8 ms·
[stub for offtopicness / flamewarness / guideline-breakingness] (this is a rough cut - I know there are other posts left in the thread that arguably belong her
by dang 1y ago
[stub for offtopicness / flamewarness / guideline-breakingness]
(this is a rough cut - I know there are other posts left in the thread that arguably belong here, but this time I'm in a bit of a rush)
(please, everyone, you can make substantive points thoughtfully but do so within the guardrails at https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html - avoid the generic-indignant-flamey-snarky-namecalley-hardcore-battley sectors of internet discourse - we're trying for something different here and we need everyone to help with that)
- bilekas 1y agoThis seems very un-American. The government dictating how you run your business ? > “do not, and will not during the term of this financial assistance award, operate any programs that advance or promote DEI, or discriminatory equity ideology in violation of Federal anti-discrimination laws.” Is that even legal to add such an arbitrary and opinionated reason to a government grant? I applaud them for taking a stand, it seems to be more and more rare these days.
- dboreham 1y agoThe fascist language is a no-op because it optimizes to: "don't violate federal laws" which presumably is reasonable.
- takluyver 1y agoI would imagine it is much easier to enforce as part of a grant agreement that organisations have signed. Especially if the law is either not really a law (yet), or it might be invalidated by a court on free speech grounds. There's probably a reason someone wrote it into the grant agreement, and that they're declaring DEI stands for something other than the familiar Diversity, Equity & Inclusion.
- __alexs 1y ago> discriminatory equity ideology Isn't that when you let your mates buy into your corrupt private investment vehicles for cheap?
- lingrush4 1y agoI have no idea what point you think you're making, but this happens all the time. Do you really think you should be obligated to let strangers buy into your private business?
- bakugo 1y ago> The government dictating how you run your business ? Yes, these terms are usually called "laws", you might've heard of them.
- politician 1y agoCould you clarify that you're suggesting that "it's un-American" for the government to require that the grantee not violate any of its anti-discrimination laws?
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- mc32 1y agoI think people defend anti discrimination or are against it depending on how the anti discrimination policy discriminates discrimination. We always discriminate. We have to. But only some discrimination is allowed and some are not allowed. The difference is what kind of discrimination people feel is fair and unfair.
- rectang 1y agoI agree that humans discriminate inherently, although I would argue that what differentiates us is whether we struggle against that impulse. On some level, the idea that we all discriminate has the potential to help us move beyond the "racist/not-racist" dichotomy. (I prefer the formulation "we all discriminate" over the dubious alternative "we're all racist".) But I'm not sure it will ever achieve mass acceptance, because it activates the human impulse to self-justify. I dream that one day someone will come up with version of this idea that is universally acceptable.
- justin66 1y agoI understand what you're driving at but at this stage of the game it's quite American.
- ponow 1y agoFederal funding of research is un-American.
- georgemcbay 1y ago> Federal funding of research is un-American. Federal funding of research created the Internet that you are posting this idiocy on.
- ipaddr 1y agoBefore you attack the last poster, he does have a point. Federal funding of powers that belong to states is unamerican.
- ericfr11 1y agoI agree. The gvt should not care if DEI is used, or if someone is gay or transgender m
- drstewart 1y agoOh really? So what pro-DEI requirements did the federal funding for that grant require?
- collingreen 1y agoWhat does this even mean? Are you trying to imply that funding for research that lead to the various tech powering the modern internet was done only by organizations that never before or since considered trying to source candidates from a variety of places because they believe different viewpoints have value? Or are you trying to hang this entire thing on a definition of DEI that somehow always and exclusively means illegal race or gender based discrimination (I assume against white men)? These conversations are so absurd sometimes. I'm baffled by how spitting mad people can decide they are to fight these straw men. Then I'm annoyed by (and suspicious of) the overwhelming silence from most of these sources when it comes to other obvious examples of racial discrimination or things like the government trying to remove history books that mention slavery. These things don't look like good faith to me.
- rectang 1y agoAnti-DEI forces, once in power, turn out not to favor putative “diversity of opinion” after all.
- throwaway091025 1y ago[flagged]
- aaronbrethorst 1y agoAhem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
- zo1 1y ago[flagged]
- etchalon 1y agopro-skin-diversity is a real weird way to say "against racism."
- ipaddr 1y agoThey are for racism. Treat one group different from others based on race. We can debate whether doing this rights historical wrongs but we can't pretend it is not racist to treat different people of different skin colors differently.
- etchalon 1y agoWe don't have to pretend it's not racist when it's factually not racist. And there's not really a debate about whether it rights historic wrong. There is a debate about whether righting historic wrongs is even possible. The debate is whether we can/should counterbalance existing wrongs in society. And I have hard time taking anyone seriously who says we shouldn't.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- zamadatix 1y ago> "[yadda yadda yadda] in violation of Federal anti-discrimination laws." Should not be a new or surprising statement at all in this type of thing, let alone a question of if it's un-American.
- dragonwriter 1y ago> Is that even legal to add such an arbitrary and opinionated reason to a government grant? On the surface, it is simply a requirement that the grantee comply with existing non-discrimination laws coupled with a completely fictional example of a potential violation (“discriminatory equity ideology”) provided as an example that happens to have an initialism collision with a real thing. This is legal and (but for the propaganda example) routine. But... the text viewed in isolation is not the issue.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- AlSweigart 1y agoAgreed. And it is... quite revealing that many people in these comments are so insistent to view the text in isolation.
- ksynwa 1y ago> Is that even legal to Does it matter for the Trump administration what is legal and what isn't?
- prasadjoglekar 1y agoThe "in violation of Federal Law" is crucial. You can argue it's only there to cover the admin's ass, but Federal Law (the actual statues) already prohibits any favoritism or discrimination on the basis of skin color etc. The prior admin made it so that their chosen DEI programs fit "Federal Law". This admin has done a complete 180. Courts haven't tested any of this yet. It's all a hammer being wielded by the side in power.
- pbronez 1y agoFederal money always has lots of strings attached. The specific rules differ by the specific funding vehicle. The main vehicle is the Federal Acquisitions Regulation (FAR); you can review their rule here: https://www.acquisition.gov/far/part-52 https://www.acquisition.gov/far/part-52 This is basically the US Federal Government’s standard Master Services Agreement (MSA).
- JuniperMesos 1y ago> This seems very un-American. The government dictating how you run your business ? Yes, and anyone who takes the Barry Goldwater libertarian position that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 constituted an un-American government dictate about how you can run your business with respect to discrimination based on demographic categories probably agrees with you. There's a real sense in which this administration is invoking the formally-neutral legal infrastructure that has been built up over many years by liberals with the intention of securing the civil rights of various marginalized groups, and ostentatiously using it as a weapon against groups that are discriminating against white people or white men in particular and feel like they are acting righteously in doing so. More generally, there's all sorts of laws in every country including America that involve the government dictating how you run your business, or how you run your business if you want to be eligible for government grants. No one actually thinks that a law becomes illegitimate if it dictates how a person can run their business, unless they are such a radical anarchist that they entirely reject the legitimacy of any kind of government or law at all.
- bakugo 1y ago> do not, and will not during the term of this financial assistance award, operate any programs that advance or promote DEI, or discriminatory equity ideology in violation of Federal anti-discrimination laws. So basically, the PSF wants to discriminate, the government doesn't want them to do so, and that's a problem? Am I reading this correctly?
- jLaForest 1y agoNo you are not reading this correctly, but I suspect that was willful
- bakugo 1y ago> No you are not reading this correctly Okay, so can you help me interpret that correctly, then? What other conclusion should I draw from this?
- f33d5173 1y ago"Or" means at least one of multiple alternatives. Alteratives contrast with each other, they differ. Of course, the original author could be repeating the same thing for emphasis, but more likely they are saying two different things. Since the second thing is discrimination, the first thing, "DEI", must necessarily not be discrimination. If they merely wanted you to not discriminate, they could have just said "follows federal anti discrimination laws" which are quite stringent.
- bakugo 1y agoThey are saying the same thing twice. They repeat themselves specifically because certain groups hold a strong belief that "discrimination" only goes one-way, and have effectively twisted the meaning of the word in their minds. The explicit mention of DEI is a way of saying "yes, that means ALL kinds of discrimination, including the kinds you may believe are morally correct".
- 1y ago
- 636362825372292 1y ago[flagged]
- add-sub-mul-div 1y agoYou either think DEI is about taking jobs from white people and giving them to undeserving others, or that the deserving are spread across different races and genders etc. and we should capture that better. If you're in the former group just man up and say it, don't waste our time with the equivocating, "so the government just doesn't want people to discriminate and that's a problem???"
- XCabbage 1y agoUh, what? There's no contradiction, or even tension, between these three positions: 1. "DEI is about taking jobs from white people and giving them to undeserving others" 2. "the deserving are spread across different races and genders etc. and we should capture that better" 3. "so the government just doesn't want people to discriminate and that's a problem???" so what exactly are you trying to say?
- ksynwa 1y agoHow is there not a contradiction between 1 and 2? If 1 is true then the jobs are offered to non-white candidates who are undeserving. If 2 is true then the jobs are offered to non-white candidates who are deserving.
- XCabbage 1y agoI don't understand what you're trying to say. It's obviously possible for the extremely weak claim made by statement 2 to be true (i.e. for some non-zero number of "deserving" nonwhites to exist and for existing hiring to not be a perfect meritocracy) in the same universe where the sort of programs typically labelled "DEI" tend to have anti-meritocratic effects. You seem to be suggesting that if competent nonwhites exist, then anything labelled DEI will automatically have the effect of causing orgs to hire more competent people, but... why? There's zero reason that should logically follow.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- throwaway091025 1y ago[flagged]
- martinky24 1y ago[flagged]
- throwaway091025 1y agoThanks dad, I missed you
- throwaway091025 1y ago[flagged]
- MeetingsBrowser 1y agoIf you read > support and facilitate the growth of a diverse and international community of Python programmers as a racist statement, you need to step back and re-evaluate things.
- throwaway091025 1y ago[flagged]
- MeetingsBrowser 1y agoPeople ARE treated differently based on race and gender. For example, women are severely underrepresented in the tech industry. You can either look into why that is and attempt to address underlying issues, or you can pretend people are sexist for doing something that doesn't directly benefit you.
- throw_a_grenade 1y agoThe way how you respond and means of addressing the issue very much matters. It's possible to have equitable objectives, but using discriminatory means. For example, just declaring quota and filling to order will fulfill the objective, but will be very discriminatory in practice.
- faefox 1y agoGod, it is so humiliating to be an American these days. :(
- jhack 1y ago[flagged]
- drstewart 1y ago[flagged]
- lingrush4 1y ago[flagged]
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- bgwalter 1y ago[flagged]
- silexia 1y agoDEI programs are fundamentally racist. You don't fix racism with more racism.
- thunderfork 1y ago[dead]
- VerminOctopus1 1y agoHow do you fix racism?
- silexia 1y agoNot by continuing to use racism, just flipped the other way. That just created more resentment and anger, and eventually hate.
- thunderfork 1y ago[dead]
- worik 1y ago[flagged]
- godsinhisheaven 1y agoAmerican, you mean American.
- worik 1y ago> American, you mean American. No I mean to exclusive Canadians, Columbians and Cubans
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- flumpcakes 1y agoI'm not sure that the USA has ever been in such a low standing with the rest of the 'democratic world' in the last 100 years. That's not saying the rest of the world has their stuff together, but it seems that fundamentally un-American ethos is the new nationalist American one that a 1/3 of the country wants. What's happening guys?
- marbro 1y ago[dead]
- munificent 1y agoAbout 50 years of slow deliberate destruction of the country's trust in institutions and trustworthy media and communications systems and culture.
- spankalee 1y agoThis, and most people still don't realize it. It goes back to Nixon and Roger Ailes.
- munificent 1y agoYes, that is 100% the moment I had in mind when I said 50 years.
- superconduct123 1y agoI think people were worn down over many years by traditional politicians and just wanted something different And then someone came in and took advantage of that
- bsder 1y ago> What's happening guys? The people who benefited from those who sacrificed for rights and equality over the past century got complacent and lazy. The current rhetoric is exactly the same as was used to discriminate against my ancestors 100 years ago. The only substitutions are the different slurs. Everyone who wants to talks about race and immigrants should be required to listen to 8 hours of radio programs from the early 1900s saying the exact same thing about them and their ancestors. "It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt." -- John Philpot Curran, 1790 You fight or you lose. Every time; all the time. Politics is a contact sport and you don't get to opt out.
- charcircuit 1y ago[flagged]
- henearkr 1y agoThat is not the problematic part of the grant conditions.
- charcircuit 1y agoThe following antidiscrimination laws part was the part quoted in the article linked here. The part they said was recently added. What part are you referring to?
- henearkr 1y agoNope, you cherry-picked around the part where they say no to DEI.
- charcircuit 1y agoYou misread it. It says no to DEI, that violates nondiscrimination laws.
- henearkr 1y agoIt includes "DEI, that violates nondiscrimination laws" presented as an accepted fact. So that includes a statement that is opinionated and political, not based on facts or rationality, and roughly half the US population at least does not agree with it. So, besides how dishonest your comment may be, at least all the readers (who somehow missed that unmissable point, but I digress) get the idea. Edit: the presence of the comma forbids any interpretation as "{follows DEI} AND {violates nondiscrimination laws}", and instead it reads as "{follows DEI} AND {by the way you already know/agree that DEI violates nondiscrimination laws}". Which any project leader that doesn't believe that DEI violates nondiscrimination laws will reject instantaneously. But I have the sense that you are not discussing in good faith anyway, so...
- MangoCoffee 1y agothe original idea of DEI "Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion" is good but it got twisted. it became the rally crying for the other side.
- mjburgess 1y ago[flagged]
- socketcluster 1y agoWow. What luxury some people have to reject $1.5 million. For that kind of money, I would put a large national flag in the banner of the socketcluster.io website, I would relocate HQ to whatever country and state they want. I would never utter the word 'diversity' for the rest of my life and upon receiving the money, I would take a screenshot, frame it, put it up on the back wall of my new office and I would pray to it every morning to give thanks.
- sho_hn 1y ago> What luxury some people have to reject $1.5 million. For a non-profit backing a community, an important goal is to ensure the long-term sustainability and viability of the org, because the community relies on it to keep infra working, legal representation in place, and other vital needs. Accepting those $1.5mio would have come with significant "we want that money back" risk, as the post explains. At a $5mio annual budget that could seriously destabilize a small org like this, from the money shortfall to community unrest. Taking this money would be irresponsible. My two cents, as treasurer of another large FOSS non-profit.