4 ms·

I have a hard time following this line of reasoning. I don't think GP's point is to "ignore systemic discrimination". Rather, it is to ignore those things on wh

I have a hard time following this line of reasoning. I don't think GP's point is to "ignore systemic discrimination". Rather, it is to ignore those things on which people are discriminated. How can you discriminate against, say, race, if you don't pay attention to the person's race? Specifically, for tech, if you happen upon a code written by someone called "didgetmaster" on github, and the author makes no comment about who they are as a person, how does this contribute to discrimination? Isn't this the whole point of anonymous resumes and such to fight discrimination against minorities for employment?

DeathArrow 11mo ago
You are technically right if the goal is to stop ANY kind of discrimination. But is that the goal?
- vladvasiliu 11mo ago
  I don't know, and I admit I was operating under that assumption. But is that not the goal? Is there some kind of discrimination which is "good", and should go on?
  - btreecat 11mo ago
    I think you're raising the paradox of tolerance. Should I accept technically perfect PRs if they contain comments and messages with hate speak?
    - Citizen_Lame 11mo ago
      There is no paradox of tolerance. This is a social contract, once you break it you are not entitled to it, simple. Also speech, not speak.
      - xp84 11mo ago
        The issue arises when people disagree on what reality is. When most Americans are running on pure ideology and a (quite unearned imho) sense of moral certainty and superiority, they assume their worldview is the objectively correct one, and everyone who disagrees with them is "a bigot." Both sides of our divide have some psychotic people who do things like murdering people. But absent actually harmful acts like that, disagreeing with you doesn't make someone intolerant. It could be that your framing is wrong, or that there isn't one black-and-white objective universal right way of framing an issue.

DeathArrow 11mo ago

You are technically right if the goal is to stop ANY kind of discrimination. But is that the goal?

vladvasiliu 11mo ago
I don't know, and I admit I was operating under that assumption. But is that not the goal? Is there some kind of discrimination which is "good", and should go on?
- btreecat 11mo ago
  I think you're raising the paradox of tolerance. Should I accept technically perfect PRs if they contain comments and messages with hate speak?
  - Citizen_Lame 11mo ago
    There is no paradox of tolerance. This is a social contract, once you break it you are not entitled to it, simple. Also speech, not speak.
    - xp84 11mo ago
      The issue arises when people disagree on what reality is. When most Americans are running on pure ideology and a (quite unearned imho) sense of moral certainty and superiority, they assume their worldview is the objectively correct one, and everyone who disagrees with them is "a bigot." Both sides of our divide have some psychotic people who do things like murdering people. But absent actually harmful acts like that, disagreeing with you doesn't make someone intolerant. It could be that your framing is wrong, or that there isn't one black-and-white objective universal right way of framing an issue.