5 ms·
We hear this kind of minimization a lot when we want to talk about bad decisions made in the name of DEI. If he was disinvited, it doesn't matter because he wa
by civilized 5y ago
We hear this kind of minimization a lot when we want to talk about bad decisions made in the name of DEI.
If he was disinvited, it doesn't matter because he wasn't censured.
If he was censured, it doesn't matter because he wasn't fired.
If he was fired, it doesn't matter because he'll get another job.
If no one will give him another job, it doesn't matter because he deserved it.
- md8z 5y agoThe way you've phrased this comment without any context makes it really hard to respond. If there are zero people in the world who want to work with you, maybe consider that the problem is yourself? What value are you really gaining from being stubborn about social issues if nobody else agrees with you?
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- Bostonian 5y agoNot that long ago, people who supported same-sex marriage were a small minority. Should they have been banned from giving technical talks and expelled from research groups?
- md8z 5y agoNo, of course not. If you consider all other possible opinions on social matters to be morally equivalent to a random person's stance on same-sex marriage then I don't know what to tell you, that seems to be a very difficult way to have a conversation about anything.
- civilized 5y agoIs it your impression that "zero people" disagree with prevailing DEI orthodoxy?
- md8z 5y agoSorry but I have no idea what that is supposed to mean, can you please be more specific?
- civilized 5y ago> If there are zero people in the world who want to work with you, maybe consider that the problem is yourself? What point did you intend to make here? Who are these zero people? Who is the person who should consider if the problem is themselves?
- md8z 5y agoI was referring to the people you referred to into your last sentence when you said "no one will give him another job". You didn't provide any context so I'm just going with whatever you had in mind. That's what I mean when I said it makes it very difficult to respond, you could help out here by explaining who these people are. If you meant the person in the article then how about let's talk about that?
- civilized 5y agoOk, sure, I can clarify that. I was talking about a pattern of commentary downplaying the professional consequences for running afoul of DEI orthodoxy, as if it is not worth discussing. The op-ed author here was not fired. However, Don McNeil of the NYT was pushed out, and as of yet has not found a comparable job AFAIK. He's just one example of the many whose experiences with DEI administrative authoritarianism have been minimized as unimportant. Justine Sacco is another, although she did eventually get back on her feet. The point is, there's always a way to minimize and downplay and say that it could have been worse for the person who suffered some consequence. But it's just a deflection from whether the consequence itself was appropriate.
- md8z 5y agoSorry but I still have no idea what you mean by "DEI orthodoxy" or "DEI administrative authoritarianism", I don't understand what that is supposed to mean and the way you've used them seems to be religiously/politically charged. You may also want to pay attention to the HN guidelines: "Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity." If you want to discuss what consequence was appropriate then we can talk about that, but your comment didn't mention anything further about that, instead you talked about a pattern of something that I don't understand what it is and then didn't clarify.
- ratww 5y agoI'm as leftist as it gets, but parent (and I assume you) is talking about cancellation. I don't think it's honest to compare a cancellation with having "zero people in the world who want to work with you". Often cancellations happen due to external pressure, and even in cases where there's internal pressure (eg: Netflix-Chapelle-gate), there is definitely a non-zero number of people willing to work with the canceled person (and no, it's not only "other bigots" in this category).
- md8z 5y agoI'm not the one who made the comparison, the parent comment suggested that no one would give that person a job. I know people who are unable to get jobs anywhere. They tend to suffer from debilitating physical or mental health issues through no fault of their own. To me it's unfair to compare that to a person who got let go for having some kind of professional disagreement with management. I mean I just can't believe that this keeps coming up in the context of startups as if it's something weird or unusual. If management says they don't want to serve some customers, and you want to serve those customers, then... go somewhere else that will? And if it turns out nobody wants to serve those customers (or those customers just aren't profitable) maybe management was right all along, and it was a bad business decision to begin with?