8 ms·

Here's my question: Do you honestly believe that a poor white person from Appalachia, who has received very few advantages in life, deserves to lose out on this

by jeremyt 12y ago

Here's my question: Do you honestly believe that a poor white person from Appalachia, who has received very few advantages in life, deserves to lose out on this opportunity because his skin happens to be the wrong color? Does he get fewer diversity points, even though his life experiences are so far removed from that of the white person growing up in, say, southern California, that they might as well have grown up in different countries?

pyrocat 12y ago
Try being a poor black person from Appalachia, who has received even less advantages in life (and in fact, many disadvantages). The rub is that on average, people who aren't white have a way harder time in America, hence the need for these types of opportunities. It doesn't matter that one white person may have had a hard life, it matters that systemically, non-white people have many disadvantages that white people don't have.
- jeremyt 12y ago
  Well, that's fine, but do you also want to argue that women and pacific islanders, on average, have received fewer advantages than poor white people from Appalachia?
  - pyrocat 12y ago
    I'd argue that women, on average, have received less advantages than men. And pacific islanders, on average, have received less advantages than white people. You're getting caught up in a taking a very specific sample and comparing it to a general population.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- yummyfajitas 12y ago
  The core question which you keep ducking is, "why do you insist on grouping by race/gender?" I.e., why don't you group humans into "suffered lots of disadvantage", "suffered a medium amount", "suffered none"? Among other things, the category "people who suffered lots of disadvantage" is more disadvantaged than either women or any racial group. Why do you explicitly exclude this subgroup of humans from consideration? Downmodding, BTW, still counts as ducking the question. Good to know that it's a difficult one.
  - techpeace 12y ago
    How would you like a potential applicant to quantify and prove how much disadvantage they have suffered? Do you believe that race and gender might be good indicators of the level of prejudice one has experienced in life?
  - smtddr 12y ago
    >>The core question which you keep ducking is, "why do you insist on grouping by race/gender?" I.e., why don't you group humans into "suffered lots of disadvantage", "suffered a medium amount", "suffered none"? http://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/05/15/straight-white-male-the-lowest-difficulty-setting-there-is/ http://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/05/15/straight-white-male-th... Because, and honestly I think you know this, in America a disadvantaged white person is still better off than a disadvantaged black person. A disadvantaged man trying to make it in tech is still better off than a disadvantaged woman trying to make it in tech. The problem in America is race and gender, everything else being equal - race & gender become filters because of racism and sexism. Two resumes that are _exactly_ the same, but one of them has a name normally associated with a black male will get far fewer bites from companies. Same thing with matching resumes but one has "Bob" and the other "Susan". The point of efforts like this is to close the gap that is created by sexism & racism. Yes, you could keep expanding the focus of the program until you become "Organization to solve every problem ever, LLC." ...but that's silly. There are some focused on AIDS/HIV, there are some people focused on Ebola, some people focused on Cancer.... and the people in this article are focused on race/gender in the tech industry.
    - yummyfajitas 12y ago
      It sounds like you are making a universal quantification, i.e. you are asserting that the poor white kid in Appalachia is still better off than Sasha Obama. Am I reading correctly? The problem in America is race and gender, everything else being equal... Again, let me repeat the question: why do you hold everything else equal? A related question. I've observed that ever since LASIK, people find me more attractive but less intelligent. I'm currently running an experiment to objectively measure this. Suppose my experiment confirms my anecdata. Should we preferentially give scholarships to people with good vision? If not, why not? I.e., what makes race special?
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

by jeremyt 12y ago

pyrocat 12y ago

Try being a poor black person from Appalachia, who has received even less advantages in life (and in fact, many disadvantages). The rub is that on average, people who aren't white have a way harder time in America, hence the need for these types of opportunities. It doesn't matter that one white person may have had a hard life, it matters that systemically, non-white people have many disadvantages that white people don't have.

jeremyt 12y ago
Well, that's fine, but do you also want to argue that women and pacific islanders, on average, have received fewer advantages than poor white people from Appalachia?
- pyrocat 12y ago
  I'd argue that women, on average, have received less advantages than men. And pacific islanders, on average, have received less advantages than white people. You're getting caught up in a taking a very specific sample and comparing it to a general population.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
yummyfajitas 12y ago
The core question which you keep ducking is, "why do you insist on grouping by race/gender?" I.e., why don't you group humans into "suffered lots of disadvantage", "suffered a medium amount", "suffered none"? Among other things, the category "people who suffered lots of disadvantage" is more disadvantaged than either women or any racial group. Why do you explicitly exclude this subgroup of humans from consideration? Downmodding, BTW, still counts as ducking the question. Good to know that it's a difficult one.
- techpeace 12y ago
  How would you like a potential applicant to quantify and prove how much disadvantage they have suffered? Do you believe that race and gender might be good indicators of the level of prejudice one has experienced in life?
- smtddr 12y ago
  >>The core question which you keep ducking is, "why do you insist on grouping by race/gender?" I.e., why don't you group humans into "suffered lots of disadvantage", "suffered a medium amount", "suffered none"? http://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/05/15/straight-white-male-the-lowest-difficulty-setting-there-is/ http://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/05/15/straight-white-male-th... Because, and honestly I think you know this, in America a disadvantaged white person is still better off than a disadvantaged black person. A disadvantaged man trying to make it in tech is still better off than a disadvantaged woman trying to make it in tech. The problem in America is race and gender, everything else being equal - race & gender become filters because of racism and sexism. Two resumes that are _exactly_ the same, but one of them has a name normally associated with a black male will get far fewer bites from companies. Same thing with matching resumes but one has "Bob" and the other "Susan". The point of efforts like this is to close the gap that is created by sexism & racism. Yes, you could keep expanding the focus of the program until you become "Organization to solve every problem ever, LLC." ...but that's silly. There are some focused on AIDS/HIV, there are some people focused on Ebola, some people focused on Cancer.... and the people in this article are focused on race/gender in the tech industry.
  - yummyfajitas 12y ago
    It sounds like you are making a universal quantification, i.e. you are asserting that the poor white kid in Appalachia is still better off than Sasha Obama. Am I reading correctly? The problem in America is race and gender, everything else being equal... Again, let me repeat the question: why do you hold everything else equal? A related question. I've observed that ever since LASIK, people find me more attractive but less intelligent. I'm currently running an experiment to objectively measure this. Suppose my experiment confirms my anecdata. Should we preferentially give scholarships to people with good vision? If not, why not? I.e., what makes race special?
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]