4 ms·

> fixating on the Third-Reich-esque concept of "human race" what does this mean? I'm no historian, but I'm pretty sure the Third Reich was focused on the "Germ

> fixating on the Third-Reich-esque concept of "human race" what does this mean? I'm no historian, but I'm pretty sure the Third Reich was focused on the "German race", to the exclusion of all others. As for ratios, the ratio indicates an uneven pipeline. If idk, programmers were all white and highly rewarded, you might ask why that is. The reason can be one of two things: white people are culturally/systemically advantaged in getting those jobs (for example, those jobs are only available in predominantly-white areas or the education to do the job is more accessible to white people), or white people are more fundamentally capable of programming than others. The former is a social critique, the latter is white supremacy. If you reject the white supremacist position (as you should), then the question becomes whether you can make the system provide more of an equal opportunity.

twofornone 5y ago
>white people are culturally/systemically advantaged in getting those jobs (for example, those jobs are only available in predominantly-white areas or the education to do the job is more accessible to white people), or white people are more fundamentally capable of programming than others. The former is a social critique, the latter is white supremacy. Or: "white" culture emphasizes values that tend to produce people who are more interested and/or more capable programmers. The same way that, say, asian immigrants are more likely to value education than other demographics. This white supremacy argument is a disingenuous appeal to the extremely negative connotation of the term and poisons the argument with a dishonest framing, as though the only possible outcome in a perfect meritocracy is equal representation. Nothing about human nature suggests this to be the case. Diversity of opinion also implies diversity of interests. The pipeline problem is not merely a question of unequal opportunity, unless you deny minorities the agency to pursue their own interests. Some groups of people value athletic achievement above intellectual achievement, and it would be unreasonable to expect those demographics to produce a proportional number of competent programmers.
- beaconstudios 5y ago
  I agree; I'm not saying that a perfectly fair system would produce ratios identical to demographics. There's always going to be cultural aspects (though the degree to which black and white culture in America are separate is obviously a large part a consequence of racism and slavery). The point is only to use the outcome as a heuristic for what to look into.
- okwubodu 5y ago
  > This white supremacy argument is a disingenuous appeal to the extremely negative connotation It's a perfectly reasonable argument, if not at times overfitted. In the US, zero (0) presidents have been born post-Civil Rights Act. In fact, Ruby Bridges [0] is only a year older than Bill Gates. So did Ruby's peers just happen to not produce programmers at the same rate as Bill's because they didn't "value" education? Hey, maybe it's true. Who knows? But the idea that a demographic whose grandparents had to be escorted by the national guard to protect them from white supremacist mobs on the way to get an education being behind in education has nothing to do with white supremacy, is ridiculous at absolute best. > The pipeline problem is not merely a question of unequal opportunity, unless you deny minorities the agency to pursue their own interests. So let's make the opportunity equal and see where the cards fall. Did the kids in my neighborhood and school find making computer games any less interesting than I did? No, but I could afford a computer. Guess where we are now, respectively. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_Bridges https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_Bridges
Zababa 5y ago
> what does this mean? I'm no historian, but I'm pretty sure the Third Reich was focused on the "German race", to the exclusion of all others. In France, we don't consider that people have a different race. We may talk about ethnicity, culture, but not race. Asking what race someone belongs to is something that would be seen as very offensive. Part of it would be because of the racists undertones (we don't make much of a difference between people that think human races exists, and people that think human races exists and some are better than others), part of it because it would be treating someone like a dog. Races are concepts that we apply to animals, not humans. Saying "the white race", "la race blanche" or "the black race", "la race noire" in French, would always be interpreted as racist, and most of the time white supremacist. > As for ratios, the ratio indicates an uneven pipeline. If idk, programmers were all white and highly rewarded, you might ask why that is. The reason can be one of two things: white people are culturally/systemically advantaged in getting those jobs (for example, those jobs are only available in predominantly-white areas or the education to do the job is more accessible to white people), or white people are more fundamentally capable of programming than others. The former is a social critique, the latter is white supremacy. It feels very weird to me that you consider that races exists, but then reject any differences between them. I honestly fail to understand why everyone should perform the same in every field. That's the opposite of everything I know about biology and evolution. I also think that those things are not so easy to separate. People will tend to do things they are good at, so a field that is dominated by X people will often correlate with X people being better in this field. You then have two solutions: positive discrimination, or changing the field. As an aside, it also feels weird to me that you call believing "white people are more fundamentally capable of programming than others" "white supremacy". According to Wikipedia, white supremacy is "the belief that white people are superior to those of other races and thus should dominate them". I personally reject the idea of races. Even if I have to work within that framework, I personally don't believe that white people are superior to those of other races. But even more fundamentally than that, if white people were fundamentally superior to those of other races (which I don't believe), I absolutely reject the idea that this would give them any right or legitimacy to dominate other people. I believe profoundely in self-determination. I believe that we shouldn't have the right to tell people what they do, even if it means they may make mistakes, or non optimal choices. I find it surprising and a bit disturbing that you would jump so easily from "white people are superior in one field" to "white people are the superior race and should dominate others".
adwn 5y ago
[flagged]
- beaconstudios 5y ago
  > Today's "diversity" champions are big on sorting people into genetically determined but superficial categories called "races", and make decisions based on those categories rather than an individual's character, qualifications, or merit. If you're talking about affirmative action, the argument is that black people are held back in American society by historical and institutional racism (an objective fact), and thus are not operating on a level playing field. I think affirmative action is a bad response to that problem, but the problem it seeks to patch over is real.

twofornone 5y ago

>white people are culturally/systemically advantaged in getting those jobs (for example, those jobs are only available in predominantly-white areas or the education to do the job is more accessible to white people), or white people are more fundamentally capable of programming than others. The former is a social critique, the latter is white supremacy. Or: "white" culture emphasizes values that tend to produce people who are more interested and/or more capable programmers. The same way that, say, asian immigrants are more likely to value education than other demographics. This white supremacy argument is a disingenuous appeal to the extremely negative connotation of the term and poisons the argument with a dishonest framing, as though the only possible outcome in a perfect meritocracy is equal representation. Nothing about human nature suggests this to be the case. Diversity of opinion also implies diversity of interests. The pipeline problem is not merely a question of unequal opportunity, unless you deny minorities the agency to pursue their own interests. Some groups of people value athletic achievement above intellectual achievement, and it would be unreasonable to expect those demographics to produce a proportional number of competent programmers.

beaconstudios 5y ago
I agree; I'm not saying that a perfectly fair system would produce ratios identical to demographics. There's always going to be cultural aspects (though the degree to which black and white culture in America are separate is obviously a large part a consequence of racism and slavery). The point is only to use the outcome as a heuristic for what to look into.
okwubodu 5y ago
> This white supremacy argument is a disingenuous appeal to the extremely negative connotation It's a perfectly reasonable argument, if not at times overfitted. In the US, zero (0) presidents have been born post-Civil Rights Act. In fact, Ruby Bridges [0] is only a year older than Bill Gates. So did Ruby's peers just happen to not produce programmers at the same rate as Bill's because they didn't "value" education? Hey, maybe it's true. Who knows? But the idea that a demographic whose grandparents had to be escorted by the national guard to protect them from white supremacist mobs on the way to get an education being behind in education has nothing to do with white supremacy, is ridiculous at absolute best. > The pipeline problem is not merely a question of unequal opportunity, unless you deny minorities the agency to pursue their own interests. So let's make the opportunity equal and see where the cards fall. Did the kids in my neighborhood and school find making computer games any less interesting than I did? No, but I could afford a computer. Guess where we are now, respectively. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_Bridges https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_Bridges

Zababa 5y ago

> what does this mean? I'm no historian, but I'm pretty sure the Third Reich was focused on the "German race", to the exclusion of all others. In France, we don't consider that people have a different race. We may talk about ethnicity, culture, but not race. Asking what race someone belongs to is something that would be seen as very offensive. Part of it would be because of the racists undertones (we don't make much of a difference between people that think human races exists, and people that think human races exists and some are better than others), part of it because it would be treating someone like a dog. Races are concepts that we apply to animals, not humans. Saying "the white race", "la race blanche" or "the black race", "la race noire" in French, would always be interpreted as racist, and most of the time white supremacist. > As for ratios, the ratio indicates an uneven pipeline. If idk, programmers were all white and highly rewarded, you might ask why that is. The reason can be one of two things: white people are culturally/systemically advantaged in getting those jobs (for example, those jobs are only available in predominantly-white areas or the education to do the job is more accessible to white people), or white people are more fundamentally capable of programming than others. The former is a social critique, the latter is white supremacy. It feels very weird to me that you consider that races exists, but then reject any differences between them. I honestly fail to understand why everyone should perform the same in every field. That's the opposite of everything I know about biology and evolution. I also think that those things are not so easy to separate. People will tend to do things they are good at, so a field that is dominated by X people will often correlate with X people being better in this field. You then have two solutions: positive discrimination, or changing the field. As an aside, it also feels weird to me that you call believing "white people are more fundamentally capable of programming than others" "white supremacy". According to Wikipedia, white supremacy is "the belief that white people are superior to those of other races and thus should dominate them". I personally reject the idea of races. Even if I have to work within that framework, I personally don't believe that white people are superior to those of other races. But even more fundamentally than that, if white people were fundamentally superior to those of other races (which I don't believe), I absolutely reject the idea that this would give them any right or legitimacy to dominate other people. I believe profoundely in self-determination. I believe that we shouldn't have the right to tell people what they do, even if it means they may make mistakes, or non optimal choices. I find it surprising and a bit disturbing that you would jump so easily from "white people are superior in one field" to "white people are the superior race and should dominate others".

adwn 5y ago

[flagged]

beaconstudios 5y ago
> Today's "diversity" champions are big on sorting people into genetically determined but superficial categories called "races", and make decisions based on those categories rather than an individual's character, qualifications, or merit. If you're talking about affirmative action, the argument is that black people are held back in American society by historical and institutional racism (an objective fact), and thus are not operating on a level playing field. I think affirmative action is a bad response to that problem, but the problem it seeks to patch over is real.