5 ms·

Fantastic thread. Identity politics flavored social justice warfare peeves me because it misses this grand overarching point: there is untapped potential here.

Fantastic thread. Identity politics flavored social justice warfare peeves me because it misses this grand overarching point: there is untapped potential here. When I hire an unorthodox candidate that is typically given short shrift for not matching a given profile, I am not hiring in order to foster diversity and inclusion. No, it's the other way around. Building a diverse and inclusive team full of highly competent people is actually _how_ I successfully compete against firms with larger pockets than me. It lets us not just outrace them but out-strategize them. I'm getting not just an underpriced call option, but an underpriced put option as well. Along with a lack of bureaucracy, it's one of the few (but powerful) advantages I have over a larger firm. More than anything else (for me), at an early stage startup, hiring is arbitrage. If you find a passed over gem with an unorthodox background that don't fit the typical "pattern matching" that many tech companies use to build a monoculture and yet executes well, you can easily generate six to seven figures of alpha for your company. Of course, the employee gets the opportunity to advance their career, but in order to do so, they generate value for your company first. It's a win-win. I've seen this so many times during my career. It's the hungry person with the unorthodox background that laps the Ivy educated wonder kid who by all external indicators and pedigrees should not have been outproduced. And yet, not only did it happen, but when it did, those folks became absolute superstars. I've been that person before, and I've seen (and help coached) others to become that person. It's one of the most magical things I've experienced career-wise. Hiring is about risks and rewards. If you find a risk with an asymmetric reward profile, you can build an organization that is seriously ahead of the curve -- in part because the competing opportunities are not, by definition.

40acres 8y ago
> Fantastic thread. Identity politics flavored social justice warfare peeves me because it misses this grand overarching point: there is untapped potential here. I feel like you're just taking a shot at "SJWs" without realizing that your untapped potential comment is exactly what is at the core of most of these movements. All politics is identity politics, and it's the identity politics of the past that has repressed millions in America and wasted potential. Potential was wasted when folks were slaves instead of being able to exercise their freedom and pursue their individual talents, potential was wasted when Black soldiers returning from home were denied the benefits of the GI bill. Affirmative Action is explicitly a mechanism to provide more opportunity, so is the modern D&I movement in corporate America. An untold amount of potential is being wasted right now due to America's inability and inaction when it comes to eliminating poverty and providing equal opportunity for all.
- closeparen 8y ago
  Economic arguments (“treat people better so you can make more money”) are disgusting and morally bankrupt to a large chunk of the social justice community, particularly those who see all capitalist business and employment relationships as fundamentally exploitative. There’s a strong undercurrent of hatred for the corporate D&I ideology. Viewing the world primarily through the lens of a struggle between oppressed and oppressor demographic groups isn’t uncommon, but other politics do exist.
  - fzeroracer 8y ago
    Employment relationships are fundamentally exploitative though. While it's absolutely true that smaller companies can do a lot better in treating their employees right, the fact of the matter is that there is an asymmetrical relationship between an employee and the company due to a large power gap between the two. And the issue can be worse with people that are working doubly hard to escape poverty or just to survive. Those are the people that cannot afford to lose the single opportunity they've received, which means they are often further exploited through lower wages, fewer benefits and so forth. Considering I've been in that position myself, there were times when I had a deep fear of losing absolutely everything.
    - madhadron 8y ago
      > Employment relationships are fundamentally exploitative though. Not necessarily. There's a whole world of employee owned companies, partnerships, and the like which are not fundamentally exploitative.
      - fzeroracer 8y ago
        That's a whole 'nother can of worms though; employee-owned companies can still treat new employees badly depending on how their system is set up. Plus they're an incredibly small fraction of the overall working world we participate in and at most would be an exception to the rule and not the norm. Though I would say that non-profits and things like you mentioned are generally more inclined to treat their employees fair.
lkdjjdjjjdskjd 8y ago
Being a woman or black is not unorthodox, though. And priding yourself for hiring somebody black or female seems odd. It should be a normal thing - if the skills (or whatever unorthodox aspects you fancy) are a match.
- weaksauce 8y ago
  They never said that. They said unorthodox background that doesn’t fit the pattern matching at a big company. i.e. resume is a bit off but they have potential.
  - lkdjjdjjjdskjd 8y ago
    Maybe they meant the actual "diversity" of ideas and personalities. It is just that these days if you say "diversity", it has become synonymous with more women, different racial backgrounds, and for some reason also sexual orientation.
- Kiro 8y ago
  It should be normal but unfortunately it is not. I don't see the problem with applauding people who actually make a difference here. In the future it will be nothing noteworthy but right now, again unfortunately, it is.
  - lkdjjdjjjdskjd 8y ago
    I'm not convinced that it is not normal. Disproportionate numbers of females and black people in certain professions are more likely because of different proportions in applications. And perhaps also in different distributions of skills and education.
    - toomuchtodo 8y ago
      Indeed. I don’t see anyone wringing their hands over most nurses, K-12 teachers, and child care professionals being female, that a majority of the trades are male (construction, welding, electricians, plumbers, pipe fitters), nor that a majority of professional athletes are people of color. I’ve only seen it in tech (disproportionate gender and race composition) described as a “crisis”.
skellera 8y ago
What do you look for to find these people? Also on the other side, what did you do to stand out and get the chance?
chasing 8y ago
> Identity politics flavored social justice warfare peeves me because it misses this grand overarching point: there is untapped potential here. ? That’s one of the points that gets repeated over and over as far as benefits of including people with diverse and/or unorthodox backgrounds. But you should also consider hiring for diversity simply because different sorts of people with different backgrounds and experiences likely have different world-views and approaches to thinking about and solving problems. A diverse culture will simply have more ideas on the table to work with than a monoculture.
- yowlingcat 8y ago
  It gets repeated at face value, but it's at a surface level. That's parroting. It's not often utilized as a process and as a tool to achieve other goals. That's when it becomes application. You're entirely correct that a diverse culture will simply have more ideas on the table than a monoculture -- and that's exactly why it's an advantage.
- CM30 8y ago
  The problem is that most companies boasting about diversity don't actually do that. They hire individuals from similar backgrounds based on surface level features. No, having more women from MIT or Harvard isn't really making the company more 'diverse' in any real way, since many of them have the same backgrounds and experiences as your male employees. It's tokenism. If X% of employees are female/from some minority but they're all educated in Ivy League/Oxbridge schools, all from fairly wealthy backgrounds, share political leanings and grew up in similar situations, does it really matter or make any real 'difference'? Economic differences are basically ignored in a lot of modern 'identity politics'
  - chillacy 8y ago
    An apple HR director said as much and was canned for suggesting that diversity is more than skin deep.
  - HillaryBriss 8y ago
    > does it really matter or make any real 'difference'? the answer from the various underrepresented identity groups themselves is abundantly clear. it's yes. they insist that, yes, absolutely it definitely does make a critically important difference to have an actual person from the actual underrepresented identity group in those jobs. they say that only such a person could have fully experienced the kind of opportunity denial, the kind of repression, the kind of discrimination that such corporate measures are supposed to address. they say that such a person and only such a person can truly and faithfully represent the perspectives and needs of that identity group within the corporate setting. they say that only such a person in that job can truly open the door so that other young people, other potential future employees, from that group have the confidence to pursue such a job in the future. (could an openly gay man ever lead a Fortune 500 US corporation? in theory, yes, but it was still an important step for Tim Cook to step out into the open https://www.cultofmac.com/585278/tim-cook-interview-gay-privacy/ https://www.cultofmac.com/585278/tim-cook-interview-gay-priv...)
L_Rahman 8y ago
Identity politics flavored social justice activists literally make the exact same claims as you.
acjohnson55 8y ago
Much of your comment I agree with but I do take issue with the concept of "identity politics flavored social justice warfare". If you put yourself in the shoes of underrepresented people and our allies, you might understand that it's impossible to predict exactly what sort of political expression will jolt folks wielding power into doing right by us without making them feel like we're being too loud. People very much thought of Dr. King as a social justice warrior in his time. He was deeply unpopular most of his life. And even he had difficulty making progress without having more aggressive folks as the alternative to dealing with him. The fact is, very little gets done without the social justice warriors, and certainly not at scale.
- fzeroracer 8y ago
  The thought of having to confront inequality or having to recognize that minorities are treated differently solely on the basis of their skin color, sexual orientation or gender is one that is unfortunately still deeply uncomfortable it seems. MLK's understanding of the white moderate still remains as pertinent today as it did when he wrote that letter.
- yowlingcat 8y ago
  Thank you for that comment, I think you definitely do have a point. It's true that Dr. King was far more radical than people remember him being, and that's part of what I admired about him. But I don't think it's true that "even he had difficulty making progress without having more aggressive folks as the alternative to dealing with him." I used to think this was the case, but now I'm not so sure. This may be naive of me, but I think what he was most successful for was not warfare but persuasion and oratorship. He was a cogent, persuasive speaker, and he won hearts. That's not warfare. That's diplomacy. Yes, he had radical views, and he had things to get done. But although he rightly criticized the white moderate, he did not demonize them. There are analogies to be drawn here. Lots of folks are laboring to build diversity, but there are just as many folks who are more interested in the warfare side of it than the achieving diversity side. People just love a good spectacle, sadly.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

40acres 8y ago

> Fantastic thread. Identity politics flavored social justice warfare peeves me because it misses this grand overarching point: there is untapped potential here. I feel like you're just taking a shot at "SJWs" without realizing that your untapped potential comment is exactly what is at the core of most of these movements. All politics is identity politics, and it's the identity politics of the past that has repressed millions in America and wasted potential. Potential was wasted when folks were slaves instead of being able to exercise their freedom and pursue their individual talents, potential was wasted when Black soldiers returning from home were denied the benefits of the GI bill. Affirmative Action is explicitly a mechanism to provide more opportunity, so is the modern D&I movement in corporate America. An untold amount of potential is being wasted right now due to America's inability and inaction when it comes to eliminating poverty and providing equal opportunity for all.

closeparen 8y ago
Economic arguments (“treat people better so you can make more money”) are disgusting and morally bankrupt to a large chunk of the social justice community, particularly those who see all capitalist business and employment relationships as fundamentally exploitative. There’s a strong undercurrent of hatred for the corporate D&I ideology. Viewing the world primarily through the lens of a struggle between oppressed and oppressor demographic groups isn’t uncommon, but other politics do exist.
- fzeroracer 8y ago
  Employment relationships are fundamentally exploitative though. While it's absolutely true that smaller companies can do a lot better in treating their employees right, the fact of the matter is that there is an asymmetrical relationship between an employee and the company due to a large power gap between the two. And the issue can be worse with people that are working doubly hard to escape poverty or just to survive. Those are the people that cannot afford to lose the single opportunity they've received, which means they are often further exploited through lower wages, fewer benefits and so forth. Considering I've been in that position myself, there were times when I had a deep fear of losing absolutely everything.
  - madhadron 8y ago
    > Employment relationships are fundamentally exploitative though. Not necessarily. There's a whole world of employee owned companies, partnerships, and the like which are not fundamentally exploitative.
    - fzeroracer 8y ago
      That's a whole 'nother can of worms though; employee-owned companies can still treat new employees badly depending on how their system is set up. Plus they're an incredibly small fraction of the overall working world we participate in and at most would be an exception to the rule and not the norm. Though I would say that non-profits and things like you mentioned are generally more inclined to treat their employees fair.

lkdjjdjjjdskjd 8y ago

Being a woman or black is not unorthodox, though. And priding yourself for hiring somebody black or female seems odd. It should be a normal thing - if the skills (or whatever unorthodox aspects you fancy) are a match.

weaksauce 8y ago
They never said that. They said unorthodox background that doesn’t fit the pattern matching at a big company. i.e. resume is a bit off but they have potential.
- lkdjjdjjjdskjd 8y ago
  Maybe they meant the actual "diversity" of ideas and personalities. It is just that these days if you say "diversity", it has become synonymous with more women, different racial backgrounds, and for some reason also sexual orientation.
Kiro 8y ago
It should be normal but unfortunately it is not. I don't see the problem with applauding people who actually make a difference here. In the future it will be nothing noteworthy but right now, again unfortunately, it is.
- lkdjjdjjjdskjd 8y ago
  I'm not convinced that it is not normal. Disproportionate numbers of females and black people in certain professions are more likely because of different proportions in applications. And perhaps also in different distributions of skills and education.
  - toomuchtodo 8y ago
    Indeed. I don’t see anyone wringing their hands over most nurses, K-12 teachers, and child care professionals being female, that a majority of the trades are male (construction, welding, electricians, plumbers, pipe fitters), nor that a majority of professional athletes are people of color. I’ve only seen it in tech (disproportionate gender and race composition) described as a “crisis”.

skellera 8y ago

What do you look for to find these people? Also on the other side, what did you do to stand out and get the chance?

chasing 8y ago

> Identity politics flavored social justice warfare peeves me because it misses this grand overarching point: there is untapped potential here. ? That’s one of the points that gets repeated over and over as far as benefits of including people with diverse and/or unorthodox backgrounds. But you should also consider hiring for diversity simply because different sorts of people with different backgrounds and experiences likely have different world-views and approaches to thinking about and solving problems. A diverse culture will simply have more ideas on the table to work with than a monoculture.

yowlingcat 8y ago
It gets repeated at face value, but it's at a surface level. That's parroting. It's not often utilized as a process and as a tool to achieve other goals. That's when it becomes application. You're entirely correct that a diverse culture will simply have more ideas on the table than a monoculture -- and that's exactly why it's an advantage.
CM30 8y ago
The problem is that most companies boasting about diversity don't actually do that. They hire individuals from similar backgrounds based on surface level features. No, having more women from MIT or Harvard isn't really making the company more 'diverse' in any real way, since many of them have the same backgrounds and experiences as your male employees. It's tokenism. If X% of employees are female/from some minority but they're all educated in Ivy League/Oxbridge schools, all from fairly wealthy backgrounds, share political leanings and grew up in similar situations, does it really matter or make any real 'difference'? Economic differences are basically ignored in a lot of modern 'identity politics'
- chillacy 8y ago
  An apple HR director said as much and was canned for suggesting that diversity is more than skin deep.
- HillaryBriss 8y ago
  > does it really matter or make any real 'difference'? the answer from the various underrepresented identity groups themselves is abundantly clear. it's yes. they insist that, yes, absolutely it definitely does make a critically important difference to have an actual person from the actual underrepresented identity group in those jobs. they say that only such a person could have fully experienced the kind of opportunity denial, the kind of repression, the kind of discrimination that such corporate measures are supposed to address. they say that such a person and only such a person can truly and faithfully represent the perspectives and needs of that identity group within the corporate setting. they say that only such a person in that job can truly open the door so that other young people, other potential future employees, from that group have the confidence to pursue such a job in the future. (could an openly gay man ever lead a Fortune 500 US corporation? in theory, yes, but it was still an important step for Tim Cook to step out into the open https://www.cultofmac.com/585278/tim-cook-interview-gay-privacy/ https://www.cultofmac.com/585278/tim-cook-interview-gay-priv...)

L_Rahman 8y ago

Identity politics flavored social justice activists literally make the exact same claims as you.

acjohnson55 8y ago

Much of your comment I agree with but I do take issue with the concept of "identity politics flavored social justice warfare". If you put yourself in the shoes of underrepresented people and our allies, you might understand that it's impossible to predict exactly what sort of political expression will jolt folks wielding power into doing right by us without making them feel like we're being too loud. People very much thought of Dr. King as a social justice warrior in his time. He was deeply unpopular most of his life. And even he had difficulty making progress without having more aggressive folks as the alternative to dealing with him. The fact is, very little gets done without the social justice warriors, and certainly not at scale.

fzeroracer 8y ago
The thought of having to confront inequality or having to recognize that minorities are treated differently solely on the basis of their skin color, sexual orientation or gender is one that is unfortunately still deeply uncomfortable it seems. MLK's understanding of the white moderate still remains as pertinent today as it did when he wrote that letter.
yowlingcat 8y ago
Thank you for that comment, I think you definitely do have a point. It's true that Dr. King was far more radical than people remember him being, and that's part of what I admired about him. But I don't think it's true that "even he had difficulty making progress without having more aggressive folks as the alternative to dealing with him." I used to think this was the case, but now I'm not so sure. This may be naive of me, but I think what he was most successful for was not warfare but persuasion and oratorship. He was a cogent, persuasive speaker, and he won hearts. That's not warfare. That's diplomacy. Yes, he had radical views, and he had things to get done. But although he rightly criticized the white moderate, he did not demonize them. There are analogies to be drawn here. Lots of folks are laboring to build diversity, but there are just as many folks who are more interested in the warfare side of it than the achieving diversity side. People just love a good spectacle, sadly.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]