Hacker News Reader

I agree with your point but this statement.

>You want diverse candidates to win the positions fair and square and thereby command the respect of the rest of the team.

A fairly large contingent of the 'promoting diversity' movement do not believe this. They quite literally believe skills and qualifications are secondary to race and gender considerations in the hiring process.

"Skills and qualifications" are often vague and amorphous. Look at tech. We are very bad at detecting who is good and who is not. You can easily weed out completely unqualified candidates and nobody is suggesting you hire them, but hiring isn't a deterministic procedure that selects the candidate with the highest 'qualifications' whatever that even means (would you like an algorithm that blindly selects the highest GPA in CS at the most prestigious school every time?)

The argument that people actually make which is not your ridiculous straw man is that if two candidates seem roughly equally competent (which happens almost every single time hiring occurs), and one is from an underrepresented group, and your workforce lacks in diversity, you should select the one from the underrepresented group.

As it turns out very often "skills and qualifications" is often used as a code word much like "culture fit" for "the two candidates are functionally indistinguishable, but candidate A just 'seems' smarter, you know? Because, well, white men are smarter, you know?"

I'm particularly struck by your thought that privileged groups "will slowly sour over not being given equal opportunity and float away," when the entire point of this move is to help people who _actually_ have not been given opportunities based on their race and gender.

Also see [1] "The reason why I was sourcing out work specifically from WOC is because we have filled out freelance roster until June with white dudes." White males seem to have been given plenty of opportunity.

[1] https://twitter.com/Scaachi/status/700672318406840320

I believe others should read the parent comment's previous statement before reading the parent comment itself:

>It [Her texts about "pale devils"] alienates far more fragile white guys than the groups she's looking to employ. An unfortunate sacrifice, but necessary none the less.

Ridiculing people who are put off by words like "pale demons" as "fragile", reveals a critical lack of empathy.

For me, it transforms phrases like "unfortunate sacrifice" and the above comment into crocodile tears. A pretense at humanity and, functionally, no different from the white supremacists who defend police brutality against blacks as an "unfortunate but necessary tragedy."

Insidious, really.

That "white dudes" tic again? It's really weird how you can tell so much about a person who uses that awkward phrase. You hear it, and you know there's an enormous baggage train of smug speech policing and poorly concealed prejudice coming in behind it.

Not sure why you're getting down voted. This is the right way to handle these matters without alienating a lot of groups and cause polarisation with other issues.

  > Discrimination against white males is just 
  > as bad as anything other form of discrimination.

It isnt in any way comparable, discrimination against white males mostly hurts their(our) feelings, discrimination against other demographics has them paid less, physically and sexually attacked more, put in jail or killed by police more (insert almost infinite list of results of being systematically discriminated against for not being a white male)

Disclaimer: Not a white male.

> It isnt in any way comparable, discrimination against white males mostly hurts their(our) feelings, discrimination against other demographics has them paid less

Suppose the highest paying job in my profession pays $65k/year. If you hire someone who is not a white male (me, for instance) for that job over a white male who is objectively better at it, how on earth is this not causing them to be paid less?

They just lost the top job (worth $65k) on account of their race, and will have to accept lower paying jobs in the future. They are absolutely being discriminated against and paid less.

Oh, I guess that makes discrimination OK then.

I think you are wrong. Losing privilege is a terrible feeling.

You realize that some white guys are explicitly forbidden to apply to a job, they won't get a chance to get employment to make a living and feed their kids. I'm not saying that non-whites don't face the same issues, but how can you honestly say that it only hurts their "feelings"?

You can be pro-discrimination in favor of minorities, but don't hide behind the "it only hurts their feelings" fallacy.