is a popular almost-meme on HN which I thought made my terse flippancy more amusing.
- annabellish 8y ago
  In a vacuum, absolutely, but the reasons stated in the post don't really seem very ruffling. One intern with no indications that technical ability is unimportant, and a code of conduct that seems very inoffensive, is hardly worthy of "grave concerns that technical merit was now taking a back seat to a political agenda". It's possible that he's primarily talking about backroom conversations of which we are not privy to, but he doesn't mention this, and it does make the post look fairly unreasonable. IMO, it sounds _very_ much like the guy is just tired of working on the project on technical grounds, and is making the unfounded claim that those technical grounds are being caused by political actions he doesn't agree with.
  - naasking 8y ago
    > It's possible that he's primarily talking about backroom conversations of which we are not privy to, but he doesn't mention this, and it does make the post look fairly unreasonable. Strange, I thought the opposite: his decision wasn't made in a vacuum. His argument may look unreasonable only if you had no idea of the wider efforts to push similar political agendas throughout the industry and open source communities, and how meritocratic concerns are pushed aside as a result. Discrimination of any kind is a fallacious argument, that someone doesn't need assistance simply because they belong to a particular group. It's just as fallacious as treating someone like a criminal simply because they belong to a particular group. I admit, I go back and forth myself on the ethics of group-specific programs, rather than a more inclusive approach helping underprivileged individuals without regard to any particular group to which they may belong. I too might have no problem with Outreachy if it weren't couched in such exclusive language, and if the wider movement in the industry hadn't already been so divisive. > IMO, it sounds _very_ much like the guy is just tired of working on the project on technical grounds, and is making the unfounded claim that those technical grounds are being caused by political actions he doesn't agree with. Open source contribution is entirely voluntary. He could walk away for literally any reason at any time. What possible reason could he have to raise a political shitstorm that would only hinder his chance at future career opportunities if he didn't believe what he wrote? It just sounds like you're looking for a narrative with ulterior motivations so you can easily dismiss his concerns.
- bachmeier 8y ago
  > technical merit was now taking a back seat to a political agenda I think we read different posts. AFAICT, the project is going to get the help of an intern at no or little cost, but he got emotional because he opposes attempts to get underrepresented groups involved. His post was purely political, with no concern for what is best for the project.
  - naasking 8y ago
    You can only read it that way if you ignore the fact that this same agenda is being pushed everywhere else. See my other post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16994302 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16994302
    - bachmeier 8y ago
      I have to judge the words I read at the link I click.
      - naasking 8y ago
        Well if you're free to ignore all context, then you can cast anyone resisting the status quo as a bad actor.
        youdontknowtho 8y ago
        Is that really the case though or are the people "resisting the status quo" actually feigning offense over "discrimination" because they resent the fact that their position is widely accepted as immoral? (Racism or sexism.) They refuse to argue their actual point... minorities should not receive benefits because they do not deserve benefits for one reason or another...because those reasons are also considered unnacceptable to express by most people.
        naasking 8y ago
        Well if you're free to ignore the principle of charity, then you can ascribe any sort of unethical motives to your opponents. I could just as easily argue that such anti-discrimination efforts are really driven by white-people hate, and accuse them of refusing to address this point. And how you feel right now at that over the top statement is exactly how your opponents feel when you make the contrary claim. Absent some expressed inconsistency, you take people at their word. As I've explained elsewhere in this thread, there's nothing inconsistent with what the LLVM dev has said, and it's fully justifiable from ethical principles. Maybe he is being disingenuous, but that doesn't make the argument itself wrong.
garbagetoss 8y ago
It is not a small or reasonable action to declare that judgements of suitability to work with an organization will be made based on sex, race, and other non-functional dimensions. The fact that large nations, corporations, and universities routinely engage in this kind of behavior does not mean that an as ethical individual one must acquiesce when others do so, especially when that person feels it may be within their reach to potentially make a difference. It's frustrating that these sexist and racist policies have spread like a cancer across our industry.
- Letmesleep69 8y ago
  When we know we have unconscious biases to people who are of the same race, gender and orientation and ourselves is it really unreasonable to take action to try to counteract this? Especially for internships where there isn't even a professional history to compare.
  - voidr 8y ago
    > we know we have unconscious biases to people who are of the same race If that would be true, this wouldn't happen: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-30/bilnd-recruitment-trial-to-improve-gender-equality-failing-study/8664888 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-30/bilnd-recruitment-tria... > Especially for internships where there isn't even a professional history to compare. You give them a technical test and whoever scores the most wins, if they score equally, you can pick at random.
    - foldr 8y ago
      And if it wasn't true, this wouldn't happen: https://www.theguardian.com/women-in-leadership/2013/oct/14/blind-auditions-orchestras-gender-bias https://www.theguardian.com/women-in-leadership/2013/oct/14/... You can't conclude too much from an isolated example.
      - voidr 8y ago
        > You can't conclude too much from an isolated example. You can conclude that the effects of implicit bias are not well understood and maybe we should study it a little bit more before we treat it as absolute truth and factor it into decision making.
bquinlan 8y ago
I think that classifying Rafael as a member of the right would be a gross simplification. Rafael is actually a member of the BC Green Party (https://www.bcgreens.ca/ https://www.bcgreens.ca/), which I'd say is firmly on the left.
- Mithaldu 8y ago
  Whether you're left or right is not classified by what you claim yourself to be, but how you act. And wanting to be nice to animals doesn't eradicate your stance on wanting to suppress diversity. I also recommend: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_politics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_politics
voidr 8y ago
> the left gets saddled with names like “snowflake” when such small & reasonable actions routinely ruffle feathers on the right. The "left" wants to police speech because they can't even handle a bad joke or unwanted attention(see the new CoC). This is why they are called snowflakes. > small & reasonable actions Changing the CoC is not small. A tech project taking a side in politics is not reasonable in my opinion. Do you think politics needs to be an integral part of tech?
- JoeAltmaier 8y ago
  So they sound just about as sensitive on the right. The name seems to fit both. Get it?
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- gameswithgo 8y ago
  >The "left" wants to police speech I am the left, and I don't want to do that.
NietTim 8y ago
This is all feelings: there is a huge cultural divide on the internet between America(s) and what feels the rest of the world. In America racist programs like these are accepted and celebrated. Where I am from it would be illegal and when you voice your opinion, that this is the wrong approach and you don't fight fire with fire, suddenly your feathers are ruffled and you're "on the right". Just like you wrote. In my eyes the bottom line is: the attitude and arrogance from americans will only have negative consequences because it pushes people in your 2 narrow minded boxes and hardens the discourse. Identity politics are cancer and stand in the way of any and all progress
draw_down 8y ago
> But I do find it frustrating that the left gets saddled with names like “snowflake” when such small & reasonable actions routinely ruffle feathers on the right. Nailed it. Me too, this drives me nuts lately.
gameswithgo 8y ago
he isn't on the right =)

by alew1 8y ago

naasking 8y ago

> such small & reasonable actions routinely ruffle feathers on the right. I'm not sure why you'd assume the person who left was on the right just because they disagreed with the direction LLVM was taking. When I read the message, it seemed like he had grave concerns that technical merit was now taking a back seat to a political agenda. That seems like a legitimate concern for an open source project.

danharaj 8y ago
> I'm not sure why you'd assume the person who left was on the right just because they disagreed with the direction LLVM was taking. Bayesian priors.
- naasking 8y ago
  Bayesian priors would also suggest that certain minorities are more likely to be criminals. Should we therefore treat people from such minorities as criminals? Bayesian priors don't guide all of our ethics. My Bayesian priors suggest that the OP wanted an easy way to dismiss the person's concerns without addressing them.
  - danharaj 8y ago
    I think having an expectation about someone's further political beliefs based on information about some of their political beliefs is a little less unethical than presuming criminality, my friend. But you're right tho, I think it's easier to cut out the middle man and dismiss his concerns because I think his concerns are shit, regardless of his other politics.
- forgottenpass 8y ago
  >Bayesian priors. Is your point anything more than saying "political stereotyping" using verbiage that suggests you agree with the assessment? Even my attempt to find lay-person verbiage for your idea ("stereotyping") found words that carry a negative connotation.
  - danharaj 8y ago
    I cannot parse your verbiage.
    - forgottenpass 8y ago
      I'm implying your showy language classed up an idea that that people would be more likley to dismiss on it's face if described plainly. I've attempted an edit for clarity.
      - danharaj 8y ago
        Well, my choice of words was tongue in cheek, haha only serious, but also knowing my crowd. Bayesian inference is a popular almost-meme on HN which I thought made my terse flippancy more amusing.
annabellish 8y ago
In a vacuum, absolutely, but the reasons stated in the post don't really seem very ruffling. One intern with no indications that technical ability is unimportant, and a code of conduct that seems very inoffensive, is hardly worthy of "grave concerns that technical merit was now taking a back seat to a political agenda". It's possible that he's primarily talking about backroom conversations of which we are not privy to, but he doesn't mention this, and it does make the post look fairly unreasonable. IMO, it sounds _very_ much like the guy is just tired of working on the project on technical grounds, and is making the unfounded claim that those technical grounds are being caused by political actions he doesn't agree with.
- naasking 8y ago
  > It's possible that he's primarily talking about backroom conversations of which we are not privy to, but he doesn't mention this, and it does make the post look fairly unreasonable. Strange, I thought the opposite: his decision wasn't made in a vacuum. His argument may look unreasonable only if you had no idea of the wider efforts to push similar political agendas throughout the industry and open source communities, and how meritocratic concerns are pushed aside as a result. Discrimination of any kind is a fallacious argument, that someone doesn't need assistance simply because they belong to a particular group. It's just as fallacious as treating someone like a criminal simply because they belong to a particular group. I admit, I go back and forth myself on the ethics of group-specific programs, rather than a more inclusive approach helping underprivileged individuals without regard to any particular group to which they may belong. I too might have no problem with Outreachy if it weren't couched in such exclusive language, and if the wider movement in the industry hadn't already been so divisive. > IMO, it sounds _very_ much like the guy is just tired of working on the project on technical grounds, and is making the unfounded claim that those technical grounds are being caused by political actions he doesn't agree with. Open source contribution is entirely voluntary. He could walk away for literally any reason at any time. What possible reason could he have to raise a political shitstorm that would only hinder his chance at future career opportunities if he didn't believe what he wrote? It just sounds like you're looking for a narrative with ulterior motivations so you can easily dismiss his concerns.
bachmeier 8y ago
> technical merit was now taking a back seat to a political agenda I think we read different posts. AFAICT, the project is going to get the help of an intern at no or little cost, but he got emotional because he opposes attempts to get underrepresented groups involved. His post was purely political, with no concern for what is best for the project.
- naasking 8y ago
  You can only read it that way if you ignore the fact that this same agenda is being pushed everywhere else. See my other post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16994302 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16994302
  - bachmeier 8y ago
    I have to judge the words I read at the link I click.
    - naasking 8y ago
      Well if you're free to ignore all context, then you can cast anyone resisting the status quo as a bad actor.
      - youdontknowtho 8y ago
        Is that really the case though or are the people "resisting the status quo" actually feigning offense over "discrimination" because they resent the fact that their position is widely accepted as immoral? (Racism or sexism.) They refuse to argue their actual point... minorities should not receive benefits because they do not deserve benefits for one reason or another...because those reasons are also considered unnacceptable to express by most people.
        naasking 8y ago
        Well if you're free to ignore the principle of charity, then you can ascribe any sort of unethical motives to your opponents. I could just as easily argue that such anti-discrimination efforts are really driven by white-people hate, and accuse them of refusing to address this point. And how you feel right now at that over the top statement is exactly how your opponents feel when you make the contrary claim. Absent some expressed inconsistency, you take people at their word. As I've explained elsewhere in this thread, there's nothing inconsistent with what the LLVM dev has said, and it's fully justifiable from ethical principles. Maybe he is being disingenuous, but that doesn't make the argument itself wrong.

garbagetoss 8y ago

It is not a small or reasonable action to declare that judgements of suitability to work with an organization will be made based on sex, race, and other non-functional dimensions. The fact that large nations, corporations, and universities routinely engage in this kind of behavior does not mean that an as ethical individual one must acquiesce when others do so, especially when that person feels it may be within their reach to potentially make a difference. It's frustrating that these sexist and racist policies have spread like a cancer across our industry.

Letmesleep69 8y ago
When we know we have unconscious biases to people who are of the same race, gender and orientation and ourselves is it really unreasonable to take action to try to counteract this? Especially for internships where there isn't even a professional history to compare.
- voidr 8y ago
  > we know we have unconscious biases to people who are of the same race If that would be true, this wouldn't happen: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-30/bilnd-recruitment-trial-to-improve-gender-equality-failing-study/8664888 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-30/bilnd-recruitment-tria... > Especially for internships where there isn't even a professional history to compare. You give them a technical test and whoever scores the most wins, if they score equally, you can pick at random.
  - foldr 8y ago
    And if it wasn't true, this wouldn't happen: https://www.theguardian.com/women-in-leadership/2013/oct/14/blind-auditions-orchestras-gender-bias https://www.theguardian.com/women-in-leadership/2013/oct/14/... You can't conclude too much from an isolated example.
    - voidr 8y ago
      > You can't conclude too much from an isolated example. You can conclude that the effects of implicit bias are not well understood and maybe we should study it a little bit more before we treat it as absolute truth and factor it into decision making.

bquinlan 8y ago

I think that classifying Rafael as a member of the right would be a gross simplification. Rafael is actually a member of the BC Green Party (https://www.bcgreens.ca/ https://www.bcgreens.ca/), which I'd say is firmly on the left.

Mithaldu 8y ago
Whether you're left or right is not classified by what you claim yourself to be, but how you act. And wanting to be nice to animals doesn't eradicate your stance on wanting to suppress diversity. I also recommend: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_politics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_politics

voidr 8y ago

> the left gets saddled with names like “snowflake” when such small & reasonable actions routinely ruffle feathers on the right. The "left" wants to police speech because they can't even handle a bad joke or unwanted attention(see the new CoC). This is why they are called snowflakes. > small & reasonable actions Changing the CoC is not small. A tech project taking a side in politics is not reasonable in my opinion. Do you think politics needs to be an integral part of tech?

JoeAltmaier 8y ago
So they sound just about as sensitive on the right. The name seems to fit both. Get it?
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
gameswithgo 8y ago
>The "left" wants to police speech I am the left, and I don't want to do that.

NietTim 8y ago

This is all feelings: there is a huge cultural divide on the internet between America(s) and what feels the rest of the world. In America racist programs like these are accepted and celebrated. Where I am from it would be illegal and when you voice your opinion, that this is the wrong approach and you don't fight fire with fire, suddenly your feathers are ruffled and you're "on the right". Just like you wrote. In my eyes the bottom line is: the attitude and arrogance from americans will only have negative consequences because it pushes people in your 2 narrow minded boxes and hardens the discourse. Identity politics are cancer and stand in the way of any and all progress

draw_down 8y ago

> But I do find it frustrating that the left gets saddled with names like “snowflake” when such small & reasonable actions routinely ruffle feathers on the right. Nailed it. Me too, this drives me nuts lately.

gameswithgo 8y ago

he isn't on the right =)