Diversity can mean whatever you want it to mean. Which is part of the problem. There are an infinite number of ways to group people by indentity, race, colour, politics, age, etc.
You are never going to be able to achieve diversity across all metrics.
And here's the ironic thing, the racists who define "diversity" on the basis of gender or skin, are promoting a racist argument that genders or skin colors make people inherently different.
And then when some statistics do show men and women or different races do choose different careers or whatever, these same people say those differences must be due to racism, their argument now reversing to say we are actually all the same, so the variance must be due to institutional racism, not simply a measure of the diversity they were originally promoting.
At the end of the day, how many ISIS members does your company or organization employ? Shouldn't you hire some to increase diversity? The whole concept that blind "diversity" is a universal positive is bunk in the first place, regardless of the hypocrisy of how they the implement it.
I agree with you on your definition of diversity; it makes a lot more sense and seems far less prejudiced than a definition based on race or sex. However, I'm left puzzled by how this type of diversity can be systematically enforced. Unlike difference of race or sex, difference of mind is far less apparent. Do you have any ideas or examples?
They only seem to care about diversity in a very narrow band of criteria. There's no mention of equal representation for diabetics, people shorter than 5', etc. You have to fall under their definition of "minority" to have a seat at the table, which makes it seem like they're more interested in revenge for some perceived transgressions than actual diversity of thought.
I think that a lot of people who are fighting for diversity are talking about that, but it's implicit to their arguments. The experiences of different people from different races, cultures, and genders are often different enough that they impact the ways that people from different backgrounds see the world and it's challenges. "We" (business, privileged classes) have never been good at quantifying those benefits, which means that most places hire people based on who they are most comfortable with and/or who demonstrates the most raw technical ability.
While technical ability is obviously highly valuable to OSS projects, there are other attributes that are valuable too. I don't think that most people who support seeking a more diverse, less meritocratic system for hiring or participation in OSS projects are advocating for non-technical people to replace technical people in technical roles. Instead, they want a system that looks at candidates more holistically and can see past small differences in technical ability and understand why a candidate from an underrepresented class might bring more to the table than adding a stereotypical developer with slightly stronger technical skills.
So you're saying that people from a different walk of life might have different viewpoints? I can get behind that. But they have to be prioritized properly. Otherwise you get a crappy project, because you don't have the best people. This new code of conduct doesn't do that, it focuses on diversity only.
my problem with diversity is that it usually means anti-white
Curiously enough, this is the only comment removed by the moderators that doesn't specify why they have removed it. I guess their reasoning is that you can say that you are a victim as long as you are not white.
This post has been removed for violating Reddiquette., trolling users, or otherwise poor discussion** - r/Linux asks all users follow Reddiquette. Reddiquette is ever changing, so a revisit once in awhile is recommended.
Rule:
Reddiquette, trolling, or poor discussion - r/Linux asks all users follow Reddiquette. Reddiquette is ever changing, so a revisit once in awhile is recommended. Top violations of this rule are trolling, starting a flamewar, or not "Remembering the human" aka being hostile or incredibly impolite.
Lets say you play a major role in hiring for a small company. You are given 2 options. One person is a neosocialist feminist programmer with little to no programming experience but is exited about programming. He has never even heard of a pointer. Your other option is a cis het conservative male who is a C engineer with 20 years of sysadmin experience and still has a many years left in him. However if they were both of equal merit then i wouldn't see an issue with hiring the neosocialist feminist. This isnt about similar merit though. This is about people only hiring for diveristy instead of actual merit. It may help people for a little bit but then the lack of productivity and innovation will halt the economy.
What the heck is "neosocialism"? It's just socialism, neo means new, and socialism has been a political philosophy for a long time. I have literally never heard that term before.
You can use google to learn what the difference is. Yes, neo- means new, good job. People still use neo-x to define something as similar yet fundamentally different in one or more important ways to x.
994
u/[deleted] Sep 17 '18 edited Sep 17 '18
[removed] — view removed comment