3 ms·

That happens at any company that's sufficiently devoted to SJW principles. Though it's usually about women rather than gays as obviously the question of orienta

That happens at any company that's sufficiently devoted to SJW principles. Though it's usually about women rather than gays as obviously the question of orientation can't usually be brought up at interview time. I thought everyone working in tech knew this happened. If you doubt it, a simple check of the Tumblr jobs page should make their policy clear: https://www.tumblr.com/jobs https://www.tumblr.com/jobs "Now, billions of posts later, we continue to build out Tumblr as a platform for diverse communities to express their points of view. And we’re committed to hiring a workforce that represents the same diversity." A company committed to hiring a workforce that represents "diversity" will have a lot of "diversity hires", as it's literally their stated policy.

foldr 6y ago
I'm aware that a lot of people think that "SJWs" have taken over tech companies and are forcing them to hire certain groups of people. I was sort of banking on the OP not being one of these people and getting a different kind of answer. I doubt we can have a productive discussion of what you've posted that won't descend into a flame war that's been had a thousand times before. The phrase 'diversity hire' is usually used prejoritatively to hint that the person in question is not really qualified for their job. If the OP simply meant to say that tumblr was quite successful at hiring a diverse range of people, then I think it was a slightly off choice of wording.
- string 6y ago
  Out of interest, why did you want a different answer? Do you think "diversity hires" don't exist? Whether they do or don't, it doesn't have any bearing on the "diverse" people being hired on the basis of their technical or professional abilities.
  - foldr 6y ago
    My question was why the OP thought that these particular people are diversity hires. And as I said, the phrase 'diversity hire' is usually used to cast aspersions on people's abilities (though it is possible that the OP didn't want to do this and just made a questionable wording choice).
    - thu2111 6y ago
      His entire post is about bad behaviour by employees, and he has just confirmed to you that if you were (visibly) LGBTQ it was impossible not to be hired there. Most likely also impossible to be fired given the OP's stories. That is exactly what you'd expect from a SF based firm that says it's committed to diversity hiring, because that word is code for "anyone who isn't a straight white man". That's why your response to me was not really in good faith. As the original writer later confirmed, the answer I gave you was correct - hiring standards vanished if you were the "best" orientation. Yet you just flatly rejected it and demanded an alternative (but wrong) answer you liked more. You also stated you wouldn't be able to discuss the issue without it "descending into a flame war", passive voice, implying that I'd be the one flaming you - that is also wrong. This seems to be an increasingly common tactic to avoid reading alternative viewpoints: just announce up front that polite debate is impossible, with the insinuation that it's the fault of other people. Not a great approach. From your other posts, you are feeling hurt that people might doubt your abilities because you're in a favoured class. Yes, that must really suck. We can all totally understand that. At the same time it sucks a lot more to be at that sort of company in a non favoured class.
      - foldr 6y ago
        'SJW' is Godwin 2.0. If you see LGBTQ people as a 'favored class' (!) then I don't think we can go anywhere with this. I'm not avoiding debate with regard to the issue raised in my original response to zxcvbn4038. I'm declining your invitation to have another debate that's been had over and over again many times before.
- foldr 6y ago
  *pejoritatively ha - I thought I'd caught that in an edit.

foldr 6y ago

I'm aware that a lot of people think that "SJWs" have taken over tech companies and are forcing them to hire certain groups of people. I was sort of banking on the OP not being one of these people and getting a different kind of answer. I doubt we can have a productive discussion of what you've posted that won't descend into a flame war that's been had a thousand times before. The phrase 'diversity hire' is usually used prejoritatively to hint that the person in question is not really qualified for their job. If the OP simply meant to say that tumblr was quite successful at hiring a diverse range of people, then I think it was a slightly off choice of wording.

string 6y ago
Out of interest, why did you want a different answer? Do you think "diversity hires" don't exist? Whether they do or don't, it doesn't have any bearing on the "diverse" people being hired on the basis of their technical or professional abilities.
- foldr 6y ago
  My question was why the OP thought that these particular people are diversity hires. And as I said, the phrase 'diversity hire' is usually used to cast aspersions on people's abilities (though it is possible that the OP didn't want to do this and just made a questionable wording choice).
  - thu2111 6y ago
    His entire post is about bad behaviour by employees, and he has just confirmed to you that if you were (visibly) LGBTQ it was impossible not to be hired there. Most likely also impossible to be fired given the OP's stories. That is exactly what you'd expect from a SF based firm that says it's committed to diversity hiring, because that word is code for "anyone who isn't a straight white man". That's why your response to me was not really in good faith. As the original writer later confirmed, the answer I gave you was correct - hiring standards vanished if you were the "best" orientation. Yet you just flatly rejected it and demanded an alternative (but wrong) answer you liked more. You also stated you wouldn't be able to discuss the issue without it "descending into a flame war", passive voice, implying that I'd be the one flaming you - that is also wrong. This seems to be an increasingly common tactic to avoid reading alternative viewpoints: just announce up front that polite debate is impossible, with the insinuation that it's the fault of other people. Not a great approach. From your other posts, you are feeling hurt that people might doubt your abilities because you're in a favoured class. Yes, that must really suck. We can all totally understand that. At the same time it sucks a lot more to be at that sort of company in a non favoured class.
    - foldr 6y ago
      'SJW' is Godwin 2.0. If you see LGBTQ people as a 'favored class' (!) then I don't think we can go anywhere with this. I'm not avoiding debate with regard to the issue raised in my original response to zxcvbn4038. I'm declining your invitation to have another debate that's been had over and over again many times before.
foldr 6y ago
*pejoritatively ha - I thought I'd caught that in an edit.