4 ms·

The problem being described is an identifiable group feels like they are unwelcome or an otherwise hindered group within the industry. They use the population r

The problem being described is an identifiable group feels like they are unwelcome or an otherwise hindered group within the industry. They use the population ratio as a mere point of evidence to argue it’s not just anecdotal. Pointing out what groups _aren’t_ underrepresented is like saying “Yeah, we’ll, all lives matter” in response to “Black lives matter”.

dahfizz 5y ago
Communication is hard, and having to dance around the topic to be PC makes communication much harder. Your parent was responding to this statement: > We do have a diversity problem in tech, no doubt. And their response - that tech is, in fact, diverse and meritocratic - is a fair response to that statement. I think what OP meant by their statement is that there is a diversity problem _pertaining specifically to people of color_ in tech. Which is true. I think we would all benefit by being a little generous with each other when trying to discuss these sensitive issues.
- danaris 5y ago
  Saying "We do have plenty of representation of some minorities" is not a refutation of "we have a diversity problem in tech". In fact, it is exactly these kinds of attitudes that directly contribute to perpetuating the diversity problem in tech. And if you think you "have to dance around [a] topic to be PC", then chances are, what you're struggling with is either internalized bias (racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, etc)—or the fact that you're just a bigot yourself who's upset that their bigotry is no longer socially acceptable.
  - dahfizz 5y ago
    I think you are not participating in good faith. > Saying "We do have plenty of representation of some minorities" is not a refutation of "we have a diversity problem in tech". Nobody is trying to refute anything. Your knee jerk reaction is to attack anyone who doesn't 100% agree with you. _You_ are turning a nuanced discussion into an argument. > And if you think you "have to dance around [a] topic to be PC", then chances are, what you're struggling with is either internalized bias (racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, etc)—or the fact that you're just a bigot yourself who's upset that their bigotry is no longer socially acceptable. Again, there is no reason for you to go full offence here. You are deliberately choosing the least charitable interpretation in order to make me the enemy. I was referring to OP's own statement: > This is dangerous territory to comment on perhaps I was giving a reason why OP's comment was a little generalized.
- jjk166 5y ago
  If someone wants to express a complex and nuanced opinion, they should actually explicitly state the nuanced bit. Being generous and giving people the benefit of the doubt at best perpetuates a bad habit which people who are not acting in good faith take advantage of. If you wouldn't feel comfortable expressing an opinion clearly and unambiguously, you probably shouldn't express the opinion at all.
  - bluefirebrand 5y ago
    > Being generous and giving people the benefit of the doubt at best perpetuates a bad habit It's actually a great habit that helps facilitate polite discussions. It's called the principle of charity and unless I'm mistaken it's actually one of the rules of this site.
    - jjk166 5y ago
      I was referring to not communicating clearly as the bad habit. By simply assuming a meaning instead of calling it out, the person who initially spoke ambiguously gets no feedback that their statement was unclear. And the principle of charity or charitable interpretation requires interpreting a speaker's statements in the most rational way possible and, in the case of any argument, considering its best, strongest possible interpretation. It means that if a statement could be read in an irrational way or in a rational way, you choose the latter. So if for example I said "sheep are white" you could interpret that to be the obviously false claim that 100% of sheep are white with no exceptions, or as the much more reasonable statement that sheep are typically white, where the principle of charity would be assuming the second interpretation. It has nothing to do with bending over backwards to make a statement palatable. The hacker news guideline you are thinking of is "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize."
andyxor 5y ago
Well, all lives matter

dahfizz 5y ago

Communication is hard, and having to dance around the topic to be PC makes communication much harder. Your parent was responding to this statement: > We do have a diversity problem in tech, no doubt. And their response - that tech is, in fact, diverse and meritocratic - is a fair response to that statement. I think what OP meant by their statement is that there is a diversity problem _pertaining specifically to people of color_ in tech. Which is true. I think we would all benefit by being a little generous with each other when trying to discuss these sensitive issues.

danaris 5y ago
Saying "We do have plenty of representation of some minorities" is not a refutation of "we have a diversity problem in tech". In fact, it is exactly these kinds of attitudes that directly contribute to perpetuating the diversity problem in tech. And if you think you "have to dance around [a] topic to be PC", then chances are, what you're struggling with is either internalized bias (racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, etc)—or the fact that you're just a bigot yourself who's upset that their bigotry is no longer socially acceptable.
- dahfizz 5y ago
  I think you are not participating in good faith. > Saying "We do have plenty of representation of some minorities" is not a refutation of "we have a diversity problem in tech". Nobody is trying to refute anything. Your knee jerk reaction is to attack anyone who doesn't 100% agree with you. _You_ are turning a nuanced discussion into an argument. > And if you think you "have to dance around [a] topic to be PC", then chances are, what you're struggling with is either internalized bias (racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, etc)—or the fact that you're just a bigot yourself who's upset that their bigotry is no longer socially acceptable. Again, there is no reason for you to go full offence here. You are deliberately choosing the least charitable interpretation in order to make me the enemy. I was referring to OP's own statement: > This is dangerous territory to comment on perhaps I was giving a reason why OP's comment was a little generalized.
jjk166 5y ago
If someone wants to express a complex and nuanced opinion, they should actually explicitly state the nuanced bit. Being generous and giving people the benefit of the doubt at best perpetuates a bad habit which people who are not acting in good faith take advantage of. If you wouldn't feel comfortable expressing an opinion clearly and unambiguously, you probably shouldn't express the opinion at all.
- bluefirebrand 5y ago
  > Being generous and giving people the benefit of the doubt at best perpetuates a bad habit It's actually a great habit that helps facilitate polite discussions. It's called the principle of charity and unless I'm mistaken it's actually one of the rules of this site.
  - jjk166 5y ago
    I was referring to not communicating clearly as the bad habit. By simply assuming a meaning instead of calling it out, the person who initially spoke ambiguously gets no feedback that their statement was unclear. And the principle of charity or charitable interpretation requires interpreting a speaker's statements in the most rational way possible and, in the case of any argument, considering its best, strongest possible interpretation. It means that if a statement could be read in an irrational way or in a rational way, you choose the latter. So if for example I said "sheep are white" you could interpret that to be the obviously false claim that 100% of sheep are white with no exceptions, or as the much more reasonable statement that sheep are typically white, where the principle of charity would be assuming the second interpretation. It has nothing to do with bending over backwards to make a statement palatable. The hacker news guideline you are thinking of is "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize."

andyxor 5y ago

Well, all lives matter