6 ms·

I love the implication that if you don’t agree, you can’t have a healthy discussion. I’m also not sure of the aim; if you have no desire to convince those who

I love the implication that if you don’t agree, you can’t have a healthy discussion. I’m also not sure of the aim; if you have no desire to convince those who don’t initially agree, you’re preaching to the choir. Isn’t the diversity gang enough of an echo chamber already?

squirrelicus 8y ago
So very this. I'm more than happy to discuss how alcohol does impact diversity and inclusion in negative ways. I think it's fascinating subject I haven't thought about.
r00fus 8y ago
A reasonable discussion has to take some ground level agreements before you can discuss the finer details. Otherwise you get Twitter.
- AnaniasAnanas 8y ago
  I was under the impression that the issue with twitter was with the maximum length of posts which encourages low-quality one-liners.
normal_man 8y ago
It could just be an attempt to discuss nuances of the situation with people who are on the same page rather than feeling like they have to engage every bad faith "devil's advocate" who wanders in and somehow disagrees with the fact that a very small amount of black or hispanic people work in tech.
- yakshaving_jgt 8y ago
  Have you considered that those arguing against the standard diversity tropes aren’t arguing in bad faith? At least from my perspective, affirmative action is immoral, and any notion of power imbalance doesn’t seep into my understanding of the definition of discrimination. People can have deeply considered all the nuances posed and still come up with a perspective that differs from the accepted social justice narrative.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- squirrelicus 8y ago
  I've not met someone who rejects the assertion that there's a diversity and inclusion problem simultaneously asserting that the data do not in fact show that various classes are underrepresented.
smacktoward 8y ago
The aim is to be able to focus on the actual issue the piece is concerned with, rather than spending hours sea-lioning (see https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/sea-lioning https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/sea-lioning) every tangentially related issue that connects to it over and over again.
- crankylinuxuser 8y ago
  That would seem to intertwine very well with gish galloping. Simultaneously feign sincerity, argue over definitions, demand sources of every word, and combine it with countersources from a gish... Well. That explains Reddit! /g (Its the procedure of an argument by flooding you with half baked sources, and by the time you're through 5, you have 20 more.) https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop (Edit: I wasn't proposing DOING that. I was making note that these logical fallacies tend to stack and greatly compound each other. And they can be a nightmare to unravel if ONLY in a gish gallop. If both of these are executed, the gish is a insincere attempt at complete disruption; and anyone trying to stop it is accused of being really rude. And from a social media perspective, someone calling out a sealioning themselves looks rude.)
n4r9 8y ago
You're constructing a straw man. The post is making an argument for why there's a lack of inclusion. This rests on the assumption that a lack of inclusion exists. Defending that assumption is left to other discussions, nevertheless there are many people who already agree with it. If you're not such a person i.e. you don't agree with the assumption, the post isn't for you: you have nothing to gain from it.
- squirrelicus 8y ago
  It's possible for there to be no systemic inclusion problem and alcohol creates inclusion problems.
  - alkibiades 8y ago
    i guess i’m not sure what the solution is. are we not supposed to drink? Any hobby or activity that not everyone participates in has the potential to be non inclusive. At my last work a lot of people loved camping but i didn’t. Should i stop them from camping because they might make social bonds that aren’t available to me?
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - n4r9 8y ago
      I think the onus is on the company to pro-actively organise social events which don't centre on drinking.
      - alkibiades 8y ago
        but some people are introverts. so it’s not very inclusive to have any event as an extrovert would be more likely to go and make connections and introverts would be discriminated. maybe we should ban all events
        squirrelicus 8y ago
mikestew 8y ago
I love the implication that if you don’t agree, you can’t have a healthy discussion. I love it, too. It gets it out of the way upfront: if we can't agree on $THIS base assumption, then we can't have a healthy discussion about $THAT. In order for that to happen, we need to have another discussion first." If, after discussing whether or not there is an inclusion and diversity problem, you are still at odds, there is little point in further refining the discussion by including alcohol.
- squirrelicus 8y ago
  The problem is the "our industry" problem vs "workplaces that include alcohol" problem. The latter can exist without the former.

squirrelicus 8y ago

So very this. I'm more than happy to discuss how alcohol does impact diversity and inclusion in negative ways. I think it's fascinating subject I haven't thought about.

r00fus 8y ago

A reasonable discussion has to take some ground level agreements before you can discuss the finer details. Otherwise you get Twitter.

AnaniasAnanas 8y ago
I was under the impression that the issue with twitter was with the maximum length of posts which encourages low-quality one-liners.

normal_man 8y ago

It could just be an attempt to discuss nuances of the situation with people who are on the same page rather than feeling like they have to engage every bad faith "devil's advocate" who wanders in and somehow disagrees with the fact that a very small amount of black or hispanic people work in tech.

yakshaving_jgt 8y ago
Have you considered that those arguing against the standard diversity tropes aren’t arguing in bad faith? At least from my perspective, affirmative action is immoral, and any notion of power imbalance doesn’t seep into my understanding of the definition of discrimination. People can have deeply considered all the nuances posed and still come up with a perspective that differs from the accepted social justice narrative.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
squirrelicus 8y ago
I've not met someone who rejects the assertion that there's a diversity and inclusion problem simultaneously asserting that the data do not in fact show that various classes are underrepresented.

smacktoward 8y ago

The aim is to be able to focus on the actual issue the piece is concerned with, rather than spending hours sea-lioning (see https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/sea-lioning https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/sea-lioning) every tangentially related issue that connects to it over and over again.

crankylinuxuser 8y ago
That would seem to intertwine very well with gish galloping. Simultaneously feign sincerity, argue over definitions, demand sources of every word, and combine it with countersources from a gish... Well. That explains Reddit! /g (Its the procedure of an argument by flooding you with half baked sources, and by the time you're through 5, you have 20 more.) https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop (Edit: I wasn't proposing DOING that. I was making note that these logical fallacies tend to stack and greatly compound each other. And they can be a nightmare to unravel if ONLY in a gish gallop. If both of these are executed, the gish is a insincere attempt at complete disruption; and anyone trying to stop it is accused of being really rude. And from a social media perspective, someone calling out a sealioning themselves looks rude.)

n4r9 8y ago

You're constructing a straw man. The post is making an argument for why there's a lack of inclusion. This rests on the assumption that a lack of inclusion exists. Defending that assumption is left to other discussions, nevertheless there are many people who already agree with it. If you're not such a person i.e. you don't agree with the assumption, the post isn't for you: you have nothing to gain from it.

squirrelicus 8y ago
It's possible for there to be no systemic inclusion problem and alcohol creates inclusion problems.
- alkibiades 8y ago
  i guess i’m not sure what the solution is. are we not supposed to drink? Any hobby or activity that not everyone participates in has the potential to be non inclusive. At my last work a lot of people loved camping but i didn’t. Should i stop them from camping because they might make social bonds that aren’t available to me?
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - n4r9 8y ago
    I think the onus is on the company to pro-actively organise social events which don't centre on drinking.
    - alkibiades 8y ago
      but some people are introverts. so it’s not very inclusive to have any event as an extrovert would be more likely to go and make connections and introverts would be discriminated. maybe we should ban all events
      - squirrelicus 8y ago

mikestew 8y ago

I love the implication that if you don’t agree, you can’t have a healthy discussion. I love it, too. It gets it out of the way upfront: if we can't agree on $THIS base assumption, then we can't have a healthy discussion about $THAT. In order for that to happen, we need to have another discussion first." If, after discussing whether or not there is an inclusion and diversity problem, you are still at odds, there is little point in further refining the discussion by including alcohol.

squirrelicus 8y ago
The problem is the "our industry" problem vs "workplaces that include alcohol" problem. The latter can exist without the former.