4 ms·

I don't think you read my comment. There are lots of ways that you can end up with a concentration of a particular ethnicity/religion/etc. It is unreasonable to

I don't think you read my comment. There are lots of ways that you can end up with a concentration of a particular ethnicity/religion/etc. It is unreasonable to immediately assume that it is a result of nepotism, and the specific facts matter quite a lot. People often work with and start companies with people from their community, and as a result they are often a large part of their professional network. It's only nepotism if those people are favored over others.

ineedasername 4y ago
I don't doubt that unlikely clustering can innocently occur by chance. But you asked if hiring discrimination is alleged to have occured and it was very clearly alleged when the author uses the word nepotism in their original blog post: >Cronyism and nepotism is not uncommon, especially in my line of my work, but it was unusual on this scale You may say the author has jumped too soon to that conclusion but they nonetheless made that allegation. My comment stands. You should also be aware that accusing someone of not reading a comment or article is both rude and against site guidelines. A more productive way of going about this if you think someone misunderstood or indeed overlooked or skipped part of something is to simply quote the relevant portion. That at least gives them the benefit of the doubt. It also goes a long way towards preventing responses that go on the defensive before even considering the merits of an argument.
- amscanne 4y ago
  The author implied that it had occurred, but did not actually allege anything specific. That would require describing how the cult members had been hired. The author seemed to have joined a department with a large cluster from this cult, and immediately assumed that nepotism and cronyism were responsible — he needs to be more specific. To clarify one thing in your comment: innocent clustering isn’t likely occurring “by chance” here — that would be a dubious claim; I’m saying it often happens for innocent, legal reasons. There’s no context or facts for this specific case. Regarding the “didn’t read my comment” bit, your comment did ignore the last half of my comment that describes plausible innocent clustering and talks about the need for specific facts. You can’t allege something based on “potential” because every perfectly normal situation could be construed as the potential result of a crime. If I was at a bar last night, and home today — can you allege that I drove home drunk? You would need more specific facts to make any kind of meaningful allegation (e.g. did I drive to the bar? Did I drink? Did I return home on my own with my car? Those would be the minimal facts required for even a suspicion). Perhaps I could have addressed this with less snark (and I apologize for this), but we’re also not talking about missing some fact buried in an article, we’re talking about 2/5 sentences in a comment.

ineedasername 4y ago

I don't doubt that unlikely clustering can innocently occur by chance. But you asked if hiring discrimination is alleged to have occured and it was very clearly alleged when the author uses the word nepotism in their original blog post: >Cronyism and nepotism is not uncommon, especially in my line of my work, but it was unusual on this scale You may say the author has jumped too soon to that conclusion but they nonetheless made that allegation. My comment stands. You should also be aware that accusing someone of not reading a comment or article is both rude and against site guidelines. A more productive way of going about this if you think someone misunderstood or indeed overlooked or skipped part of something is to simply quote the relevant portion. That at least gives them the benefit of the doubt. It also goes a long way towards preventing responses that go on the defensive before even considering the merits of an argument.

amscanne 4y ago
The author implied that it had occurred, but did not actually allege anything specific. That would require describing how the cult members had been hired. The author seemed to have joined a department with a large cluster from this cult, and immediately assumed that nepotism and cronyism were responsible — he needs to be more specific. To clarify one thing in your comment: innocent clustering isn’t likely occurring “by chance” here — that would be a dubious claim; I’m saying it often happens for innocent, legal reasons. There’s no context or facts for this specific case. Regarding the “didn’t read my comment” bit, your comment did ignore the last half of my comment that describes plausible innocent clustering and talks about the need for specific facts. You can’t allege something based on “potential” because every perfectly normal situation could be construed as the potential result of a crime. If I was at a bar last night, and home today — can you allege that I drove home drunk? You would need more specific facts to make any kind of meaningful allegation (e.g. did I drive to the bar? Did I drink? Did I return home on my own with my car? Those would be the minimal facts required for even a suspicion). Perhaps I could have addressed this with less snark (and I apologize for this), but we’re also not talking about missing some fact buried in an article, we’re talking about 2/5 sentences in a comment.