5 ms·

Thanks, I understand the point you're making about childishness not being specific to Diversity and Inclusion initiatives. Two things make me hesitate regarding

Thanks, I understand the point you're making about childishness not being specific to Diversity and Inclusion initiatives. Two things make me hesitate regarding whether that actually changes my critique: 1. As I say, other people I've spoken to (specifically, some women) share my dismay at the childishness of Diversity and Inclusion initiatives. So that suggests that they also had higher expectations. If you are right, then all of us had poorly calibrated expectations. That starts to seem less plausible; more plausible is that the Diversity and Inclusion sessions were unexpectedly childish even taking into account the background low expectation for any "sessions" / "initiatives". 2. I can think of no reason why Mozilla's documentation for a programming language would share the characteristics of a lame corporate "session" on something non-technical: I think that the people at Mozilla are intelligent and technical-minded, and to some extent work at Mozilla to get away from those depressing and embarrassing aspects of the corporate world. However, it is, as I understand it, an aim of Mozilla to make their technical documentation more approachable to sectors of society that have traditionally been poorly served by the tech community. Therefore one can think of reasons why Mozilla's documentation might share characteristics with the "Diversity and Inclusion movement". I know I'm sniping at worthy causes, and being slightly insulting about people who have worked hard to document a fantastic programming language, and even I don't think it really comes across pleasantly. The reason I am doing it is because I, along with many others I think, am concerned about the way the political liberal/left (with which I identify) is damaging itself by uncritical adoption of modern dogma of mostly young "progressives"./ And there, in admitting that, I guess I've violated another site guideline.

steveklabnik 6y ago
It is really not clear to me why you are bringing Mozilla into this at all; they have absolutely nothing to do with any of this.
- da39a3ee 6y ago
  OK, I'm happy to hear you say that. It's definitely possible that I've made a totally spurious claim of a common cultural thread. I mean that sincerely: I didn't want what I was worrying about to be true and I'll remember that you say Mozilla's not like that. Thanks very much / respect for responding to this anonymous and rather odd/unfounded criticism.
  - steveklabnik 6y ago
    It’s not that Mozilla is or is not like that even; I don’t know why you’re including Mozilla in with Rust. The contents of the Rust book have nothing to do with Mozilla in any way.
    - da39a3ee 6y ago
      Ah, OK. I certainly had that wrong then. I had it in my head that the language was incubated at Mozilla and major efforts like documentation were funded by Mozilla / worked on by Mozilla employees.
      - steveklabnik 6y ago
        That can all be true at the same time what I am saying is true. A Mozilla employee can write something without the contents of the thing being dictated by Mozilla in some fashion.
        da39a3ee 6y ago
        Well, this is getting a bit philosophical but seeing as you don't mind discussing! What you say may be true of Mozilla, but it's not true in general, is it? I mean, suppose two authors work at the same "institution". I think it's bound up in our notion of institution that the observer of this situation might expect, or at least not be surprised if, their creative output is subject to shared influences. So, OK, the theory I was floating was dubious because of its lack of real justification! But I don't think its reliance on a notion of institutional culture (shared influences) was problematic.

steveklabnik 6y ago

It is really not clear to me why you are bringing Mozilla into this at all; they have absolutely nothing to do with any of this.

da39a3ee 6y ago
OK, I'm happy to hear you say that. It's definitely possible that I've made a totally spurious claim of a common cultural thread. I mean that sincerely: I didn't want what I was worrying about to be true and I'll remember that you say Mozilla's not like that. Thanks very much / respect for responding to this anonymous and rather odd/unfounded criticism.
- steveklabnik 6y ago
  It’s not that Mozilla is or is not like that even; I don’t know why you’re including Mozilla in with Rust. The contents of the Rust book have nothing to do with Mozilla in any way.
  - da39a3ee 6y ago
    Ah, OK. I certainly had that wrong then. I had it in my head that the language was incubated at Mozilla and major efforts like documentation were funded by Mozilla / worked on by Mozilla employees.
    - steveklabnik 6y ago
      That can all be true at the same time what I am saying is true. A Mozilla employee can write something without the contents of the thing being dictated by Mozilla in some fashion.
      - da39a3ee 6y ago
        Well, this is getting a bit philosophical but seeing as you don't mind discussing! What you say may be true of Mozilla, but it's not true in general, is it? I mean, suppose two authors work at the same "institution". I think it's bound up in our notion of institution that the observer of this situation might expect, or at least not be surprised if, their creative output is subject to shared influences. So, OK, the theory I was floating was dubious because of its lack of real justification! But I don't think its reliance on a notion of institutional culture (shared influences) was problematic.