5 ms·

So, here's the thing. Statements like this? Rather, the problem is that if we make demographic D feel unwelcome, we lose out on possible contributors. And very

So, here's the thing. Statements like this? Rather, the problem is that if we make demographic D feel unwelcome, we lose out on possible contributors. And very likely also others that are not in demographic D. This is not a new statement. This is what people pushing diversity have been saying for years and years. The only ways for this to be a new and refreshing thing to you are: 1. You were not paying attention, or 2. You were getting all your information from people who were doing their best to misinform you.

nabla9 8y ago
>2. You were getting all your information from people who were doing their best to misinform you. When there is moral panic, sensible people who advocated the issues long time are pushed aside and polarization happens.
debacle 8y ago
We don't need this kind of accusatory commentary on HN, I don't think.
- s73v3r_ 8y ago
  On the contrary, I think more often than not, people here need reminders like this. Nothing they said was wrong.
  - mcguire 8y ago
    I agree. Check out the voting patterns in this thread, or the way this thread has not been flagged the every other similar thread has.
  - hueving 8y ago
    What reminder? The OP threw out an awful no true Scotsman argument. Pro diversity programs in all of the big tech companies that specifically target diversity quotas are a blatant example.
    - ubernostrum 8y ago
      Pro diversity programs in all of the big tech companies that specifically target diversity quotas are a blatant example. Quote primary sources from "all of the big tech companies" to back this assertion. Real sources, which really say it, too, not "well I interpret this as quotas" or anything of that sort.
levythe 8y ago
It's everything surrounding this statement that is refreshing. Hearing, "Diversity is not our goal; creating an environment that welcomes diversity is," runs counter to the incessant assumptions that going out of our way to collect diversity tokens is the end all and be all to facilitating diversity.
- ubernostrum 8y ago
  OK, let's argue the way the "anti-diversity" people normally do in these threads. You assert that advocates of diversity want people: going out of our way to collect diversity tokens You must now present, to me, and separately and individually to any other person who asks it of you, a minimum of five credible primary sources of people who advocate diversity and who have used exactly this phrasing -- no paraphrasing, no "well that's what they meant", nothing other than precisely those literal words -- in an explicit demonstrative factually-intended statement of their goals. (hint: you won't be able to, because you're in the "get all your information from people who want to misinform" camp)
  - reaperducer 8y ago
    You must now present, to me, First off, thanks for that. To think that any random stranger on the internet "must" do something for you... well, that's quality humor right there. and separately and individually to any other person who asks it of you, a minimum of five credible primary sources of people who advocate diversity and who have used exactly this phrasing My guess is that he's capable of original thought, and this might be one of his original thoughts. Not everyone builds a facade of intelligence by regurgitating quotations from other people. Because someone else hasn't posted something on the internet doesn't mean it's not a valid thought.
    - ubernostrum 8y ago
      It's depressingly common in threads about diversity issues that people assert a right to force their interlocutors to re-litigate the entire history of discrimination from first principles, impeccably sourced, on demand. Ironically, the same sorts of people also throw out unsourced assertion after unsourced assertion (see the person who replied to me stating that the BBC has jobs for black people only, and who I suspect honestly and truly believes that, despite the reply to them explaining that that would be very illegal). If it's fair for them to do that, it should be fair for me to do it, too, and for me to explicitly state that.
village-idiot 8y ago
The irony of unkind communication in a thread discussing new guidelines around kind communication is just painful. Please don't accuse others of not paying attention. It's not nice, and it does a bad job of communicating your message.
- ubernostrum 8y ago
  The irony of unkind communication in a thread discussing new guidelines around kind communication is just painful. If I were the type of the anti-"diversity" person, my retort to this would be that you are obviously attempting to censor my free speech, by making certain types of speech out of bounds, and then assert that free speech is a good in itself -- one of the highest, if not the single highest such good -- and then rain down anger upon you for doing so. Further, I would retreat into weaponizing your own advocated guidelines against you, by asserting that you have uncharitably read things (such as accusation) into my statement when they were not present in the plain text, and then calling for you to be held accountable for the violation. Consider that that's what you are implicitly supporting when you suggest that a factual statement -- people either are not paying attention, or are being misinformed -- is unkind.
  - yebyen 8y ago
    > a factual statement -- people either are not paying attention, or are being misinformed -- is unkind. That is bluntly unkind. You've taken an opinion and phrased it as "a factual statement." The "fact" you're positing is that there are two camps, those that don't understand because they are purely ignorant, and those that don't understand because they are intentionally fed false information. (How charitable!) What was the original "factual statement" again? I don't even know, because you've told "me" that whatever my opinion is, if it disagrees with yours, then I'm in one of two camps and they're both wrong. (NB: you didn't tell me anything, I'm just trying to engage you in this thought exercise that you seem to want to have.)
  - village-idiot 8y ago
    I don't appreciate you putting words into my mouth.
hueving 8y ago
The fact that companies have programs targeting recruitment specifically to minorities says otherwise.
- ubernostrum 8y ago
  The point of recruiting from non-traditional sources (and remember, here, in tech "non-traditional" almost means "anywhere other than exclusively the campuses of Stanford and a couple other presumed-elite universities") is to cast a wider net and try to find people who are qualified but who've been excluded due to biases in the current/historic system. This is a perfectly fair and valid thing to do, yet it's always portrayed by opponents as "tokenism", "gotta catch 'em all", etc., and then asserted to be "diversity for diversity's sake". As I originally said, such people either have not been paying attention, or have been misinformed (and are now actively spreading misinformation). This is why I challenged someone's "collect diversity tokens" assertion by telling them to source the phrase in actual claims made by companies. I know they won't be able to, but I know they also deeply and likely unshakably believe -- because they're been bombarded with the message in HN threads, and on other social media -- that that's the real goal. But for you, let's just flip the script: the unspoken principle behind your comment: The fact that companies have programs targeting recruitment specifically to minorities says otherwise. is that companies explicitly choose their recruiting pipelines and should be held responsible for the demographics which come out of those pipelines. I would agree with that principle, but I suspect you would find extreme distaste for it if it were actually to be neutrally applied. Current recruiting pipelines produce dismal demographics precisely because of who they target, and if companies were held responsible for that they'd have to make large-scale changes.
prepend 8y ago
What I like about this kind communication guideline is that it really makes you need to restricted your last two bullets. There are certainly other ways and the two you point out are pretty harsh on stallman saying either he’s uninformed through stupidity or through biased sources. So it makes for an awkward and,likely, nonproductive conversation because it has a basic tenant that stallman is stupid because pet doesn’t believe how you do. It’s logically not sound and emotionally charged up for a battle.

nabla9 8y ago

>2. You were getting all your information from people who were doing their best to misinform you. When there is moral panic, sensible people who advocated the issues long time are pushed aside and polarization happens.

debacle 8y ago

We don't need this kind of accusatory commentary on HN, I don't think.

s73v3r_ 8y ago
On the contrary, I think more often than not, people here need reminders like this. Nothing they said was wrong.
- mcguire 8y ago
  I agree. Check out the voting patterns in this thread, or the way this thread has not been flagged the every other similar thread has.
- hueving 8y ago
  What reminder? The OP threw out an awful no true Scotsman argument. Pro diversity programs in all of the big tech companies that specifically target diversity quotas are a blatant example.
  - ubernostrum 8y ago
    Pro diversity programs in all of the big tech companies that specifically target diversity quotas are a blatant example. Quote primary sources from "all of the big tech companies" to back this assertion. Real sources, which really say it, too, not "well I interpret this as quotas" or anything of that sort.

levythe 8y ago

It's everything surrounding this statement that is refreshing. Hearing, "Diversity is not our goal; creating an environment that welcomes diversity is," runs counter to the incessant assumptions that going out of our way to collect diversity tokens is the end all and be all to facilitating diversity.

ubernostrum 8y ago
OK, let's argue the way the "anti-diversity" people normally do in these threads. You assert that advocates of diversity want people: going out of our way to collect diversity tokens You must now present, to me, and separately and individually to any other person who asks it of you, a minimum of five credible primary sources of people who advocate diversity and who have used exactly this phrasing -- no paraphrasing, no "well that's what they meant", nothing other than precisely those literal words -- in an explicit demonstrative factually-intended statement of their goals. (hint: you won't be able to, because you're in the "get all your information from people who want to misinform" camp)
- reaperducer 8y ago
  You must now present, to me, First off, thanks for that. To think that any random stranger on the internet "must" do something for you... well, that's quality humor right there. and separately and individually to any other person who asks it of you, a minimum of five credible primary sources of people who advocate diversity and who have used exactly this phrasing My guess is that he's capable of original thought, and this might be one of his original thoughts. Not everyone builds a facade of intelligence by regurgitating quotations from other people. Because someone else hasn't posted something on the internet doesn't mean it's not a valid thought.
  - ubernostrum 8y ago
    It's depressingly common in threads about diversity issues that people assert a right to force their interlocutors to re-litigate the entire history of discrimination from first principles, impeccably sourced, on demand. Ironically, the same sorts of people also throw out unsourced assertion after unsourced assertion (see the person who replied to me stating that the BBC has jobs for black people only, and who I suspect honestly and truly believes that, despite the reply to them explaining that that would be very illegal). If it's fair for them to do that, it should be fair for me to do it, too, and for me to explicitly state that.

village-idiot 8y ago

The irony of unkind communication in a thread discussing new guidelines around kind communication is just painful. Please don't accuse others of not paying attention. It's not nice, and it does a bad job of communicating your message.

ubernostrum 8y ago
The irony of unkind communication in a thread discussing new guidelines around kind communication is just painful. If I were the type of the anti-"diversity" person, my retort to this would be that you are obviously attempting to censor my free speech, by making certain types of speech out of bounds, and then assert that free speech is a good in itself -- one of the highest, if not the single highest such good -- and then rain down anger upon you for doing so. Further, I would retreat into weaponizing your own advocated guidelines against you, by asserting that you have uncharitably read things (such as accusation) into my statement when they were not present in the plain text, and then calling for you to be held accountable for the violation. Consider that that's what you are implicitly supporting when you suggest that a factual statement -- people either are not paying attention, or are being misinformed -- is unkind.
- yebyen 8y ago
  > a factual statement -- people either are not paying attention, or are being misinformed -- is unkind. That is bluntly unkind. You've taken an opinion and phrased it as "a factual statement." The "fact" you're positing is that there are two camps, those that don't understand because they are purely ignorant, and those that don't understand because they are intentionally fed false information. (How charitable!) What was the original "factual statement" again? I don't even know, because you've told "me" that whatever my opinion is, if it disagrees with yours, then I'm in one of two camps and they're both wrong. (NB: you didn't tell me anything, I'm just trying to engage you in this thought exercise that you seem to want to have.)
- village-idiot 8y ago
  I don't appreciate you putting words into my mouth.

hueving 8y ago

The fact that companies have programs targeting recruitment specifically to minorities says otherwise.

ubernostrum 8y ago
The point of recruiting from non-traditional sources (and remember, here, in tech "non-traditional" almost means "anywhere other than exclusively the campuses of Stanford and a couple other presumed-elite universities") is to cast a wider net and try to find people who are qualified but who've been excluded due to biases in the current/historic system. This is a perfectly fair and valid thing to do, yet it's always portrayed by opponents as "tokenism", "gotta catch 'em all", etc., and then asserted to be "diversity for diversity's sake". As I originally said, such people either have not been paying attention, or have been misinformed (and are now actively spreading misinformation). This is why I challenged someone's "collect diversity tokens" assertion by telling them to source the phrase in actual claims made by companies. I know they won't be able to, but I know they also deeply and likely unshakably believe -- because they're been bombarded with the message in HN threads, and on other social media -- that that's the real goal. But for you, let's just flip the script: the unspoken principle behind your comment: The fact that companies have programs targeting recruitment specifically to minorities says otherwise. is that companies explicitly choose their recruiting pipelines and should be held responsible for the demographics which come out of those pipelines. I would agree with that principle, but I suspect you would find extreme distaste for it if it were actually to be neutrally applied. Current recruiting pipelines produce dismal demographics precisely because of who they target, and if companies were held responsible for that they'd have to make large-scale changes.

prepend 8y ago

What I like about this kind communication guideline is that it really makes you need to restricted your last two bullets. There are certainly other ways and the two you point out are pretty harsh on stallman saying either he’s uninformed through stupidity or through biased sources. So it makes for an awkward and,likely, nonproductive conversation because it has a basic tenant that stallman is stupid because pet doesn’t believe how you do. It’s logically not sound and emotionally charged up for a battle.