5 ms·

As much as I agree with you, is "inclusivity" ever used maliciously? I'm running some coding events and while I'm a firm believer in meritocracy often giving t

As much as I agree with you, is "inclusivity" ever used maliciously? I'm running some coding events and while I'm a firm believer in meritocracy often giving the space to outsiders or unusual folk end up in more interesting and new experiences for the event attendees. In my mind I see it as a meritocratic choice to diversify the floor and honestly I've never seen this "feature" being abused or cause any friction. To me it seems like this attack vector is only when rewards are high (prize, job position) but for pay less and unappreciated work like wikipedia editing, or in my case coding presentations, I don't really see how this could be abused. Maybe it's exclusively an American issue?

generalpass 6y ago
I encourage you to watch a Joe Rogan episode from last year when he brought Jack Dorsey, a Twitter VP, and Tim Pool. [1] The reason this episode is relevant to your comment discussion is that Pool presents that there is this paradigm problem where certain policies intended to bring "inclusion" end up excluding something like half of the U.S. population. This paradigm Twitter management is stuck in prevents them from understanding how people outside their paradigm view their actions, and this results in effectively banning a enormous set of the population from popular discourse. It is hard to evaluate if this is exclusively an American issue because, really, there are so few other countries that speak English. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZCBRHOg3PQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZCBRHOg3PQ
- kabacha 6y ago
  > It is hard to evaluate if this is exclusively an American issue because, really, there are so few other countries that speak English. What does speaking english has to do with this? Regarding twitter case I feel that it's unfair to classify the issue with a single anecdote. Especially when this anecdote is about notoriously mismanaged, pointless corporation such as twitter.
  - generalpass 6y ago
    > What does speaking english has to do with this? > Regarding twitter case I feel that it's unfair to classify the issue with a single anecdote. Especially when this anecdote is about notoriously mismanaged, pointless corporation such as twitter. Evaluating online behavior, which is presented in text, across all languages, is Hard. It seems clear you didn't watch the video. Pool doesn't present Twitter as a single anecdote, but an example of a larger problem. Addtionally, it is not clear to me that a platform as large as Twitter can be dismissed as an "anecdote". The larger problem is people with these positions are not even interested in evaluating other positions, a claim supported by your comment and the down-voters of mine.
belorn 6y ago
Take an example from the python founder. He directly said during a talk that he will not mentor any males, with the implied goal of furthering inclusivity. In my views, refusing to help people because of their gender is maliciously. Making decision about the worthiness of helping a young individual should not be about their gender. Call it a principle. From reading about the science of discrimination and In-group and out-group thinking, there exist some key finding of human behavior and rationalization. "Us" are individuals and "them" are a homogenic group, and if you treat people like individuals you are automatically treating them as a part of "us". When someone of "us" do something wrong, it is about individual faults and circumstances. When someone of "them" do something wrong, it is a inherent trait of the group and fundamental aspect their kind. The attack vector can only exist when a set of people are treated as a homogenic group rather than individuals. Inclusivity initiatives should in theory never do this, but defining people as a homogenic group is sadly what most of them end up doing. Maybe it because it easy and quick, or because it makes for good signaling to the in-group. The result is usually the same with the out-group feeling abused and attacked, especially for individuals who been moved from being in-group to out-group and now instinctual feel more vulnerable to attacks.
- kabacha 6y ago
  > The attack vector can only exist when a set of people are treated as a homogenic group rather than individuals. Inclusivity initiatives should in theory never do this, but defining people as a homogenic group is sadly what most of them end up doing I feel that you've summarized the issue perfectly here with these two sentences. However I feel that it's not exactly problem of diversity/inclusivity but problem of tribalism itself, though I'm not sure how practical it is to separate these two topics here. We can hope that tribalism will go away eventually but if anything modern culture seems to be actually encouraging it instead. This in particular really perplexes me. The world is as global as it has ever been and yet people push and actively create tribes — it's this ugly human primitive nature poking it's head out and there really isn't any cultural push against that. In fact every time I try to point this out I get down-voted. We need more anti-tribalism awareness.
- shadowgovt 6y ago
  Is Guido choosing to tip the scales really a malicious use of inclusivity? It's not like young men interested in Python have nowhere else to go. I think how Guido wants to spend his time is up to Guido.
luckylion 6y ago
> In my mind I see it as a meritocratic choice to diversify the floor and honestly I've never seen this "feature" being abused or cause any friction. How is it meritocratic if you decidedly do not consider the merits of the participants, but their attributed identity / group-membership? I don't disagree with the idea that diversity can make for great results (though I probably disagree with you on what constitutes diversity), new perspectives and cool events. But I wouldn't say "therefore it's meritocratic", because it seems like something completely different.

generalpass 6y ago

I encourage you to watch a Joe Rogan episode from last year when he brought Jack Dorsey, a Twitter VP, and Tim Pool. [1] The reason this episode is relevant to your comment discussion is that Pool presents that there is this paradigm problem where certain policies intended to bring "inclusion" end up excluding something like half of the U.S. population. This paradigm Twitter management is stuck in prevents them from understanding how people outside their paradigm view their actions, and this results in effectively banning a enormous set of the population from popular discourse. It is hard to evaluate if this is exclusively an American issue because, really, there are so few other countries that speak English. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZCBRHOg3PQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZCBRHOg3PQ

kabacha 6y ago
> It is hard to evaluate if this is exclusively an American issue because, really, there are so few other countries that speak English. What does speaking english has to do with this? Regarding twitter case I feel that it's unfair to classify the issue with a single anecdote. Especially when this anecdote is about notoriously mismanaged, pointless corporation such as twitter.
- generalpass 6y ago
  > What does speaking english has to do with this? > Regarding twitter case I feel that it's unfair to classify the issue with a single anecdote. Especially when this anecdote is about notoriously mismanaged, pointless corporation such as twitter. Evaluating online behavior, which is presented in text, across all languages, is Hard. It seems clear you didn't watch the video. Pool doesn't present Twitter as a single anecdote, but an example of a larger problem. Addtionally, it is not clear to me that a platform as large as Twitter can be dismissed as an "anecdote". The larger problem is people with these positions are not even interested in evaluating other positions, a claim supported by your comment and the down-voters of mine.

belorn 6y ago

Take an example from the python founder. He directly said during a talk that he will not mentor any males, with the implied goal of furthering inclusivity. In my views, refusing to help people because of their gender is maliciously. Making decision about the worthiness of helping a young individual should not be about their gender. Call it a principle. From reading about the science of discrimination and In-group and out-group thinking, there exist some key finding of human behavior and rationalization. "Us" are individuals and "them" are a homogenic group, and if you treat people like individuals you are automatically treating them as a part of "us". When someone of "us" do something wrong, it is about individual faults and circumstances. When someone of "them" do something wrong, it is a inherent trait of the group and fundamental aspect their kind. The attack vector can only exist when a set of people are treated as a homogenic group rather than individuals. Inclusivity initiatives should in theory never do this, but defining people as a homogenic group is sadly what most of them end up doing. Maybe it because it easy and quick, or because it makes for good signaling to the in-group. The result is usually the same with the out-group feeling abused and attacked, especially for individuals who been moved from being in-group to out-group and now instinctual feel more vulnerable to attacks.

kabacha 6y ago
> The attack vector can only exist when a set of people are treated as a homogenic group rather than individuals. Inclusivity initiatives should in theory never do this, but defining people as a homogenic group is sadly what most of them end up doing I feel that you've summarized the issue perfectly here with these two sentences. However I feel that it's not exactly problem of diversity/inclusivity but problem of tribalism itself, though I'm not sure how practical it is to separate these two topics here. We can hope that tribalism will go away eventually but if anything modern culture seems to be actually encouraging it instead. This in particular really perplexes me. The world is as global as it has ever been and yet people push and actively create tribes — it's this ugly human primitive nature poking it's head out and there really isn't any cultural push against that. In fact every time I try to point this out I get down-voted. We need more anti-tribalism awareness.
shadowgovt 6y ago
Is Guido choosing to tip the scales really a malicious use of inclusivity? It's not like young men interested in Python have nowhere else to go. I think how Guido wants to spend his time is up to Guido.

luckylion 6y ago

> In my mind I see it as a meritocratic choice to diversify the floor and honestly I've never seen this "feature" being abused or cause any friction. How is it meritocratic if you decidedly do not consider the merits of the participants, but their attributed identity / group-membership? I don't disagree with the idea that diversity can make for great results (though I probably disagree with you on what constitutes diversity), new perspectives and cool events. But I wouldn't say "therefore it's meritocratic", because it seems like something completely different.