5 ms·

"positive discrimination" is not racism, sorry. unfortunately, the only way to change the future is to enable the groups that were historically disenfranchised

"positive discrimination" is not racism, sorry. unfortunately, the only way to change the future is to enable the groups that were historically disenfranchised, which we can enable through diversity quotas/affirmative action/etc. it doesn't just magically happen through everyone agreeing that "racism is over." i know that you feel uncomfortable because you do not feel that you were responsible with the current situation, but you continue the status quo (racist society) by not structurally enabling disenfranchised groups. we are no danger of positive discrimination causing structural problems for white people (especially men), besides them feeling (apparently) very uncomfortable with confronting systematic racism and white privilege. thankfully companies are increasingly seeing this and i'm hesitantly positive towards the future (assuming we continue to hold companies accountable).

sparkie 8y ago
What do you define as "enabling"? As far as I'm concerned, they have been enabled for years, through legislature which prevents discrimination in hiring. I'm in favor of due process, and if somebody had a real grievance with my hiring decision, then I will see them in court, where I can present my case. Social justice is actively harmful to due process, because it makes social media the jury and throws away any chance of the failed candidate getting a fair trial. The collateral damage is the reputation of the company, who may or may not have done anything wrong - we may never know because the process was not followed. It's a lose-lose process, no winners, just some extra brownie points for the SJWs. This is why it's more of a religious crusade than anything else. I also think social justice is actively harmful for the groups it is intending to "enable", because it makes interactions with members of said group become riskier than ever before. People will just avoid the interactions as much as they possibly can to avoid the risk. See #MeToo and recent statements from WallSt as an example.
- octernion 8y ago
  i'm not going to keep responding because it's clear you haven't understood any of the above comments around the structural and generational concerns. there is plentiful literature to better educate yourself and be less ignorant about this.
  - sparkie 8y ago
    I understand the concerns, but your "solutions" are deeply flawed and faith based. Your idea that whites won't be discriminated is a joke, because it's already reality. Whites are actively discriminated against. This is what "positive discrimination" is. It means that if you have 9 white candidates and 1 non-white candate apply for 2 jobs, and you have a diversity quota to fill, then the non-white candidate has a 100% chance, and the white candidates have an 11% chance. Remove the racism quota and everyone has a 20% chance, as it should be. The systems in placed are already abused by assholes who try to game it. I've lost count of the number of threats of lawsuits I've had from "unprivileged" people who can barely string together an English sentence, because I refuse to hire or interview them. There are people who will play the system if it favors them. These are a minority of the minorities, but they're significant in that they waste resources (and actively harm people who are legitimately discriminated against). Anyone can have an opinion when they have no skin in the game. Spend a few years recruiting and all of the literature in the world is worth garbage - it's written mostly be people who have never interviewed, probably never had an interview or even a proper job in their lives because they've been sheltered by the academy.
    - fzeroracer 8y ago
      White People are not actively discriminated against, period. Your fears are absurd and unfounded, considering white people still compose the majority of tech and that has changed very little.
      - asabjorn 8y ago
        You can’t have it both ways; claiming no discrimination is happening to a group and then applying social engineering based upon the immutable traits of that group. The questions isn’t if there is discrimination, but how much of it there is and what the effects are. You might argue that it has a good reason and others might disagree with your arguments.
      - sparkie 8y ago
        The majority of applicants for tech roles are white men, period! It's no accident that if you have 80% white people apply for jobs, then 80% of your company is going to be white. This is, assuming you do not discriminate based on skin color. If you have 80% white apply, and only 60% of your company is white, then you are disciminating based on skin color. This is racism! I don't care how you want to spin it, whether you think it is justified or not, it is plain racism. This is why I use the term racism quota and not diversity quota. Call things for what they are. If you want to change the situation, then positive action would be actions which cause the number of applicants of color to increase. However, you need to be careful when planning this too - because educating non-whites "more than" whites, deliberately, is just moving the discrimination to white boys. The idea of "black-only workshops" is racist, just as it would be if there were "white-only workshops." Everyone should be given the same opportunities, and I'm all for improving the state of education in communities where it has been substandard or non-existant in the past, so as to level the playing field. Perhaps education alone won't cut it, because there might be some more fundamental cultural issues which account for the significant differences in graduates of tech related fields. Women, for example, are only 15% of CS grads at best. It is absurd to expect equal representation of programmers to be female given the statistics but don't let that get in the way of your faith in social justice. Men can't be victims of your actions, after all. If you think that girls don't get into tech because of some perceived patriarchy where they are oppressed, you are absolutely delusional. The biggest thing preventing girls getting into tech is other girls - the bullying they receive in school.

sparkie 8y ago

What do you define as "enabling"? As far as I'm concerned, they have been enabled for years, through legislature which prevents discrimination in hiring. I'm in favor of due process, and if somebody had a real grievance with my hiring decision, then I will see them in court, where I can present my case. Social justice is actively harmful to due process, because it makes social media the jury and throws away any chance of the failed candidate getting a fair trial. The collateral damage is the reputation of the company, who may or may not have done anything wrong - we may never know because the process was not followed. It's a lose-lose process, no winners, just some extra brownie points for the SJWs. This is why it's more of a religious crusade than anything else. I also think social justice is actively harmful for the groups it is intending to "enable", because it makes interactions with members of said group become riskier than ever before. People will just avoid the interactions as much as they possibly can to avoid the risk. See #MeToo and recent statements from WallSt as an example.

octernion 8y ago
i'm not going to keep responding because it's clear you haven't understood any of the above comments around the structural and generational concerns. there is plentiful literature to better educate yourself and be less ignorant about this.
- sparkie 8y ago
  I understand the concerns, but your "solutions" are deeply flawed and faith based. Your idea that whites won't be discriminated is a joke, because it's already reality. Whites are actively discriminated against. This is what "positive discrimination" is. It means that if you have 9 white candidates and 1 non-white candate apply for 2 jobs, and you have a diversity quota to fill, then the non-white candidate has a 100% chance, and the white candidates have an 11% chance. Remove the racism quota and everyone has a 20% chance, as it should be. The systems in placed are already abused by assholes who try to game it. I've lost count of the number of threats of lawsuits I've had from "unprivileged" people who can barely string together an English sentence, because I refuse to hire or interview them. There are people who will play the system if it favors them. These are a minority of the minorities, but they're significant in that they waste resources (and actively harm people who are legitimately discriminated against). Anyone can have an opinion when they have no skin in the game. Spend a few years recruiting and all of the literature in the world is worth garbage - it's written mostly be people who have never interviewed, probably never had an interview or even a proper job in their lives because they've been sheltered by the academy.
  - fzeroracer 8y ago
    White People are not actively discriminated against, period. Your fears are absurd and unfounded, considering white people still compose the majority of tech and that has changed very little.
    - asabjorn 8y ago
      You can’t have it both ways; claiming no discrimination is happening to a group and then applying social engineering based upon the immutable traits of that group. The questions isn’t if there is discrimination, but how much of it there is and what the effects are. You might argue that it has a good reason and others might disagree with your arguments.
    - sparkie 8y ago
      The majority of applicants for tech roles are white men, period! It's no accident that if you have 80% white people apply for jobs, then 80% of your company is going to be white. This is, assuming you do not discriminate based on skin color. If you have 80% white apply, and only 60% of your company is white, then you are disciminating based on skin color. This is racism! I don't care how you want to spin it, whether you think it is justified or not, it is plain racism. This is why I use the term racism quota and not diversity quota. Call things for what they are. If you want to change the situation, then positive action would be actions which cause the number of applicants of color to increase. However, you need to be careful when planning this too - because educating non-whites "more than" whites, deliberately, is just moving the discrimination to white boys. The idea of "black-only workshops" is racist, just as it would be if there were "white-only workshops." Everyone should be given the same opportunities, and I'm all for improving the state of education in communities where it has been substandard or non-existant in the past, so as to level the playing field. Perhaps education alone won't cut it, because there might be some more fundamental cultural issues which account for the significant differences in graduates of tech related fields. Women, for example, are only 15% of CS grads at best. It is absurd to expect equal representation of programmers to be female given the statistics but don't let that get in the way of your faith in social justice. Men can't be victims of your actions, after all. If you think that girls don't get into tech because of some perceived patriarchy where they are oppressed, you are absolutely delusional. The biggest thing preventing girls getting into tech is other girls - the bullying they receive in school.