5 ms·

> I suppose if he wanted to donate to a diversity campaign, he'd donate to one directly. This interpretation of his comment is... generous. I agree that there'

> I suppose if he wanted to donate to a diversity campaign, he'd donate to one directly. This interpretation of his comment is... generous. I agree that there's a legitimate point around wanting your donation to go specifically to browser development and not overhead or other side-projects, but it's pretty clear that he was using the word diversity contemptuously.

h0h0h0h0111 7y ago
Perhaps OP feels that the specific strategy Mozilla employee for helping diversity is ineffective; in the same manner that refusing to donate to ineffective anti-poverty charities, is not the same as supporting poverty. Edit: rather than trying to read OP's mind or surmise what they may be thinking, I'll give my own experience on this. I have seen companies spend money on diversity as lip-service, or targeting groups that don't really aid diversity much. As much as I support female/LGBTQ/race rights and diversity, I suspect many companies I have been a part of would have got a better number of "units of diversity per dollar spent" had they spent money on people from lower socio-economic classes, or countries with poorer education/access to facilities (or maybe combined with the previous groups; I suspect the middle+ classes of female/LGBTQ/different ethnic origin groups are far better catered for than their working class counterparts). But perhaps people don't consider social class or country of origin diversity? Perhaps "we hired lots of underprivileged people" doesn't give as much political capital? I'm not sure.
- barking 7y ago
  I agree with this. It might not be that he feels contemptuously about eliminating discrimination but rather than that he's unhappy with the way diversity campaigns are run. Sometimes it seems to me that whereas in the past we had Churches in a privileged position, telling us how to behave, that we now have NGOs doing the same thing. For example there was just last week a report in the UK about how employees in oxfam shops had sign NDAs in settlements so that the organisation would not get negative publicity for not practicing as they preach.
  - objectivetruth 7y ago
    No, it's not "churches" or NGOs... it's society that "tells us how to behave." That's how it's been since the first proto-humans grunted around a fire. I mean, the government makes the laws, that's ultimately "how to behave." But the Church of England hasn't been meting out judicial punishments to non-churchmembers lately. You're talking about social codes and social judgment. I'm really curious what makes you think that Oxfam or any other NGO is telling you "how to behave" in any way comparable to a theocracy of a few hundred years ago. Lots of parts of society applaud diversity and the elimination of discrimination. If you disagree and feel you're being "told how to behave," that's not the Church or the Government or some NGO bogeyman... that's social pressure.
- jshowa3 7y ago
  The irony is, females/LGBTQ/race rights compromise, statistically, a large majority of the lower socio-economic class and are poorly educated (especially with regards to race). It's very perplexing that you make this conclusion as a legitimate opposition to diversity.
  - h0h0h0h0111 7y ago
    I think particularly in the US, there is certainly a link between race rights and socio-economic class, but I think to that end ,improving access to education and helping lift those in the least-privileged socio-economic class out of poverty would do a lot more to combat racial imbalance than anything else. As far as female/LGBTQ rights, I'm not aware of them being statistically more likely to come from a lower socio-economic class, but I could well be wrong!
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
Ntrails 7y ago
If I donate to cancer research and find out that the money went on a "diversity in research" campaign, I'd be of the opinion that my money had been misused. Not because diversity in sciences isn't important, but because that wasn't what I wanted to spend my donation on. I think diversity is just being used as a proxy for "social do-gooding, rather than tech do-gooding" and the commenter feels the former is not the thing s/he cares to support. Which is fine! I choose not to support all sorts of nominally good things. Lets not witch-hunt people for caring about different things.
alfromspace 7y ago
I can't speak for the OP, but just so we don't a priori pin opposition to diversity campaigns as indefensible, I really loathe them. It's a real position people have!
Proven 7y ago
So what if he was? Everyone should provide a disliked example of their choice to illustrate their disapproval of discretionary spending of donations meant for product development. You're welcome to use your examples, and they may be diametrically opposed to his. We don't have to permit, approve or agree.

h0h0h0h0111 7y ago

Perhaps OP feels that the specific strategy Mozilla employee for helping diversity is ineffective; in the same manner that refusing to donate to ineffective anti-poverty charities, is not the same as supporting poverty. Edit: rather than trying to read OP's mind or surmise what they may be thinking, I'll give my own experience on this. I have seen companies spend money on diversity as lip-service, or targeting groups that don't really aid diversity much. As much as I support female/LGBTQ/race rights and diversity, I suspect many companies I have been a part of would have got a better number of "units of diversity per dollar spent" had they spent money on people from lower socio-economic classes, or countries with poorer education/access to facilities (or maybe combined with the previous groups; I suspect the middle+ classes of female/LGBTQ/different ethnic origin groups are far better catered for than their working class counterparts). But perhaps people don't consider social class or country of origin diversity? Perhaps "we hired lots of underprivileged people" doesn't give as much political capital? I'm not sure.

barking 7y ago
I agree with this. It might not be that he feels contemptuously about eliminating discrimination but rather than that he's unhappy with the way diversity campaigns are run. Sometimes it seems to me that whereas in the past we had Churches in a privileged position, telling us how to behave, that we now have NGOs doing the same thing. For example there was just last week a report in the UK about how employees in oxfam shops had sign NDAs in settlements so that the organisation would not get negative publicity for not practicing as they preach.
- objectivetruth 7y ago
  No, it's not "churches" or NGOs... it's society that "tells us how to behave." That's how it's been since the first proto-humans grunted around a fire. I mean, the government makes the laws, that's ultimately "how to behave." But the Church of England hasn't been meting out judicial punishments to non-churchmembers lately. You're talking about social codes and social judgment. I'm really curious what makes you think that Oxfam or any other NGO is telling you "how to behave" in any way comparable to a theocracy of a few hundred years ago. Lots of parts of society applaud diversity and the elimination of discrimination. If you disagree and feel you're being "told how to behave," that's not the Church or the Government or some NGO bogeyman... that's social pressure.
jshowa3 7y ago
The irony is, females/LGBTQ/race rights compromise, statistically, a large majority of the lower socio-economic class and are poorly educated (especially with regards to race). It's very perplexing that you make this conclusion as a legitimate opposition to diversity.
- h0h0h0h0111 7y ago
  I think particularly in the US, there is certainly a link between race rights and socio-economic class, but I think to that end ,improving access to education and helping lift those in the least-privileged socio-economic class out of poverty would do a lot more to combat racial imbalance than anything else. As far as female/LGBTQ rights, I'm not aware of them being statistically more likely to come from a lower socio-economic class, but I could well be wrong!

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

Ntrails 7y ago

If I donate to cancer research and find out that the money went on a "diversity in research" campaign, I'd be of the opinion that my money had been misused. Not because diversity in sciences isn't important, but because that wasn't what I wanted to spend my donation on. I think diversity is just being used as a proxy for "social do-gooding, rather than tech do-gooding" and the commenter feels the former is not the thing s/he cares to support. Which is fine! I choose not to support all sorts of nominally good things. Lets not witch-hunt people for caring about different things.

alfromspace 7y ago

I can't speak for the OP, but just so we don't a priori pin opposition to diversity campaigns as indefensible, I really loathe them. It's a real position people have!

Proven 7y ago

So what if he was? Everyone should provide a disliked example of their choice to illustrate their disapproval of discretionary spending of donations meant for product development. You're welcome to use your examples, and they may be diametrically opposed to his. We don't have to permit, approve or agree.