7 ms·

> But to others, "politics at work" means "are we paying women and men the same for doing the same job?" and "are our recruiting practices leading to a non-dive

> But to others, "politics at work" means "are we paying women and men the same for doing the same job?" and "are our recruiting practices leading to a non-diverse workforce and missing out on great people who should work here?" and "what problems does our company sole, and for whom?". These are really important questions. Why wouldn't you want to bring them up at work? Because there is only one accepted answer. Anyone who drifts from that into the opposing side will be reprimanded, scarred for their remaining tenure at the company, and/or fired. Good luck objecting to your company having N number of positions literally reserved for only certain races. Source: company X recruiter.

cgag 6y ago
What the hell is water? People can't even see politics anymore they're so steeped in it.
- emodendroket 6y ago
  I think this is perhaps true in a different way than you mean it: politics has such a pervasive effect on people's lives that it is nearly impossible to remain resolutely neutral about everything (and going out of your way to try to do so anyway will come to be seen as its own stance).
angry_octet 6y ago
No doubt you would be offended and angry if your CEO instituted a policy of workplace secularism, that extended to no career progression if you were a churchgoer. Or if important people commented on how smelly you were, and everyone laughed about Mr Stinker and your funny food. Banks wouldn't lend you money for a house in the nice part of town, because they all knew you were a snollygoster and they didn't want your kind at the local school. You'd probably be angry at their prejudices. But I'm sure you'd understand, because groupthink is bad.
- yibg 6y ago
  And you'd be completely fine with being passed over for a job because there is a quota for pink people and you're not pink? One can object to bad solutions to a problem without denying the problem itself exists. It's exactly the stifling of these types of discussions to real problems that's the issue. Any suggestion of alternatives or pointing out problems with existing practices, and you get labeled a bigot.
  - angry_octet 6y ago
    You understand that white people are literally pink right? And there is an effective white guy target at many workplaces: all but one. People choose other people like themselves. The preposterous nature of your contention is that I would be passed over for being too white? Well, I would simply take one of the many other jobs my strategic class and race positioning allows me to take.
    - yibg 6y ago
      The Asian students that can't get into Harvard despite higher scores disagree with you.
      - angry_octet 6y ago
        Oh you mean affirmative action for non-Asian minorities is unfair to Asian ones? I don't really think that is unfair, but then I think the whole system of elite university admission is a total disaster for equity.
        bitcharmer 6y ago
        > Oh you mean affirmative action for non-Asian minorities is unfair to Asian ones? Yes, it objectively is. No matter how you will try to paint it using colourful phrases and invocation of "justice" - this is discrimination.
        angry_octet 6y ago
- sidlls 6y ago
  One can object to a proposed solution to a problem without contributing to the problem or being part of the problem. Opposing the explicit carve out of 25% of a recruiting pipeline specifically for HBCU candidates, for example, does not imply one is racist.
  - angry_octet 6y ago
    One can offer an opinion, and if the motivation is not inherently racist it may have weight. But to your contention: HBCUs have significant underrepresentation in tech -- despite graduating many talented individuals, they never seem to get hired. A company could see a competitive advantage in recruiting there, where competition for talent is less. The mgmt might also think that the resulting diversity of thought is beneficial. Other potential employees might be attracted to work at such a forward looking company. What basis would you have for believing that such a goal is bad for a software company? Is it your job to bolster the hiring practices of the past? Reply to reply: You're arguing for the status quo, against setting targets for HBCU grads. Why? What is the basis for believing it is any better, when it pretty clearly disadvantages minorities? I only made one contention: graduates of HBCUs are under-represented in tech. If this is a misapprehension please correct me.
    - sidlls 6y ago
      You've asserted several things that are themselves unsubstantiated or at least controversial. "Is it your job to bolster the hiring practices of the past?" is a particularly good example of what I referred to in my comment, actually. You're essentially shutting down any rational conversation by asserting that disagreement is necessarily in support of "hiring practices of the past."
    - sidlls 6y ago
      "You're arguing for the status quo, against setting targets for HBCU grads." I'm not, and this is a real problem with the kind of thinking in this area these days. Opposition to a quota system is not the same as support of the status quo. "I only made one contention: graduates of HBCUs are under-represented in tech." > The mgmt might also think that the resulting diversity of thought is beneficial. The implication that diversity in ethnicity, gender, etc., is the same as diversity of thought is not a good quality assertion. It certainly isn't uniformly true. > work at such a forward looking company. "Forward looking" is certainly an assertion, here. Not everyone would agree that quotas are "forward looking."

cgag 6y ago

What the hell is water? People can't even see politics anymore they're so steeped in it.

emodendroket 6y ago
I think this is perhaps true in a different way than you mean it: politics has such a pervasive effect on people's lives that it is nearly impossible to remain resolutely neutral about everything (and going out of your way to try to do so anyway will come to be seen as its own stance).

angry_octet 6y ago

No doubt you would be offended and angry if your CEO instituted a policy of workplace secularism, that extended to no career progression if you were a churchgoer. Or if important people commented on how smelly you were, and everyone laughed about Mr Stinker and your funny food. Banks wouldn't lend you money for a house in the nice part of town, because they all knew you were a snollygoster and they didn't want your kind at the local school. You'd probably be angry at their prejudices. But I'm sure you'd understand, because groupthink is bad.

yibg 6y ago
And you'd be completely fine with being passed over for a job because there is a quota for pink people and you're not pink? One can object to bad solutions to a problem without denying the problem itself exists. It's exactly the stifling of these types of discussions to real problems that's the issue. Any suggestion of alternatives or pointing out problems with existing practices, and you get labeled a bigot.
- angry_octet 6y ago
  You understand that white people are literally pink right? And there is an effective white guy target at many workplaces: all but one. People choose other people like themselves. The preposterous nature of your contention is that I would be passed over for being too white? Well, I would simply take one of the many other jobs my strategic class and race positioning allows me to take.
  - yibg 6y ago
    The Asian students that can't get into Harvard despite higher scores disagree with you.
    - angry_octet 6y ago
      Oh you mean affirmative action for non-Asian minorities is unfair to Asian ones? I don't really think that is unfair, but then I think the whole system of elite university admission is a total disaster for equity.
      - bitcharmer 6y ago
        > Oh you mean affirmative action for non-Asian minorities is unfair to Asian ones? Yes, it objectively is. No matter how you will try to paint it using colourful phrases and invocation of "justice" - this is discrimination.
        angry_octet 6y ago
sidlls 6y ago
One can object to a proposed solution to a problem without contributing to the problem or being part of the problem. Opposing the explicit carve out of 25% of a recruiting pipeline specifically for HBCU candidates, for example, does not imply one is racist.
- angry_octet 6y ago
  One can offer an opinion, and if the motivation is not inherently racist it may have weight. But to your contention: HBCUs have significant underrepresentation in tech -- despite graduating many talented individuals, they never seem to get hired. A company could see a competitive advantage in recruiting there, where competition for talent is less. The mgmt might also think that the resulting diversity of thought is beneficial. Other potential employees might be attracted to work at such a forward looking company. What basis would you have for believing that such a goal is bad for a software company? Is it your job to bolster the hiring practices of the past? Reply to reply: You're arguing for the status quo, against setting targets for HBCU grads. Why? What is the basis for believing it is any better, when it pretty clearly disadvantages minorities? I only made one contention: graduates of HBCUs are under-represented in tech. If this is a misapprehension please correct me.
  - sidlls 6y ago
    You've asserted several things that are themselves unsubstantiated or at least controversial. "Is it your job to bolster the hiring practices of the past?" is a particularly good example of what I referred to in my comment, actually. You're essentially shutting down any rational conversation by asserting that disagreement is necessarily in support of "hiring practices of the past."
  - sidlls 6y ago
    "You're arguing for the status quo, against setting targets for HBCU grads." I'm not, and this is a real problem with the kind of thinking in this area these days. Opposition to a quota system is not the same as support of the status quo. "I only made one contention: graduates of HBCUs are under-represented in tech." > The mgmt might also think that the resulting diversity of thought is beneficial. The implication that diversity in ethnicity, gender, etc., is the same as diversity of thought is not a good quality assertion. It certainly isn't uniformly true. > work at such a forward looking company. "Forward looking" is certainly an assertion, here. Not everyone would agree that quotas are "forward looking."