6 ms·

Hear hear. If your conception of diversity doesn't include viewpoint diversity, you are operating within a prejudicial, small-minded, small-hearted, and regres

Hear hear. If your conception of diversity doesn't include viewpoint diversity, you are operating within a prejudicial, small-minded, small-hearted, and regressive framework. If you belive the most salient details about a person can be read from their appearance, you are a bigot. This cuts every which way, but many want to pretend it's not true for their own biases. This includes seeing someone with blue hair and a pronouns pin and writing them off immediately just as much as seeing an old white man with a camo mouse pad and assuming the worst. Don't do either of these. You'd be surprised what differences can be bridged if you approach those different from yourself with patience, love, and toleration. Remember, it's not really toleration if there aren't some things about someone that are legitimately hard for you to accept. It's not an impressive moral feat to extend welcome to those who you already felt were on your side. My personal bias here tends toward reflexive dislike of DEI stuff because it feels cult-y to me, but the message of toleration it's rooted in (even if that's not always practiced by its proponents) is obviously the only alternative to fighting over whose values will be imposed on everyone else. At some point, it's federalism live-and-let-live or it's war, kinetic or memetic.

thaumasiotes 4y ago
> My personal bias here tends toward reflexive dislike of DEI stuff because it feels cult-y to me, but the message of toleration it's rooted in (even if that's not always practiced by its proponents) is obviously the only alternative to fighting over whose values will be imposed on everyone else. Alternative? The people who promulgate the messages are quite aggressive about imposing their values on everyone else.
PuppyTailWags 4y ago
Genuinely asking: Is there a limit as to viewpoint diversity that should be tolerated in perceptions of diversity? eg. Should viewpoint diversity be extended to welcoming "women shouldn't have the right to vote" or "black people are not human beings"? If so, how does one value an opinion and also the opinion that some opinions are worth less than others?
- pc86 4y ago
  How could either one of these viewpoints possibly come up during a job interview?
  - PuppyTailWags 4y ago
    You'd be surprised! I once had lunch with a candidate who was glad no women were interviewing him, because he found salads distasteful.
    - pedrosorio 4y ago
      > was glad no women were interviewing him, because he found salads distasteful ?
- spawarotti 4y ago
  I think it is fair to not spend time and resources engaging with such ideas, as long as there is a good "decision record" documentation explaining that this subject was already discussed, decisions were made, and there is no point coming back to it. Same as with flat Earth - have some documentation thoroughly debunking the idea and point to it anybody trying to start the conversation again. Tell them they need to first read through all of it. If they are still not convinced after that, they are free to lay out their argument, but it is on them to make the argument strong, which should be, like, really hard, given the plethora of evidence we have that Earth is not flat. In the examples you gave the "decision record" would be fairly simple - we assume that human rights [1] are a given. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights
- daenz 4y ago
  You're genuinely asking about the most extreme and uncharitable interpretation of the GP's post? Your question sounds like "If we should be kind to everyone, what about serial killers?" It is so out-of-place in the picture that's being painted, that I (and I'm sure others) am skeptical of the question. Maybe you can first qualify it by explaining how it is relevant in anything other than an extreme thought experiment?
uoaei 4y ago
Viewpoint diversity is very, very important. But for a large contingent of the workforce, their viewpoints are already represented in the numerous implicit and ideological supports that our society has developed, without them even needing to be present: this is called "hegemony". If you do not acknowledge this is the case, then DEI efforts can seem very unfair. But one should be careful not to allow emotions and sensitivities to creep in, to do the ideological work for you. Your status is not threatened by people of different backgrounds coming together and critiquing the processes and pathologies that dominate today (and that white men typically grow up in, and so are already comfortable navigating to the point they assume that it is the natural way of things). It will make everything better for everyone if we take the time to put effort into including (injecting) the diversity of viewpoints that you find so valuable, and that is precisely the aim of DEI.
- gameman144 4y ago
  This seems like a well articulated case that you're making, though I'd like to argue from the opposite perspective for a bit. > If you do not acknowledge this is the case, then DEI efforts can seem very unfair. This is a non-trivial objection. I struggle to think of many acceptable scenarios in which we have to choose between acknowledging something which we don't believe as true, or living in an unfair system. Likewise, I don't know of any people personally who object to DEI efforts to make fields more appealing to a wider audience, or bringing in more diverse perspectives, or even critiquing existing processes. The main objection that I see is against the policies which are enacted in pursuit of that goal. For instance, saying "our engineering team is largely Asian, we might be missing other perspectives" is a good call-out, and I can think of nobody who'd oppose calling that out. Enacting a policy that said "for the next engineer in this team, let's make sure we hire a non-Asian employee", that is the source of a lot of the umbrage with DEI efforts. In my experience, opponents largely agree with the goals (more diverse viewpoints), but disagree with the methods (pandering in the best case, and preferential treatment by group in the worst case.) You are correct that there is no inherent cost to learning about and bringing in different perspectives. There is a cost of the efforts to bring in those perspectives if they mean that I lose a job that I would otherwise have gained. Moreover, an even bigger concern is that these decisions aren't being made based on perspective, but only on immutable identity (e.g. race, ethnicity, gender). In these cases, the cost is even greater, since one can't address the situation by bringing in more perspectives; if the company says "we need more non-Asian employees", it is a really big cost (and one you can't avoid) if you happen to be Asian, regardless of how many heterodox opinions you might otherwise bring. Nobody I know opposes thegoals of DEI, but it's not hard to see how policies enacted which disadvantage people based on immutable characteristics might be reasonably considered unfair.
Spivak 4y ago
> If your conception of diversity doesn't include viewpoint diversity Viewpoint diversity is already included, that's the whole "capitalist take" for why diversity is good for business. With enough different viewpoints informed by different life experiences you uncover solutions to problems a heterogeneous group wouldn't have thought of. So obviously it's not even an issue, right? This is already something that's already done. Well no, because "you know what I mean" -- the literal phrase viewpoint diversity as it's applied in real life is a dog whistle designed to dress up "people don't want to work with the guy who thinks his bigoted takes are just alternative views" in words that the "blue tribe" uses. You people like diversity, right? > if there aren't some things about someone that are legitimately hard for you to accept Look, if you or people who know are actually getting discriminated against because of camo, boots, pickup trucks, hunting as a hobby, or wanting lower taxes. that's just straight up prejudice. Working in the midwest that kind of thing would be crazy since that's like half my coworkers. But again, in real life these kinds of thing only come up when the subtext is "you call yourself tolerant but don't tolerate my intolerance, you hypocrite!" No doubt I'm sure there will be plenty of disagreement abound in this thread, so to make the discussion easier can we please make the abstract more concrete. I am sincerely open to being way off base so please hit me with all your personal experiences and the views that haven't been tolerated. I am primed and ready to be righteously mad on y'all's behalf.

thaumasiotes 4y ago

> My personal bias here tends toward reflexive dislike of DEI stuff because it feels cult-y to me, but the message of toleration it's rooted in (even if that's not always practiced by its proponents) is obviously the only alternative to fighting over whose values will be imposed on everyone else. Alternative? The people who promulgate the messages are quite aggressive about imposing their values on everyone else.

PuppyTailWags 4y ago

Genuinely asking: Is there a limit as to viewpoint diversity that should be tolerated in perceptions of diversity? eg. Should viewpoint diversity be extended to welcoming "women shouldn't have the right to vote" or "black people are not human beings"? If so, how does one value an opinion and also the opinion that some opinions are worth less than others?

pc86 4y ago
How could either one of these viewpoints possibly come up during a job interview?
- PuppyTailWags 4y ago
  You'd be surprised! I once had lunch with a candidate who was glad no women were interviewing him, because he found salads distasteful.
  - pedrosorio 4y ago
    > was glad no women were interviewing him, because he found salads distasteful ?
spawarotti 4y ago
I think it is fair to not spend time and resources engaging with such ideas, as long as there is a good "decision record" documentation explaining that this subject was already discussed, decisions were made, and there is no point coming back to it. Same as with flat Earth - have some documentation thoroughly debunking the idea and point to it anybody trying to start the conversation again. Tell them they need to first read through all of it. If they are still not convinced after that, they are free to lay out their argument, but it is on them to make the argument strong, which should be, like, really hard, given the plethora of evidence we have that Earth is not flat. In the examples you gave the "decision record" would be fairly simple - we assume that human rights [1] are a given. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights
daenz 4y ago
You're genuinely asking about the most extreme and uncharitable interpretation of the GP's post? Your question sounds like "If we should be kind to everyone, what about serial killers?" It is so out-of-place in the picture that's being painted, that I (and I'm sure others) am skeptical of the question. Maybe you can first qualify it by explaining how it is relevant in anything other than an extreme thought experiment?

uoaei 4y ago

Viewpoint diversity is very, very important. But for a large contingent of the workforce, their viewpoints are already represented in the numerous implicit and ideological supports that our society has developed, without them even needing to be present: this is called "hegemony". If you do not acknowledge this is the case, then DEI efforts can seem very unfair. But one should be careful not to allow emotions and sensitivities to creep in, to do the ideological work for you. Your status is not threatened by people of different backgrounds coming together and critiquing the processes and pathologies that dominate today (and that white men typically grow up in, and so are already comfortable navigating to the point they assume that it is the natural way of things). It will make everything better for everyone if we take the time to put effort into including (injecting) the diversity of viewpoints that you find so valuable, and that is precisely the aim of DEI.

gameman144 4y ago
This seems like a well articulated case that you're making, though I'd like to argue from the opposite perspective for a bit. > If you do not acknowledge this is the case, then DEI efforts can seem very unfair. This is a non-trivial objection. I struggle to think of many acceptable scenarios in which we have to choose between acknowledging something which we don't believe as true, or living in an unfair system. Likewise, I don't know of any people personally who object to DEI efforts to make fields more appealing to a wider audience, or bringing in more diverse perspectives, or even critiquing existing processes. The main objection that I see is against the policies which are enacted in pursuit of that goal. For instance, saying "our engineering team is largely Asian, we might be missing other perspectives" is a good call-out, and I can think of nobody who'd oppose calling that out. Enacting a policy that said "for the next engineer in this team, let's make sure we hire a non-Asian employee", that is the source of a lot of the umbrage with DEI efforts. In my experience, opponents largely agree with the goals (more diverse viewpoints), but disagree with the methods (pandering in the best case, and preferential treatment by group in the worst case.) You are correct that there is no inherent cost to learning about and bringing in different perspectives. There is a cost of the efforts to bring in those perspectives if they mean that I lose a job that I would otherwise have gained. Moreover, an even bigger concern is that these decisions aren't being made based on perspective, but only on immutable identity (e.g. race, ethnicity, gender). In these cases, the cost is even greater, since one can't address the situation by bringing in more perspectives; if the company says "we need more non-Asian employees", it is a really big cost (and one you can't avoid) if you happen to be Asian, regardless of how many heterodox opinions you might otherwise bring. Nobody I know opposes thegoals of DEI, but it's not hard to see how policies enacted which disadvantage people based on immutable characteristics might be reasonably considered unfair.

Spivak 4y ago

> If your conception of diversity doesn't include viewpoint diversity Viewpoint diversity is already included, that's the whole "capitalist take" for why diversity is good for business. With enough different viewpoints informed by different life experiences you uncover solutions to problems a heterogeneous group wouldn't have thought of. So obviously it's not even an issue, right? This is already something that's already done. Well no, because "you know what I mean" -- the literal phrase viewpoint diversity as it's applied in real life is a dog whistle designed to dress up "people don't want to work with the guy who thinks his bigoted takes are just alternative views" in words that the "blue tribe" uses. You people like diversity, right? > if there aren't some things about someone that are legitimately hard for you to accept Look, if you or people who know are actually getting discriminated against because of camo, boots, pickup trucks, hunting as a hobby, or wanting lower taxes. that's just straight up prejudice. Working in the midwest that kind of thing would be crazy since that's like half my coworkers. But again, in real life these kinds of thing only come up when the subtext is "you call yourself tolerant but don't tolerate my intolerance, you hypocrite!" No doubt I'm sure there will be plenty of disagreement abound in this thread, so to make the discussion easier can we please make the abstract more concrete. I am sincerely open to being way off base so please hit me with all your personal experiences and the views that haven't been tolerated. I am primed and ready to be righteously mad on y'all's behalf.