5 ms·

This is exactly the kind of dishonest manipulative baiting that makes people feel uncomfortable. Absolutely nothing InvertedRhodium said was in any way racist,

This is exactly the kind of dishonest manipulative baiting that makes people feel uncomfortable. Absolutely nothing InvertedRhodium said was in any way racist, and your allegations otherwise are both wholly devoid of evidence and against the community standards here. If you can't make your point without leveling extreme and baseless allegations at fellow posters, that's a good sign that your point is without merit.

scuff3d 11mo ago
I didn't say he was a racist. But we are talking about feeling excluded in environments where the primary change has been it's not longer acceptable to tell racist/sexist jokes or make disparaging comments about others based race/sex/ethnicity. People have had three opportunities now to give concrete examples of behavior that should be acceptable and makes them feel excluded or like they need to walk on eggshells. Nobody has offered a single thing. So point blank: What can you not say or do in these environments for fear of reprisal?
- AlotOfReading 11mo ago
  Don't agree with the comments above and generally support DEI initiatives, but I also have an example. A new DEI director joined a previous employer and started a mandatory survey to affirmatively label everyone's trans status. Whatever you entered would be used to auto-update your public info page with details on whether you identified as trans or not, with no opt out. I hope I don't have to explain why that's ill-considered at best. Anyway, refusing to fill it out immediately escalated to a disciplinary meeting with the director.
  - scuff3d 11mo ago
    Yeah that's pure idiocy. That's so bad it almost feels like someone trying to out trans people under the guise of DEI.
    - AlotOfReading 11mo ago
      The director was a trans woman themselves, just not good at their job. At least they recognized the issue when was pointed out to them in that meeting, but this was just the tip of the iceberg for silly changes they pushed.
      - scuff3d 11mo ago
        Yeah that's unfortunate. Hopefully they'll find the right balance. Well intentioned missteps are better then maliciousness I suppose.
        machomaster 11mo ago
        There is no difference. Even the worst people in the world easily explain their actions as good or at the very least as not so bad.
  - ryan_lane 11mo ago
    This isn't a good example, because this isn't "walking on eggshells", this is an example of a misguided policy that has unintended consequences, and in your own example, when they understood the unintended consequences, they removed this. Sure, this person was probably bad at their job, and that's problematic, but this isn't an example of someone being fired because they said something non-problematic.
    - zahlman 11mo ago
      > and in your own example, when they understood the unintended consequences, they removed this. The example says nothing of the sort.
      - AlotOfReading 11mo ago
        Correct, they didn't remove the policy or change their views on the surrounding context of the disciplinary meeting. They simply understood the issue after it was explained to them. It's not a high bar.
- zahlman 11mo ago
  > where the primary change has been it's not longer acceptable to tell racist/sexist jokes or make disparaging comments about others based race/sex/ethnicity. This is simply untrue. Such conduct was already completely and utterly unacceptable prior to "DEI", for decades. These policies have instead enabled disparaging comments about others based on race/sex/ethnicity — in particular, accusing people belonging to certain such groups of being inherently whatever-ist (see for example https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWoC90bbsdo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWoC90bbsdo), while defining away discrimination perpetrated against them (to move back towards the original topic, this claim was repeated many times in the discussion of the removal of references to "Strunk & White" in PEP 8). > What can you not say or do in these environments for fear of reprisal? For example, I doubt that you could refuse a request to state your "preferred pronouns", or critique the idea of making such requests or normalizing the culture around them.
  - shadowgovt 11mo ago
    Why would you refuse a request to state your preferred pronouns? If you're asked and refuse to say, how are people to know which ones to use?
    - zahlman 11mo ago
      > Why would you refuse a request to state your preferred pronouns? Because I reject the underlying conceptual framework, as well as the worldview that makes such a "preference" important or valuable. > If you're asked and refuse to say, how are people to know which ones to use? By making their own judgement, as is everyone's natural right. It is simply not reasonable to demand that others see you as you see yourself. It is correct and just that people are permitted to see others as they will. When we speak of "pronouns" in this context, we speak of third-person pronouns. Therefore, it is inherent to the concept that I am not privy to the discussion when they are used to refer to me. To refer to others in third person, knowingly, in front of them, is in my view at least unprofessional and likely rude — as it entails speaking on that person's behalf.
      - shadowgovt 11mo ago

scuff3d 11mo ago

I didn't say he was a racist. But we are talking about feeling excluded in environments where the primary change has been it's not longer acceptable to tell racist/sexist jokes or make disparaging comments about others based race/sex/ethnicity. People have had three opportunities now to give concrete examples of behavior that should be acceptable and makes them feel excluded or like they need to walk on eggshells. Nobody has offered a single thing. So point blank: What can you not say or do in these environments for fear of reprisal?

AlotOfReading 11mo ago
Don't agree with the comments above and generally support DEI initiatives, but I also have an example. A new DEI director joined a previous employer and started a mandatory survey to affirmatively label everyone's trans status. Whatever you entered would be used to auto-update your public info page with details on whether you identified as trans or not, with no opt out. I hope I don't have to explain why that's ill-considered at best. Anyway, refusing to fill it out immediately escalated to a disciplinary meeting with the director.
- scuff3d 11mo ago
  Yeah that's pure idiocy. That's so bad it almost feels like someone trying to out trans people under the guise of DEI.
  - AlotOfReading 11mo ago
    The director was a trans woman themselves, just not good at their job. At least they recognized the issue when was pointed out to them in that meeting, but this was just the tip of the iceberg for silly changes they pushed.
    - scuff3d 11mo ago
      Yeah that's unfortunate. Hopefully they'll find the right balance. Well intentioned missteps are better then maliciousness I suppose.
      - machomaster 11mo ago
        There is no difference. Even the worst people in the world easily explain their actions as good or at the very least as not so bad.
- ryan_lane 11mo ago
  This isn't a good example, because this isn't "walking on eggshells", this is an example of a misguided policy that has unintended consequences, and in your own example, when they understood the unintended consequences, they removed this. Sure, this person was probably bad at their job, and that's problematic, but this isn't an example of someone being fired because they said something non-problematic.
  - zahlman 11mo ago
    > and in your own example, when they understood the unintended consequences, they removed this. The example says nothing of the sort.
    - AlotOfReading 11mo ago
      Correct, they didn't remove the policy or change their views on the surrounding context of the disciplinary meeting. They simply understood the issue after it was explained to them. It's not a high bar.
zahlman 11mo ago
> where the primary change has been it's not longer acceptable to tell racist/sexist jokes or make disparaging comments about others based race/sex/ethnicity. This is simply untrue. Such conduct was already completely and utterly unacceptable prior to "DEI", for decades. These policies have instead enabled disparaging comments about others based on race/sex/ethnicity — in particular, accusing people belonging to certain such groups of being inherently whatever-ist (see for example https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWoC90bbsdo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWoC90bbsdo), while defining away discrimination perpetrated against them (to move back towards the original topic, this claim was repeated many times in the discussion of the removal of references to "Strunk & White" in PEP 8). > What can you not say or do in these environments for fear of reprisal? For example, I doubt that you could refuse a request to state your "preferred pronouns", or critique the idea of making such requests or normalizing the culture around them.
- shadowgovt 11mo ago
  Why would you refuse a request to state your preferred pronouns? If you're asked and refuse to say, how are people to know which ones to use?
  - zahlman 11mo ago
    > Why would you refuse a request to state your preferred pronouns? Because I reject the underlying conceptual framework, as well as the worldview that makes such a "preference" important or valuable. > If you're asked and refuse to say, how are people to know which ones to use? By making their own judgement, as is everyone's natural right. It is simply not reasonable to demand that others see you as you see yourself. It is correct and just that people are permitted to see others as they will. When we speak of "pronouns" in this context, we speak of third-person pronouns. Therefore, it is inherent to the concept that I am not privy to the discussion when they are used to refer to me. To refer to others in third person, knowingly, in front of them, is in my view at least unprofessional and likely rude — as it entails speaking on that person's behalf.
    - shadowgovt 11mo ago