5 ms·

This is exactly the way normal anti-racism was up until recently. It's how MLK wanted it to be and it's pretty much how the US was treating it up until the last

This is exactly the way normal anti-racism was up until recently. It's how MLK wanted it to be and it's pretty much how the US was treating it up until the last decade. Somehow we've switched in the last few years to the point where skin color and/or specific race is the MOST important attribute someone has. Diversity based on skin color is absolutely asinine. You can have a multitude of poc in one room but if their backgrounds and the groups they associate with are all the same, then their thinking is all going to be alike.

dcow 4y ago
People are impatient. Changes that take a few generations to notice are too slow. Instant gains now now now. We learned identity politics worked for LGBTQIA so we deployed them for BIPOC as well. The ends justified the means. The ends are undefined.
ejstronge 4y ago
From a very sincere position, can you link to your sources for 'how MLK wanted it to be' and 'how the US was treating' DEI? Unless we were all in the same positions within our careers since the time of MLK to now (and I'll also ignore some other confounders, like the fact that many black Americans could not easily attend college in the time of MLK), I wonder whether a recency bias may explain the differences you are reporting.
- DrThunder 4y ago
  A link to sources? Really? Come on man, you've got to do a little work yourself here. All you need to do is read what DEI is striving to do and listen to MLK's "I have a dream" speech when he specifically states he doesn't want a society where we judge the character of people on skin color but instead merit. This is something you should have learned in elementary school if you're an American. Are you trying to claim this isn't the case? Explain to me how making everything equitable and inclusive for specific class oppressed poc isn't basing things on skin color vs. merit? This is a logical test, not one that needs sources. Here's another test for you - explain how you make everyone equitable without lowering the higher achievers in society down to the average? Do you think it's possible to make under-achievers the same intelligence, physical capability as higher-achieving people?
  - ejstronge 4y ago
    I was being very charitable - it seems you are asserting knowledge of Dr. King's canon of work based on your memory of a very meme-ified quote. I also requested information about how the US used to treat racial equity better in the past; do you have any such evidence? > Explain to me how making everything equitable and inclusive for specific class oppressed poc isn't basing things on skin color vs. merit? This is a logical test, not one that needs sources. The quote you reference mentions character. The issues at hand are whether hiring ignores qualified candidates based on their skin color. I understand that you wish for a colorblind world but this is not the world we live in. I suspect that it is easy for you to forego a 'patch' in our current situation because the problems at play do not affect you. To rephrase, because you're not running an affected version of a problematic script, nobody should be allowed to install a hotpatch. Better to wait for the perfect v1.0 to be released. > Here's another test for you - explain how you make everyone equitable without lowering the higher achievers in society down to the average? Do you think it's possible to make under-achievers the same intelligence, physical capability as higher-achieving people? This is the perennial boogeyman and strawman. I think the reason it comes up is to make those who have enjoyed unappreciated benefits feel that their experience relates solely to their ability. One of the best pitchers in baseball history never had a chance to play in his prime. Why? Because of an accident of his genetics. With the arguments you set up, I surmise that you would argue that expending any effort to finding such good, but unappreciated, players necessarily debases all players; let's leave the greats in the dust to ensure that the sons of the wealthy get to play the game. I would say that it is a disservice to humanity not to explore every option to uncover wasted talent. We will disagree on this, but I encounter brilliant people whose life stories hinge on just one lucky break regularly. When I am confronted by the mammoth systemic inequalities the United States has imposed against some of its daughters and sons for hundreds of years, I am motivated to spend an extra moment to find qualified candidates in unappreciated venues. Finally - your argument presupposes that every job search finds the best candidate. This may be a surprise to you, but as someone who hires, the candidate I end up with is as much defined by the vagaries of chance as by the candidate's ability. This is not controversial to any one who hires and is indeed a confound that we all must consider. One key factor in someone getting their foot in the door is knowing someone who can contact me. Is this fair? Do I lower the average quality of all candidates if I use this very common source of referrals?

dcow 4y ago

People are impatient. Changes that take a few generations to notice are too slow. Instant gains now now now. We learned identity politics worked for LGBTQIA so we deployed them for BIPOC as well. The ends justified the means. The ends are undefined.

ejstronge 4y ago

From a very sincere position, can you link to your sources for 'how MLK wanted it to be' and 'how the US was treating' DEI? Unless we were all in the same positions within our careers since the time of MLK to now (and I'll also ignore some other confounders, like the fact that many black Americans could not easily attend college in the time of MLK), I wonder whether a recency bias may explain the differences you are reporting.

DrThunder 4y ago
A link to sources? Really? Come on man, you've got to do a little work yourself here. All you need to do is read what DEI is striving to do and listen to MLK's "I have a dream" speech when he specifically states he doesn't want a society where we judge the character of people on skin color but instead merit. This is something you should have learned in elementary school if you're an American. Are you trying to claim this isn't the case? Explain to me how making everything equitable and inclusive for specific class oppressed poc isn't basing things on skin color vs. merit? This is a logical test, not one that needs sources. Here's another test for you - explain how you make everyone equitable without lowering the higher achievers in society down to the average? Do you think it's possible to make under-achievers the same intelligence, physical capability as higher-achieving people?
- ejstronge 4y ago
  I was being very charitable - it seems you are asserting knowledge of Dr. King's canon of work based on your memory of a very meme-ified quote. I also requested information about how the US used to treat racial equity better in the past; do you have any such evidence? > Explain to me how making everything equitable and inclusive for specific class oppressed poc isn't basing things on skin color vs. merit? This is a logical test, not one that needs sources. The quote you reference mentions character. The issues at hand are whether hiring ignores qualified candidates based on their skin color. I understand that you wish for a colorblind world but this is not the world we live in. I suspect that it is easy for you to forego a 'patch' in our current situation because the problems at play do not affect you. To rephrase, because you're not running an affected version of a problematic script, nobody should be allowed to install a hotpatch. Better to wait for the perfect v1.0 to be released. > Here's another test for you - explain how you make everyone equitable without lowering the higher achievers in society down to the average? Do you think it's possible to make under-achievers the same intelligence, physical capability as higher-achieving people? This is the perennial boogeyman and strawman. I think the reason it comes up is to make those who have enjoyed unappreciated benefits feel that their experience relates solely to their ability. One of the best pitchers in baseball history never had a chance to play in his prime. Why? Because of an accident of his genetics. With the arguments you set up, I surmise that you would argue that expending any effort to finding such good, but unappreciated, players necessarily debases all players; let's leave the greats in the dust to ensure that the sons of the wealthy get to play the game. I would say that it is a disservice to humanity not to explore every option to uncover wasted talent. We will disagree on this, but I encounter brilliant people whose life stories hinge on just one lucky break regularly. When I am confronted by the mammoth systemic inequalities the United States has imposed against some of its daughters and sons for hundreds of years, I am motivated to spend an extra moment to find qualified candidates in unappreciated venues. Finally - your argument presupposes that every job search finds the best candidate. This may be a surprise to you, but as someone who hires, the candidate I end up with is as much defined by the vagaries of chance as by the candidate's ability. This is not controversial to any one who hires and is indeed a confound that we all must consider. One key factor in someone getting their foot in the door is knowing someone who can contact me. Is this fair? Do I lower the average quality of all candidates if I use this very common source of referrals?