4 ms·

What makes you think 'XYZ' aren't bettering the world in more suitable fields for persons themselves? What would prevent 'XYZ' from "getting a chance" to do tha

by zxcdw 14y ago

What makes you think 'XYZ' aren't bettering the world in more suitable fields for persons themselves? What would prevent 'XYZ' from "getting a chance" to do that in tech/"our field"? Why should the 'XYZ' contribute if they refuse to contribute without special benefits because they somehow are "special"(which they are not)? Just because Jamal is black doesn't mean he's any worse/better/special than Henry who happens to be white. Just because Sally is a lesbian doesn't mean she's any worse/better/special than Cindy who is straight. You get the point. Stop categorizing people. There are no categories. There are only people. All equal regardless of age, sex, sexual preference, "race", origin, religious beliefs, ... Only people. Equal people.

diziet 14y ago
I did not imply or say that 'XYZ' should get any benefits, nor categorized anyone, I'd simply answered your question why it might be a problem -- it is my fault for not quoting back the exact part of your post I was replying to. My point is that I think the optimal number of people in minorities 'XYZ' that might be more happy and productive working in software, and the overall net benefit to the world in terms of 'efficient allocation of labor' is a state where more 'XYZ' work in software development.
- zanny 14y ago
  This is a valid opinion, but you can't go back and try to correct for people who, given different circumstances, might have grown into software and development rather than nursing or language or economics or another science. You do that, and you are somehow discriminating against someone on the basis of physical characteristics and are absolutely in the wrong. The solution is to make sure entry is unbiased, access is available, and you kind of have to hope culture eventually shifts away from inhereted biogtry and bias and towards indifference. Because at the end of the day, the "programmers are nerds" and "nerds are white men" mentality is pervasive from a young age, and that paints a flawed picture from the get-go. But it is getting better. Nerd culture is becoming more accepted, and computers are getting more pervasive, so they become more accepted too. There was an introductory bias that initiated a cultural stance in a very deeply derogatory way, and it will take decades for society to right itself away from that bias as long as it isn't perpetuated. But I don't think you can force it, especially with nonsense like affirmative action. That just perpetuates the bias by painting certain groups as "unnatural" in a setting where they have to be artificially inserted.
legutierr 14y ago
You seem to assume that prejudice and discrimination are not reasons for lack if diversity in tech, rather than other factors. Affirmative action may be a blunt and ineffective solution to fight a lack of diversity caused by prejudice, but to be fair any discussion of its merits must recognize that it's purpose is remedy discrimination, not just to improve diversity in a population. Yes, affirmative action makes a big assumption when it posits that a lack of diversity is caused by prejudice. But might that not be the case, that often a lack of diversity is caused by prejudice that can most easily be countered by a directly oppositional force? To be fair, it is this assumption that must be challenged when you challenge affirmative action.

by zxcdw 14y ago

diziet 14y ago

I did not imply or say that 'XYZ' should get any benefits, nor categorized anyone, I'd simply answered your question why it might be a problem -- it is my fault for not quoting back the exact part of your post I was replying to. My point is that I think the optimal number of people in minorities 'XYZ' that might be more happy and productive working in software, and the overall net benefit to the world in terms of 'efficient allocation of labor' is a state where more 'XYZ' work in software development.

zanny 14y ago
This is a valid opinion, but you can't go back and try to correct for people who, given different circumstances, might have grown into software and development rather than nursing or language or economics or another science. You do that, and you are somehow discriminating against someone on the basis of physical characteristics and are absolutely in the wrong. The solution is to make sure entry is unbiased, access is available, and you kind of have to hope culture eventually shifts away from inhereted biogtry and bias and towards indifference. Because at the end of the day, the "programmers are nerds" and "nerds are white men" mentality is pervasive from a young age, and that paints a flawed picture from the get-go. But it is getting better. Nerd culture is becoming more accepted, and computers are getting more pervasive, so they become more accepted too. There was an introductory bias that initiated a cultural stance in a very deeply derogatory way, and it will take decades for society to right itself away from that bias as long as it isn't perpetuated. But I don't think you can force it, especially with nonsense like affirmative action. That just perpetuates the bias by painting certain groups as "unnatural" in a setting where they have to be artificially inserted.

legutierr 14y ago

You seem to assume that prejudice and discrimination are not reasons for lack if diversity in tech, rather than other factors. Affirmative action may be a blunt and ineffective solution to fight a lack of diversity caused by prejudice, but to be fair any discussion of its merits must recognize that it's purpose is remedy discrimination, not just to improve diversity in a population. Yes, affirmative action makes a big assumption when it posits that a lack of diversity is caused by prejudice. But might that not be the case, that often a lack of diversity is caused by prejudice that can most easily be countered by a directly oppositional force? To be fair, it is this assumption that must be challenged when you challenge affirmative action.