5 ms·

The idea of something “backfiring on minorities” as an entire group is part of the problem here. The fact that there was a backlash after someone was fired can

by panic 6y ago

The idea of something “backfiring on minorities” as an entire group is part of the problem here. The fact that there was a backlash after someone was fired can’t be used as a justification for not hiring other people whose only relationship to the original person is “also some kind of minority”.

Causality1 6y ago
Legally, no. From a practical standpoint, people do whatever they think they can get away with.
- wizzwizz4 6y ago
  Reasonably, no. It's not a reasonable conclusion to make. Most people are minorities.
  - imbnwa 6y ago
    In America? Are we cutting up the European-American demographic by gender and sexuality, cause that'd be the most immediate way for me to grasp this idea?
    - wizzwizz4 6y ago
      Gender, sexuality, neurodivergence, “race” (however you define it), “caste” (however you define it), disabilities (however you define them, tbh, though it generally makes more sense than “race” or “caste”)… Either I just have a really skewed social circle, or most people are minorities in at least one category.
- imbnwa 6y ago
  We have to resort to legal solutions because the sad truth is that you can't at all trust entire demographics to alter or even reflect on their ethical stance. I mean, there are enough people on this very board whose response to Black diversity initiatives in particular, is that they're too low IQ on average and therefore will be disruptive to team productivity and cohesion, despite people like Naseem Taleb going after IQ measurements.
  - lawnchair_larry 6y ago
    Can you find any examples of HN comments that have suggested Black people are too low IQ on average and will be disruptive? I really doubt such a thing exists.
eqvinox 6y ago
Of course it's part of the problem. But it's also a somewhat unavoidable side effect of supporting minorities. In a very weird way, anti-discriminative behaviour itself needs to be discriminative, because it needs to support minorities. And rightfully so, there needs to be a positive bias for minorities who were historically disenfranchised. Otherwise the historical disadvantage will propagate itself further. But then when you look at firings like this, it becomes very hard to distinguish whether it's discrimination or rightful. These two are members of minority groups. Their firing is, rightfully, examined to fine detail. But that same magnification lens has that chilling effect for the decision of hiring minority members. It's really a have-your-cake-and-eat-it problem. It f_cking sucks. And I don't know how to do better. I absolutely think we need affirmative action to relieve historic deficits, but at the same time this affirmative support is in itself discriminatory and can have negative effects. What to do? :(
- shard972 6y ago
  What if it wasn't all just historic deficits? If it was, Liberia would be a rival to america
- higerordermap 6y ago
  You know who is at the end disadvantaged by affirmative action? Minorities / women. Even if a PoC / woman is actually talented, people will subconsciously perceive them as diversity hires. There were plenty of instances of people telling on this forum that they don't want to be seen as diversity person, but actual engineer.
  - xenihn 6y ago
    I think we've officially reached the point where you can stomp lumping all women together. Some companies are now prioritizing interns and junior devs from HBCUs, because they ended up with a new problem where the overwhelming majority of non-male hires for those roles were Asian.
- panic 6y ago
  Yeah, I don't know what the answer is. It feels like any attempt to design a solution ends up having to work around racism or, as you said in another comment, having to "take the devil's (racist's) advocate position". And sometimes the racism even takes the form of someone playing devil's advocate, in an honest attempt to make sure the solution is "realistic", but actually advancing the racists' position for them. The goal ultimately has to be to get to a place where we never have to think about what the racists will do because they don't have power any more.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

by panic 6y ago

Causality1 6y ago

Legally, no. From a practical standpoint, people do whatever they think they can get away with.

wizzwizz4 6y ago
Reasonably, no. It's not a reasonable conclusion to make. Most people are minorities.
- imbnwa 6y ago
  In America? Are we cutting up the European-American demographic by gender and sexuality, cause that'd be the most immediate way for me to grasp this idea?
  - wizzwizz4 6y ago
    Gender, sexuality, neurodivergence, “race” (however you define it), “caste” (however you define it), disabilities (however you define them, tbh, though it generally makes more sense than “race” or “caste”)… Either I just have a really skewed social circle, or most people are minorities in at least one category.
imbnwa 6y ago
We have to resort to legal solutions because the sad truth is that you can't at all trust entire demographics to alter or even reflect on their ethical stance. I mean, there are enough people on this very board whose response to Black diversity initiatives in particular, is that they're too low IQ on average and therefore will be disruptive to team productivity and cohesion, despite people like Naseem Taleb going after IQ measurements.
- lawnchair_larry 6y ago
  Can you find any examples of HN comments that have suggested Black people are too low IQ on average and will be disruptive? I really doubt such a thing exists.

eqvinox 6y ago

Of course it's part of the problem. But it's also a somewhat unavoidable side effect of supporting minorities. In a very weird way, anti-discriminative behaviour itself needs to be discriminative, because it needs to support minorities. And rightfully so, there needs to be a positive bias for minorities who were historically disenfranchised. Otherwise the historical disadvantage will propagate itself further. But then when you look at firings like this, it becomes very hard to distinguish whether it's discrimination or rightful. These two are members of minority groups. Their firing is, rightfully, examined to fine detail. But that same magnification lens has that chilling effect for the decision of hiring minority members. It's really a have-your-cake-and-eat-it problem. It f_cking sucks. And I don't know how to do better. I absolutely think we need affirmative action to relieve historic deficits, but at the same time this affirmative support is in itself discriminatory and can have negative effects. What to do? :(

shard972 6y ago
What if it wasn't all just historic deficits? If it was, Liberia would be a rival to america
higerordermap 6y ago
You know who is at the end disadvantaged by affirmative action? Minorities / women. Even if a PoC / woman is actually talented, people will subconsciously perceive them as diversity hires. There were plenty of instances of people telling on this forum that they don't want to be seen as diversity person, but actual engineer.
- xenihn 6y ago
  I think we've officially reached the point where you can stomp lumping all women together. Some companies are now prioritizing interns and junior devs from HBCUs, because they ended up with a new problem where the overwhelming majority of non-male hires for those roles were Asian.
panic 6y ago
Yeah, I don't know what the answer is. It feels like any attempt to design a solution ends up having to work around racism or, as you said in another comment, having to "take the devil's (racist's) advocate position". And sometimes the racism even takes the form of someone playing devil's advocate, in an honest attempt to make sure the solution is "realistic", but actually advancing the racists' position for them. The goal ultimately has to be to get to a place where we never have to think about what the racists will do because they don't have power any more.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]