3 ms·

Is it your impression that "zero people" disagree with prevailing DEI orthodoxy?

by civilized 5y ago

md8z 5y ago
Sorry 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 ago
    I 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 ago
      Ok, 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 ago
        Sorry 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.
        civilized 5y ago
        Ok. There is a pattern of people being punished disproportionately for saying or doing things that someone interpreted to be racially offensive or inappropriate, but weren't deserving of punishment from my perspective. The principle underlying the pattern seems to be "if you offended a member of a marginalized group, you must suffer consequences regardless of context or any defense you may have for yourself." I disagree with this principle and I disagree with downplaying the consequences that have been doled out on its basis. Let me know if you find this thesis interesting enough to discuss, question, or dispute. Otherwise I think I've made myself clear enough at this point.
        md8z 5y ago
        Thanks for this, that's a good explanation. I don't have anything to dispute regarding your principle, but you only mentioned two people so I don't know if I would really call that a pattern of anything in particular. Also I don't even see how that's related to this article at all, as the author doesn't say anything specifically about racial issues or marginalized groups. I think you may be looking for a pattern that isn't there? Edit: If you want my own perspective, the author makes some really baffling and unprofessional statements in this article that I think would make me not want to have this person as my educator. But I wouldn't say they're related to any group in particular, there are just a lot of bad university professors out there who have no respect for their students.

Is it your impression that "zero people" disagree with prevailing DEI orthodoxy?

md8z 5y ago

Sorry 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 ago
  I 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 ago
    Ok, 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 ago
      Sorry 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.
      - civilized 5y ago
        Ok. There is a pattern of people being punished disproportionately for saying or doing things that someone interpreted to be racially offensive or inappropriate, but weren't deserving of punishment from my perspective. The principle underlying the pattern seems to be "if you offended a member of a marginalized group, you must suffer consequences regardless of context or any defense you may have for yourself." I disagree with this principle and I disagree with downplaying the consequences that have been doled out on its basis. Let me know if you find this thesis interesting enough to discuss, question, or dispute. Otherwise I think I've made myself clear enough at this point.
        md8z 5y ago
        Thanks for this, that's a good explanation. I don't have anything to dispute regarding your principle, but you only mentioned two people so I don't know if I would really call that a pattern of anything in particular. Also I don't even see how that's related to this article at all, as the author doesn't say anything specifically about racial issues or marginalized groups. I think you may be looking for a pattern that isn't there? Edit: If you want my own perspective, the author makes some really baffling and unprofessional statements in this article that I think would make me not want to have this person as my educator. But I wouldn't say they're related to any group in particular, there are just a lot of bad university professors out there who have no respect for their students.