The grandparent is implying that "Taylor Swift" and the "Evil Manager" are two sides of the same coin; they don't need to even be different people. The system lets a (big) artist extract value while keeping their public image clean. It's a shell game, and Ticketmaster plays the role of bad-guy-as-a-service.
Of course, their insane monopoly means they also get to take advantage of smaller artists, venues etc. None of this is good.
Britney Spears ended up forced into a conservancy. Taylor Swift is much more savvy (gets songwriter credit on everything, successfully rereleased her early tracks to get better royalties from her back catalog, manages her fanbase really well in general). She definitely knows the game with Ticketmaster.
Raising tax rates beyond that point is guaranteed to be suboptimal, though. Most of the weird distortions being discussed in this thread are due to the postwar 92% tax rates.
It's useful to know where the ceiling is.
There are many people today that argue we should bring back Eisenhower level tax rates on the wealthy, and there are many others that argue we have to keep taxes on billionaires at the extremely low levels they're at today or they'll quit participating in our economy. Neither of these is true.
At this moment in time I think companies can gain a major hiring advantage by simply hiring the best regardless of race/gender. So many large companies are shooting themselves in the foot distorting incentives and saying "no" to people who are the wrong color/gender.
I think we're going to see a rise of new companies formed, perhaps not from Silicon Valley, that will reject the whole D&I concept and move forward with complete blindness to race, culture, or gender. They will excel, outperform and form a new age of englightenment. I don't think this will happen because I want it to, it will happen because incentives and fundamentals of operations of a company – i.e., just focus on building good things.
This is optimistic - I certainly hope it works out this way. I think a recent problem is that all the "free" or nearly free money has completely disconnected many operations from actual market forces, so they are not incentivized to build something good and their attention can wander to fitness signaling type activities
What kind of statement is this? D&I is supposed to be comparatively balanced to the society is serves. Minorities are essential within companies to prevent bias in their marketing and product development that can be fatal to business success.
D&I is not a terrible paradigm that needs to be dismantled just because some companies take it to far, it's no different than accounting or other functional considerations within big business where it's too easy to lose sight of how balanced a company is internally. If you don't keep reports on finances a company can easily fail. If you don't take steps to make sure minority groups are represented within your company, it will also create situations where bias takes hold, and suddenly discrimination becomes the norm.
What's next? Should we get rid of sexual harassment training and policies?
Only someone from a background that elimination of equal opportunity would serve foremost would think that "complete blindness to race" is possible in our world. It's a childish and a destructive ignorance considering what is currently happening in our world even to this day, as white nationalist groups are growing in numbers, and other groups, a prior US president, and public celebrities are also regularly publicly expressing race based hate.
> Minorities are essential within companies to prevent bias in their marketing and product development that can be fatal to business success
There's a ton of different sources of bias. Look at lesswrong.com. What (other than politics) makes minority bias more significant than the other? And why it can't be fought with ordinary means and working on yourself?
You don't need to be the same thing as the object of your study to study it. Just like you can study Geology without being a rock, you can study what a minority group wants/needs/buys without belonging to it. Nothing in principle prohibits that.
>> Just like you can study Geology without being a rock, you can study what a minority group wants/needs/buys without belonging to it.
Your logic by nature is total flaw. You can't see it because of your own condition, and supremacist beliefs.
It could probably citing that not be explained to you how a lion cannot be taught to understand an ox's life, or how a Hasidic Jew can be fairly considerate of a Muslim perspective and vice versa.
This is the root of arrogance in ignorance that perpetuates racial bias. People have a right to be different, and a natural tendency to be biassed towards their own individual and cultural perspectives, and globalist companies like Microsoft are by nature required to properly represent all of the people they serve PROPERLY or they will simply fail over time... It's not the call of a few biassed individuals to determine that they are qualified. The market dictates the need for D&I.
> You can't see it because of your own condition, and supremacist beliefs
Being disrespectful to people who disagree with you, and at the same time unable to produce any sensible argument only harms the cause you're fighting for.
> how a lion cannot be taught to understand an ox's life
Limited intelligence is the defining factor here, not background. Think about it. Humans can understand lions quite well, and we understand what's good for them, what makes them happy. And we do it without having to run around savanna biting zebras!
And yes, Jews and Muslims can have a very good idea about each others life, struggles and priorities—it's just a matter of education.
> globalist companies like Microsoft are by nature required to properly represent all of the people
I could argue with this and would probably enjoy it another time. Now let's remember the context we are in. We were talking about whether D&I are good for company's performance, not about any moral obligations you may think the company has.
> People have a right to be different, and a natural tendency to be biassed towards their own individual and cultural perspectives
We also have a natural tendency to fall for logical fallacies. But somehow we managed to identify those and find ways to fight them, not worship them. Nothing stops you from fighting the cultural bias you have (maybe not completely, but just enough to get it off the way of your work duties) in the same way—later go home, take off your employee hat and be different, biased, whatever.
I don't know if it's valid, but let's assume it is. Have you considered that some of this growth can be attributed to DEI and the rest of far-left policies?
If you're openly being racist towards certain groups, they can also become racist. When a poor white male gets rejected/fired/demoted because company needed a diversity hire, it's not going to make him more tolerant.
There is only one solution: To be completely objective and treat everyone equally.
This is rational, straightforward, healthy and just righteous in a deep way. It creates an environment bereft of envy and injustice.
Turns out, most high brain mass mammals have a innate sense of fairness. When humans are treated unfairly because of some ostensible moral goal whether through racism or D&I; the end result is not pretty. Humans of all culture are enamored and magnetized by fairness and justice. But those words have been twisted to mean exactly the opposite by contemporaneous social-justice movements.
This was the mainstream view of the Civil Rights movement. It was utterly beautiful. But, post-moderity came and neo-Marxists have reigned for last 40 years in USA at least, gutting out Universities and now, Corporations.
> Minorities are essential within companies to prevent bias in their marketing and product development that can be fatal to business success.
This is far-fetched and based mostly on ideology rather than evidence, not much different from a Soviet socialist explaining why planned economies are essential to the country's success (100 years ago it didn't sounds as absurd as now). It's your right to believe this sort of things, I don't deny you this, but don't insist that this is an objective truth that every reasonable person should believe in. As it goes with this kind of questionable ideas, it should be ok to choose not to believe in them, as I think the parent comment does.
And I agree with the parent comment's view here. Whatever advantage the woke-culture companies may have is easily explained by their increased visibility among woke audience, not by some deep insights. It's just a marketing trick, just like putting AI/Blockchain on your ad increases your visibility among some of tech enthusiasts.
> What's next?
Slippery slope is a fallacy.
> white nationalist groups are growing in numbers […] prior US president, and public celebrities are also regularly publicly expressing race based hate
How does any of this back up the impossibility of blindness to race? (Remember that most of the world is outside of US.)
It is also possible that those companies will be suffocated by the fact that banks won't extend credit to them (ESG) or angry Twitter will pressure potential customers not to do business with them.
> It is also possible that those companies will be suffocated by the fact that banks won't extend credit to them (ESG) or angry Twitter will pressure potential customers not to do business with them.
I think that would only be an issue if they made a big deal in public about rejecting DEI. Such a statement might also attract a bunch of obnoxious, oppositely-polarized people you don't want either. Probably the best strategy would be to not mention it at all unless forced, and then just make vague, positive statements about diversity until whoever is bothering you moves on to something else.
The University of Central Florida has bought an email address I own from some spammers and they're now occasionally asking me to enroll in some program where I can prove my commitment to diversity and inclusion and eventually become a certified supplier to them. "Positive statements" will not be what you need, you'll need to show that you actually have the numbers, and if you don't, you will not be considered.
IIRC, the US government's contracting rules are so byzantine that it gets shut results and wastes all kinds of money on incompetent contractors whose primary skill is compliance with the government's byzantine process.
If you want to ignore requirements like that (or similar DEI requirements), you're going to have to forgo those kinds of customers.
True, this is actually happening as we speak. There will be a bifurcation, once enough flywheel speed has picked up; ESG funds will see competitor funds that will outperform. No wasting money on greenwashing or other ESG bullshit. Totalitarianism has to fight a war with reality and facts. It is unsustainable (pardon the pun).
> ESG funds will see competitor funds that will outperform. No wasting money on greenwashing or other ESG bullshit.
Would that work? IIRC, stock prices aren't so much about performance, just who wants to buy your stock. Decreased actual performance from "greenwashing or other ESG bullshit" might be overwhelmed by demand by ESG pots of money.
Companies aren't doing DEI because they feel like it. They're doing it because if they don't, they will be punished by the state. The way this works is that there is a patronage relationship between the grievance HR class and certain political actors. If you fail to hire enough DEI HR people to suck revenue from your company, the state prosecutors hit you with all kinds of hiring discrimination lawsuits. It's sort of like a mob protection racket. You hire some of our guys for some no-show jobs, we don't burn your business down.
What process do you use to select between world-models? I'm curious if you have a coherent answer here, or if you just can't accept what I'm describing because you don't like the way it sounds.
Do you know anything about employment law or the current state of title VII jurisprudence? I'm guessing not if you're reacting this way to a pretty uncontroversial claim.
I'm surprised at how negative the reaction to my explanation is. It's not even controversial to anyone who keeps track of the current state of title VII legal strategy.
It should happen all other factors being equal, but eventually successful companies start to grow and attract the kind of political manager types. Then the turmoil and in fighting starts.
Also, people hiring in their friends and family over others who are distinctly better.
I've been in many roles over the years in very different companies, and these two eventualities always play out. People are flawed, and the companies they create become equally flawed
> Also, people hiring in their friends and family over others who are distinctly better.
That mostly has to do with weighing trusted known-contact vs. untrusted stranger. In extreme case, we see this in a traditional family business that has been owned and operated for generations.
This is already the norm in Silicon Valley. D&I awareness is a brand new thing, and mediocre reactionaries like the author pervade existing leadership structures.
Over 50 years ago the US Military recognized that segregation and entrenched racial biases lead to inefficiencies and lack of readiness.[1] In an economy where hiring pipelines for skilled technical people are stretched incredibly thin, we need to be taking a hard look at why we're only getting people that look a certain way through our hiring process.
> Over 50 years ago the US Military recognized that segregation and entrenched racial biases lead to inefficiencies and lack of readiness.[1] In an economy where hiring pipelines for skilled technical people are stretched incredibly thin, we need to be taking a hard look at why we're only getting people that look a certain way through our hiring process.
That doesn't follow, at all. For one, you're comparing apples and oranges. The "norm in Silicon Valley" is not to practice explicit racial segregation like the US Army did in 1940. Additionally, D&I may very well be operating at the wrong end of the pipe.
An anecdote: a non-white friend of mine recently quit her job, because she was pressured into hiring an incompetent person who checked a lot of DEI boxes. That person proceeded to drive her crazy with their incompetence until she burned out and quit.
The norm in Silicon Valley is treat D&I with an inordinate level of skepticism, if not reject it outright as "anti-meritocratic." What we have here is not explicit racial segregation, but a system operating via capital and clout that has elevated a small group of mostly white men into positions of extreme power and influence over the most vibrant segment of the American economy. This creates huge bind spots and carries the risk of building systems that reinforce oppression.
>D&I may very well be operating at the wrong end of the pipe.
Then that should be the argument at hand. Not rejecting the idea outright.
>she was pressured into hiring an incompetent person
That there is no system in place for addressing concrete performance issues in any employee is the failing of the organization. The requirements for any role you hire for should be clear, expectations should be set and when they are not met there should be consequences. If this is not the case at the organization she worked at, she was bound to burn out, irrespective of the DEI objectives.
>> D&I may very well be operating at the wrong end of the pipe.
> Then that should be the argument at hand. Not rejecting the idea outright.
That doesn't follow. If D&I is operating at the wrong end of the pipe, it should be rejected outright because it won't work and will cause pointless problems in the meantime.
> That there is no system in place for addressing concrete performance issues in any employee is the failing of the organization.... If this is not the case at the organization she worked at, she was bound to burn out, irrespective of the DEI objectives.
There was a system in place, but if you couldn't read between the lines: the bar was far higher for firing a "diverse" employee with performance issues, which followed from the DEI ethos in place.
>If D&I is operating at the wrong end of the pipe, it should be rejected outright because it won't work and will cause pointless problems in the meantime.
So instead of discussing ways of making D&I work, we should throw it away. Sounds like a newbie dev throwing a tantrum over having to build on a system with legacy code.
>the bar was far higher for firing a diverse employee with performance issues, which followed from the DEI objectives.
That statement doesn't simply "follow from DEI objectives." Was that bar for performance standards explicit? implicit? or, like a lot of other replies here, hyperbole?
> So instead of discussing ways of making D&I work
Parent comment didn't say anything like that. Please assume good faith in discussions. They said that D&I efforts are more likely to work if focused on other parts of the education/industry pipeline, which seems at least plausible.
Parent comment literally said "D&I should be rejected outright" and uselessly categorized the pain of driving institutional change as "pointless problems."
There is a point to trying to change a system that only sees white people at the end of the hiring pipeline. We can debate where it needs to change, but the change is necessary.
> Parent comment literally said "D&I should be rejected outright"
Nope, they didn't. A direct quote: "If D&I is operating at the wrong end of the pipe, it should be rejected outright because it won't work". Note the "If". If you disagree that D&I wouldn't work under these conditions, or that stuff that doesn't work should be rejected as pointless, you're still welcome to make that argument. But please be careful not to misquote other users' comments.
>> Parent comment literally said "D&I should be rejected outright"
> Nope, they didn't. A direct quote: "If D&I is operating at the wrong end of the pipe, it should be rejected outright because it won't work".
Yeah, it's also worth noting that "rejected outright" is actually omegaworks's own language, which he is now taking issue with. I was only echoing it back to emphasize a point in his own terms.
Also, I suspect there's some sloppiness with definitions going on here. When I was using "D&I," I was referring specifically to kinds of corporate hiring polices the OP was talking about and this thread is discussing. I suspect omegaworks may be interpreting the term more broadly at times.
It makes no sense to debate the meaning of "rejected outright" with you. Just because a strategy doesn't work when it is applied at a particular point in the process, doesn't indicate that the strategic goals are wrong to pursue. Even the idea that it won't work is debatable, I question whether the strategy was applied in good faith by the people responsible.
> That statement doesn't simply "follow from DEI objectives." Was that bar for performance standards explicit? implicit? or, like a lot of other replies here, hyperbole?
The person simply couldn't do the job and was profoundly incompetent, and the response was to that was to repeatedly be told to spend more time training them. My friend had previously successfully terminated a white employee who was under-performing but turned out to be more competent than this one.
> What we have here is not explicit racial segregation, but a system operating via capital and clout that has elevated a small group of mostly white men into positions of extreme power and influence over the most vibrant segment of the American economy
Microsoft - Satya Nadella
Google - Sundar Pichai
Twitter - Parag Agrawal
None of these men is white or even born in the USA, and somehow they managed to arrive at positions of extreme power and influence through this system of "capital and clout".
So, what's the mechanism here? The white Americans in power are fans of the caste system established by the British colonizers and decided to make an exception to their white supremacy to allow some Brahmins to control some of the most important US tech companies?
I'm simply pointing out that your three examples don't negate the fact that we have a system here that taken whole rewards and uplifts whiteness. White colonialism literally crafted the system that elevated those three non-white people. Do you think that that influence is not relevant just because those three people are not white?
Working in tech, I don't see a system that rewards and uplifts whiteness. Asians (both East and from the subcontinent) are greatly overrepresented relative to their fraction of the US population in SWE jobs. Their skin color was never a factor. Most of the ones I've worked with/interviewed, were hired due to merit, not the color of their skin.
That richer and more well educated Indians are over-represented in tech jobs and as CEOs of major tech companies relative to those with fewer resources and less well educated is not surprising.
I am not sure what's the relevance of the skin color of those who allegedly imposed the system that led to this particular group being at the top of the socioeconomic hierarchy in India today. How did that result in "uplifting whiteness"?
> I don't see a system that rewards and uplifts whiteness.
What you see is little more than your own personal anecdote. Who are the voices centered in the conversations around funding? Why is it easier for some people to secure investment? Who is considered important in the conversations around what tech is developed and who is ignored? Who reaps the rewards and who shoulders the costs?
> with fewer resources
Think a little deeper: why were resources allocated in this way?
>How did that result in "uplifting whiteness"?
The people put in charge of these companies have little interest in critically examining the race and caste-based resource allocation mechanisms that helped to get them there.
I'm not sure about in the US, I know in Canada we've had lots of university faculty positions advertised recently that are explicity for women or some other groups. I don't understand how it's legal but it is.
Some manage to find a workaround even when it's illegal. I was reading somewhere that Lund University in Sweden was cancelling the job opening right before the deadline if the most promising candidate wasn't a woman.
There's so much bullshit in this. Universities are not allowed to advertise positions as "women only", but at the same time they are required to reach certain percentage of female "representation" by law.
Many countries require being harmed by an action and then bringing that action before a court, before anyone ever compares that action to any specific law at all.
So you can see how many actions become de facto legal if nobody ever does that.
At least at my company, I know they have preferences for minorities over similarly qualified candidates. I've heard a department head specifically tell the managers that we need more women in a specific role. Maybe they're just breaking the law though...
This is one longish discussion of the differences between education and hiring. [1] I think there is a carveout for federal contractors, which is what your link refers to. In general, it is not legal in hiring.
I think there's an affirmative action lawsuit currently pending before SCOTUS. It seems discrimination is allowable (so far) as long as it has good intentions. It may change with this case.
Although there could be some discrepancy with a colloquial use of discrimination which includes an implied notion of negative bias, while positive biases (preferences to certain candidates) can also fit the more dry definition.
> The new leftist talking point is that there is no possible way to measure merit objectively so we shouldn't even attempt to do so. Therefore, they would counter your point by saying that you're incapable of hiring the best based on merit.
Those who believe that there is no possibility of measuring merit are destined to be out-competed by those who can and do measure it at least somewhat accurately.
> This results in some people (mainly white men) feeling like they are being left out when they really weren’t the best fit but in the past may have picked over someone else.
There would be merit to this line of thinking, if the diversity initiatives came in the form of anonymizing resumes and interviews (which is easier to do with remote interviews). But that's not the case. More often than not, diversity initiatives come in the form of quotas or penalties for hiring or promoting too many "non-diverse" people. And those penalties often kick in at levels of representation lower than "non-diverse" people's representation in the candidate pool. This is why I'm not irked by over-representation of Asians in tech. They're not advantaged relative to whites, if anything they're penalized for their race (at a past company asian males were categorized as "ND", Negative-Diversity even more undesirable than white males).
However, this is often not how diversity initiatives work. More often than not, they're not aimed at eliminating discrimination, they're aimed at mandating it: attaching bonuses to hires and promotions of particular races and genders, or achieving specific representation numbers (AKA quotas). This isn't eliminating discrimination, this is creating it.
If you think white men have it hard... Try being a black woman.
Your rosy portrayal of white struggle is deeply mis-informed... People struggle because of corporate cost-cutting strategies, not because minority hires are taking jobs from white men in droves.
A lot of the posts in this thread are evoquing memories from Birth of a Nation... geesis.
>More often than not, diversity initiatives come in the form of quotas or penalties for hiring or promoting too many "non-diverse" people.
This is literally not the case for the author. From the article:
>I told HR that I had considered it and I believed my recommendation was correct. HR said “OK, then we don’t need to change anything. I just wanted to check that you had considered them.”
That's literally all the author had to do. He made up the idea that it had an impact on his ability to advance in his career in his own mind.
>Again, there was no quota, but it seemed clear that promoting this person would have made HR and my corporate vice president happy.
It only "seemed clear." Weasel words. Engaging in the hyperbolic. This entire discussion is predicated on the fabrication that there is some racialized penalization system in place. It is scaremongering, nothing more than balking at the requirement to do the bare minimum.
Because explicit quotas are illegal, they're often conveyed ambiguously. "You don't need to hire X% of Y group. But hiring X% of Y group would demonstrate inclusivity, which is one of the core company values. And upholding our core company values is crucial to advancement."
Also, as per "Diversity Slating Guidelines" quotas are indeed being used. They require at least one Black or Latin candidate, and one female candidate. If there's only 4 people
on the slate, this could mean that 50% of the pool is subject to racial or gender quotas.
There's more context behind Microsoft's diversity initiatives. Hiring managers were given bonuses for hiring diverse applicants. Or conversely, they were penalized for hiring non-diverse applications: https://qz.com/1598345/microsoft-staff-are-openly-questionin...
This is how literally everything in corporate America works. You start with a good idea. It gets turned into a metric. Targets for this metric are assigned at various levels in the management hierarchy. Bonuses are made dependent upon meeting the target for the metric. Eventually everyone forgets the initial objective and just focuses on managing the metric. I work in consulting, client satisfaction is obviously very important, leadership made the determination that NPS is the best way to measure csat, we all have NPS targets, our bonuses are tied to them, so what does everyone do? They only send NPS surveys to specific clients they know will give a good score and then they spend time and effort to make sure the client follows up and does in fact give a good score. Everyone manages the metric, same as with the DE&I stuff.
What's especially troubling is that blind interviews and auditions, and other similar anonymizing techniques, are now being explicitly attacked from the DE&I perspective on the basis that they don't produce results that are "diverse enough".
I have found that this is absolutely true, but not in the way you are thinking.
The highest performing team I have been on had people from 4 continents, ran the gamut on political views, had disparate education levels (from literally a high school dropout to PhDs from prestigious schools), and had people of many races. It had no women and no black people. By the standards of HR, it was not a diverse team at all.
The DEI folks I have worked with want a very specific kind of diversity: They want you to hire people of all genders and colors, but only rich ones from a few schools. They think that school reputation and awards are a better measure of aptitude than an interview or a take-home test (claiming that the test or interviewer is biased).
What's "funny" about your comment is that there is no "white" race.
"Whiteness" was created in a Virginia 1691 law to be "not negroe and not indian". Naturally, that also expanded to be not: Jews, Asians, sometimes not Italians, usually not Irish, and absolutely no indigenous people of any sort.
Defining yourself by what peoples you exclude is the core kernel of racism. And that's what "white" means.
That doesn't work. There are some really amazing people out there that don't fit the typical tech mold of straight cis (white) guy. They don't stick around if they have to navigate a monoculture that doesn't understand that they are constantly throwing out micro-aggressions to people outside of their view of what acceptable behaviour is. Separating your home life from work life only works for so long before you start to crack.
I currently work in a lingerie store after having spent a fair amount of time in 'professional' environments.
I'm less tired coming home from 8 hours on my feet dealing with the public than I was in professional settings. I don't have to hide everything about myself and my background (I'm a first-generation college student with a poorish upbringing) or constantly worry about what all my interactions with colleagues mean for my 'career'.
I will say my class background is more of an issue than my sex/sexuality, but my sex was way more of a problem in my teens and early 20s. The interesting thing is that being a techy child was fine, being a techy teenage/20 something girl SUCKED, and being a techy 30 something woman is fine.
Sorry to hear that. I get it. I've been there. I reached a point where I was in a big company and got promoted to a level where there were no LGBTQIA+ people above my level - and this was at a FAANG company. All meetings were all straight cis guys that were overly aggressive. It was so incredible exhausting to function in that environment. The only reason I lasted as long as I did was because I had a very good female boss that could navigate working with these guys that had no clue the problems they caused for the people around them because they "were just being guys." I learned a ton about all these mental gymnastics you have to do to work with people that made no effort to adjust to work with different types of people. It was painful.
I'm now working at a smaller firm and get to be a major influencer and decision maker in how the culture is getting laid out. It's mind boggling how much trauma/PTSD people bring to the table from working in offices that are really homogenized and lack diversity with them being the one that's different. I still can't get over how common it is regardless if it's gender, sexuality, education background, or disability. What I think a lot of people are missing in the DEI discussions isn't about trying to find diverse candidates but how to create environments where they - along with everyone else - thrives.
It's pretty obvious from the comments in this post how there's a strong vocal minority of people that refuse to engage and constantly battle how broken things are. I just hope they figure it out before it's too late. And if they refuse, I hope they remain ICs with very little influence and not included in significant decision making because this attitude is poison for so many people.
Yeah, I'm also gay and disabled (MS). So that's fun. Being female is less of an issue now that I'm old enough that men don't harass me as often, but tech spaces between the ages of 11 and ~25 SUCKED. The thing that stuck out to me was that there was no way to 'win' and the boys (because it was mostly adolescents and males in their 20s) projected their dating issues onto me HARD. And I know for a fact that I never 'led anyone on' since I've been out since I was 12 and very open about it. The gatekeeping was ridiculous (I'm a 2nd generation programmer and my grandfather was playing with electronics in the 1920s), and I also put up with rape threats and rampant homophobia (nothing quite like worrying about corrective rape if you want to go to a LAN party!)
The cultural homophobia and misogyny is one of the two major reasons I didn't opt for a CS degree (the other being I had too much pride to take intro classes to prove myself when I'd been coding since I was 5 because 17 year old me was arrogant as hell). This WAS 10-20 years ago, but experiences like mine do have impacts on the candidate pipeline for midlevel and senior positions.
And on the other hand, taking my tech skills into non-tech spaces is very well received. Libraries are always happy to have tech-literate people, and even in my current job, I've had 2 freelance dev projects dropped into my lap in the space of a month simply because I'm easier to work with and very familiar with the very feminine subject domain.
I'm very skeptical of DEI, ironically, because I've seen too much of it turn into grifts for upper-class and upper-middle class POC and gay people while ignoring non-visible differences or differences that might actually require behavior changes (disability and class, mostly). But there's definitely a cultural problem. And I say this as a woman who greatly prefers 'male' communication styles and was raised by a warehouse worker. I'm not pearl clutching - I've lived in a couple of the most dangerous cities in the US, I'm no shrinking violet.
I'm sure you'll be eager to consider that the reverse is also true, except in that case it's the majority of the pool getting aliened by open favoritism toward ethnic minorities and people with bizarre sexual proclivities. If the outcomes of explicit neutrality aren't good enough for you then you'd better start thinking up a new pretense, because people can see through it quite easily and they aren't going to put up with it forever.
I'm sincerely confused about this comment. If I reverse it, I end up with the status quo in a lot of settings: everyone is the same, they don't have to worry about finding ways to interact with people that are different from them, and they get the luxury and safety of being who they are at home while at work.
Also, what are "bizarre sexual proclivities"? It sounds like you are living with a thick layer of judgement and shame in your life. That sounds rough.
I'm still not sure I see anything wrong with this picture. Yes being different from other people is hard - the more different the harder. People naturally gravitate towards those they can identify with. The solution to this problem is to develop a coping strategy, not to use force to bend the world around you. People should be entitled to seek out and live in homogenous environments. Just because these are not available to everyone all the time doesn't mean they should never be available to anyone.
Wow. Just wow. So you are arguing that people from marginalized communities should just suck it up and stick to their own or constantly have to hide and adjust who they are to make others feel comfortable. I feel sorry for the people that you work with and god forbid you actually end up managing people. This sort of crap creates such a toxic environment for people.
I'm arguing that belonging to a majority does not place implicit responsibilities on people. Wanting to associate with culturally similar people is a natural human behaviour, not something to be ashamed of.
You seem to be arguing that we should force people to deny this quite natural impulse in order to make minorities more comfortable. Seems pretty toxic/controlling to me. Let people be.
You do realize you are advocating for minorities to do all the work? Carry the burden, deal with the trauma that gets involved, constantly have to work at navigating everyone else, while people in a spot of privilege don't need to do any sort of work, right? This is the world you are arguing for and it's not a world you'll want to be living in long term. Hopefully you figure that out sooner before it's too late.
Yes, I do realize this. I'm arguing that people's privilege is theirs. It's not yours to redistribute as you see fit. The situation you're describing is reality - an inevitable consequence of human social biology.
When you belong to a minority, you navigate the world on the majority's terms. This is true everywhere but only in the US do people seem to get bent of of shape about it. The saying is "When in Rome, do as the Romans do". How would you mutilate this phrase so that it conforms to your worldview?
Clearly you don't follow popular trends. What's popular and desirable changes frequently, and sometimes many times in the course of a year. This includes physical appearances. Social change can happen overnight.
I wish I could be more helpful, but the one thing I can tell you confidently is that you can't educate your users unless they are coming to your platform seeking an education. The best you can do is just give them a snappy UI where they mindlessly click through the "boring stuff" and a EULA that keeps you legally safe.
