5 ms·

Okay so let's be clear: you think it is wrong or unhelpful to speculate that race or sex may be a factor in what the op claims to be observing? Because "baiting

Okay so let's be clear: you think it is wrong or unhelpful to speculate that race or sex may be a factor in what the op claims to be observing? Because "baiting?" What do you mean by baiting? I read that as you trying to shame people for even discussing the possibility that racism or sexism is a factor. As if it is somehow wrong to discuss these things. If you had a different intent, please share it.

John23832 4y ago
I could speculate because the op is a Taurus. It holds just as much weight in the conversation because there’s no evidence that the op’s zodiac or DEI status are used to eliminate them in the hiring process. I used the word bait because unsubstantiated “DEI hate” is used on hackernews as lightning rods. I haven’t shamed anyone. If you actually read what I said above, you would see that I’m not denying racism in hiring exist… but again there’s no evidence of that here.
- fdschoeneman 4y ago
  No evidence? I was not in on any of those specific conversations and neither was the op but I've overheard a lot of conversations from hiring managers and they did explicitly discuss candidates race and sex, and I think if you ask around you'll see you are the outlier in having never seen evidence that racism and sexism have played a role before. Just because you may not have been around when a tree fell in the woods doesn't mean it didn't make a sound.
  - John23832 4y ago
    > I was not in on any of those specific conversations and neither was the op To my point that you're speculating about something you have no evidence of and know nothing about. > I've overheard a lot of conversations from hiring managers and they did explicitly discuss candidates race and sex, Anectdata. > I think if you ask around you'll see you are the outlier in having never seen evidence that racism and sexism have played a role before. I never said this. > Just because you may not have been around when a tree fell in the woods doesn't mean it didn't make a sound. You can't speculate that a specific tree was felled with an axe rather than a chainsaw when you weren't in the woods to see it happen.
- fdschoeneman 4y ago
  "You can't speculate that a specific tree was felled with an axe rather than a chainsaw when you weren't in the woods to see it happen." -- on the contrary, I'm pretty sure a rational person could speculate that a specific tree was felled by an axe vs a chainsaw depending on what she knows about loggers in a given area from a given culture and during a given time period. It's a question of probability. It's normal and rational and fair to discuss probabilities when speculating. It's unclear that you understand the terms you are using though so I'm gonna peace out and wish you luck.
  - John23832 4y ago
    > I'm pretty sure a rational person could speculate that a specific tree was felled by an axe vs a chainsaw depending on what she knows about loggers in a given area from a given culture and during a given time period. It's a question of probability. It's normal and rational and fair to discuss probabilities when speculating. Given that you know nothing about the hiring practices of the OP's company, it's safe to say that you know nothing about the woods in this analogy either ha. > It's unclear that you understand the terms you are using though so I'm gonna peace out and wish you luck. I understand very well. You made an analogy, and I made a more apt one. But when in doubt, resort to ad hominem.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - fdschoeneman 4y ago
      Ad hominem? I don't know if you know this, though you probably don't, but 'ad hominem' is a category of logical fallacy, committed when one argues that one's opponent's argument is wrong because he is, por ejemplo, an asshole or a pedophile or a loser or a dildo. At no point have I argued that your position is logically incorrect because you are an asshole. I've only ever argued that you are incorrect because your logic is dumb. Move along.
      - John23832 4y ago
        Implying that I’m disqualified from the conversation because I “don’t understand the terms” that I’m using is ad-hominem. It’s being dismissive of the argument because of something you believe to be inherent in me, rather than the subject of the argument. I think you should learn the usage of terms rather run than me, lol.

John23832 4y ago

I could speculate because the op is a Taurus. It holds just as much weight in the conversation because there’s no evidence that the op’s zodiac or DEI status are used to eliminate them in the hiring process. I used the word bait because unsubstantiated “DEI hate” is used on hackernews as lightning rods. I haven’t shamed anyone. If you actually read what I said above, you would see that I’m not denying racism in hiring exist… but again there’s no evidence of that here.

fdschoeneman 4y ago
No evidence? I was not in on any of those specific conversations and neither was the op but I've overheard a lot of conversations from hiring managers and they did explicitly discuss candidates race and sex, and I think if you ask around you'll see you are the outlier in having never seen evidence that racism and sexism have played a role before. Just because you may not have been around when a tree fell in the woods doesn't mean it didn't make a sound.
- John23832 4y ago
  > I was not in on any of those specific conversations and neither was the op To my point that you're speculating about something you have no evidence of and know nothing about. > I've overheard a lot of conversations from hiring managers and they did explicitly discuss candidates race and sex, Anectdata. > I think if you ask around you'll see you are the outlier in having never seen evidence that racism and sexism have played a role before. I never said this. > Just because you may not have been around when a tree fell in the woods doesn't mean it didn't make a sound. You can't speculate that a specific tree was felled with an axe rather than a chainsaw when you weren't in the woods to see it happen.
fdschoeneman 4y ago
"You can't speculate that a specific tree was felled with an axe rather than a chainsaw when you weren't in the woods to see it happen." -- on the contrary, I'm pretty sure a rational person could speculate that a specific tree was felled by an axe vs a chainsaw depending on what she knows about loggers in a given area from a given culture and during a given time period. It's a question of probability. It's normal and rational and fair to discuss probabilities when speculating. It's unclear that you understand the terms you are using though so I'm gonna peace out and wish you luck.
- John23832 4y ago
  > I'm pretty sure a rational person could speculate that a specific tree was felled by an axe vs a chainsaw depending on what she knows about loggers in a given area from a given culture and during a given time period. It's a question of probability. It's normal and rational and fair to discuss probabilities when speculating. Given that you know nothing about the hiring practices of the OP's company, it's safe to say that you know nothing about the woods in this analogy either ha. > It's unclear that you understand the terms you are using though so I'm gonna peace out and wish you luck. I understand very well. You made an analogy, and I made a more apt one. But when in doubt, resort to ad hominem.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - fdschoeneman 4y ago
    Ad hominem? I don't know if you know this, though you probably don't, but 'ad hominem' is a category of logical fallacy, committed when one argues that one's opponent's argument is wrong because he is, por ejemplo, an asshole or a pedophile or a loser or a dildo. At no point have I argued that your position is logically incorrect because you are an asshole. I've only ever argued that you are incorrect because your logic is dumb. Move along.
    - John23832 4y ago
      Implying that I’m disqualified from the conversation because I “don’t understand the terms” that I’m using is ad-hominem. It’s being dismissive of the argument because of something you believe to be inherent in me, rather than the subject of the argument. I think you should learn the usage of terms rather run than me, lol.