Make no mistake, inclusion and diversity at all costs is the new "religious" standard. Your personal beliefs do not matter. You will conform or you will suffer.
(Vote down, that's fine, but it's still true.)
(Vote down, that's fine, but it's still true.)
The problem with this is that to solve problems you need diversity in thought: https://hbr.org/2017/03/teams-solve-problems-faster-when-the...
"Received wisdom is that the more diverse the teams in terms of age, ethnicity, and gender, the more creative and productive they are likely to be. But having run the execution exercise around the world more than 100 times over the last 12 years, we have found no correlation between this type of diversity and performance."
For instance, in Brazil, once you know you are a person confined to live in favelas forever, then you participation in the broader society will be very limited. And with that the regard for the rules of the larger society.
http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/04/05/brazils-new-problem-with...
I've worked with pretty strict christians and muslims in the past without issue. As long as it remains in the private sphere I don't see why anybody would have issue with that. It's also interesting to challenge you world view from time to time, echo chambers are never a good thing for critical thought.
Speaking as a Christian, I actively seek to more deeply integrate my beliefs into every aspect of my existence: how I do my work and fulfill my responsibilities, how I speak to and treat others, i.e. many aspects of my behavior that resonate throughout my daily life regardless of temporal or physical context (at the office, at home, etc., during work, during play). At times, this means my words and actions clash with the "progressive" culture of the software development world; that can happen because someone puts me on the hot seat, or because I choose to speak/act, according to my beliefs, in response to some evil that cannot be ignored. I do pro-life/anti-abortion volunteer work in my area — I don't wear it on my sleeve, but sometimes people ask, or maybe they've seen me out and about, so engaged. I have tech peers who've told me they find such activity heinous. I go to a church where most of the women in attendance (voluntarily) veil their heads during the liturgy — personal photos related to my liturgical life (an important part of every week/year, so media ends up quasi/publicly accessible via the usual social platforms) have... raised eyebrows among the same peers.
Who I am, what I believe — I categorically refuse to put a wall around those things so that "offensive" life-content doesn't leak into my professional sphere. At the same time, I don't actively seek to offend my tech peers and if I do get into a disagreement with someone, I strive to be patient, respectful, and caring. I have friends in tech who share much in common with all the above, but are more guarded (even fearful — that's really the thing) about insulating their traditional Christian lifestyles from their professional peers and employers. I certainly don't intend to out them, and I understand their fears, but that way feels duplicitous to me, and it's not a path I'll take.
I've worked with a catholic guy who told me he prostested the same-sex marriage law in france. I completely disagree with his position but we just stopped the discussion at this point and we kept working together just fine. I would do the same if we worked together, probably.
Now if you kept bringing it up or even wear anti-abortion shirts or stuff like that then yeah, I might ask you to tone it down. But other than that it's really not my problem. The key element is respect I think. I respect you, you respect me and everybody's a happy bunny.
You sound quite reasonable, and I think you're right. :-) Other folks I've encountered are... not so reasonable.
If someone wore a t-shirt in support of the LGBTQ+ life style, would you ask them to "tone it down"?
In general I find that it's harder to be offensive when you position yourself for something rather than against something. On paper an anti-religious shirt sounds more offensive than a pro-LGBTQ+ one, for instance. Both sound hardly appropriate for work though.
This is a pretty fundamental difference isn't it? No one is out wearing t-shirts telling other people that they should be queer are they?
And I'm assuming your use of the phrase "the LGBTQ+ life style" was a slip not an intentional denial of the many different lifestyles LGBTQ people have and that being L, G, B, T or Q is for most not a lifestyle but fundamental component of their person.
I wish techies would get back to focusing on tech, it seems every other tweet and hacker news post is something meta about diversity, inclusion, tolerance, racism etc..
Branch off into your own community and accept that you made a mistake jumping in without testing whether your "leader" was acceptable to your standard of "tolerance". It's not on them to change how they run something you literally gave up control over just because it was convenient for you at the time.
Lol @ them listing their donations and time 'wasted' on something they had no idea or assurance of control over. I'm reminded of the Bane scene. "I gave you a lot of money..." "And this gives you power over me?"
Next time, get it in (legal) writing, folks! :)
Focusing on the tech unquestioningly meant only the privileged (in one sense or another) were able to get access to the community, and so it has unwittingly become exclusionary. While we were all "focusing on the tech", the number of women and minorities in tech somehow and mysteriously plummeted. And software was made, even by big companies, that excluded huge swathes of people (hello Apple Health). And companies were made that badly suffered from this too (Uber).
So, belatedly, the community is addressing that, by trying to actively work towards diversity, inclusion, tolerance, etc. Tech being tech, this has meant a whole assload of bike-shedding and "works for me, close as wontfix", as this thread yet again evidences. Doesn't mean we still don't have the bugs, and should still be trying to figure out how to fix them.
To have tolerance, you cannot tolerate intolerance. It is maybe illogical, but necessary.
Your comment shows the exact sort of thinking the people you're responding to are going off on.
The issue is people are trying to implement nonviolent communication principles in communities without learning how to process the world through the lens of nonviolent communication. And others are using the natural misunderstandings as evidence against nonviolent communication, as though the concept is the problem instead of people interpreting the concept in violent ways society teaches us to.
When we try to outlaw people being themselves, we overlook their needs. That isn't a productive framework and will ultimately compile into systemic issues over time. Tolerating intolerance says nothing about timberline, types of intolerance, scale, etc. It lacks make and is therefore a problematic principle for governing human behavior.
For most other people, it's a pretty clear line. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts.
Here's a little explanation of how people work: if a person holds a belief or fear, and one person demonizes then for it while another validates it, the person is going to be drawn to the validator. It's the same reason why gay pride has soared over the last few decades; as a gay person, would you rather listen to a person saying "you're perfect the way you are", or "you should be ashamed"?
Some people in the majority ethnic group are afraid that they will be attacked, in bad faith, for expressing a view in conflict with the current set of liberal views. By dismissing their fears and telling them to piss off, you're guiding them into the arms of Trump and his ilk (who genuinely hold extremist views). The right way to move people is through negotiation, not shaming and heckling. In this case, "negotiation" means understanding their goals and motivations, explaining your own, and finding a consensus agreeable to everyone.
And to preempt accusations: I voted for Sanders in the primary, Clinton in the general, and am constantly horrified by the Trump administration. I'm not defending genuinely hateful views. I am just aware enough of how people work to know that failing to listen because you're on the moral high ground is more likely to breed extremism than genuinely change minds.
I am though getting tired of the "that is why Trump won" accusations that float around, everyone seems to have perfect hindsight now that its over but few people seemed willing to actually do anything to prevent it. The party of personal responsibility has done a great job of blaming the victim (once again) for why they were seemingly forced to elect Trump. The truth is though: we don't have to do anything, there are plenty of shills who will drum up fear, frustration, and anger against marginalized minority groups simply for their existence. Yes, we can give them ammunition but they also have perfectly good ammunition factories churning it out day after day. All it takes is one loudmouth freshman SJW filmed on a campus to bias millions of people while thousands of trained people try to educate others about diversity issues get totally ignored.
There is an inherent conflict between people who see more rights for others as less rights for themselves. Should we take the high road and stick to our ideals (even when it means accepting people who would see our rights squashed)? Absolutely, but if we think by doing so we will actually achieve our goals we are delusional. I find it endlessly ironic that people who are typically derisive of the left as being coddling have to be coddled by the left lest they inflict more discrimination on the rest of us. People who joke about being "triggered" are themselves triggered constantly even though they are typically part of the unchallenged majority. It is like an abusive relationship where you are walking on eggshells and if you get out of line (ie, by standing up for yourself) the result is your fault.
Yeah, that's the truth, and it absolutely sucks. The conservative news coterie will give endless coverage of these incidents, priming millions to despise these people and their viewpoints. It only takes a small handful of people to ruin things for everybody, but this is also true of a few loudmouthed, asshole bigots on the right convincing the left that this is the majority view. This is why I preach the whole thing about listening, negotiation, etc. - it doesn't just apply to those of us on the left, there's absolutely a need for the right to listen thoughtfully as well.
I even feel this way about incidents that I am deeply, personally affected by. Climate change scares the shit out of me (look through my comment history if you need examples), so much so that I have struggled with depression and existential crises solely over this. Unless a hot war takes us out first, I'm firmly convinced that, if anything destroys humanity, this will be it. I'm afraid to have children, and terrified that the meaning I derive from life will be snatched away by stubbornness, greed, stupidity and laziness, which is heartbreaking. And yet, in spite of all that, when I watched a video of coal miners protesting environmental regulation that would take away jobs, I felt sorry for them, and angry at the climate change counter-protesters who were obnoxiously shoving signs in their face and shouting at them. Knowing that this will only make them hate liberals and environmentalists even more makes this sort of thing unacceptable. The best way to get what you want isn't shoving it down somebody else's throat unless you genuinely have the power to do so and enforce it permanently. In a two-party democracy, neither side has that power, necessitating consensus.
I attended a protest that ended up being a big yelling match that I didn't want to be a part of and I was able to strike up a conversation with someone on the other side (not one of the rabid in your face protesters) and I found that pretty valuable. She thought Trump was chosen by God (and some other pretty wild stuff) but my guess is I had a bigger impact on her than the angry people that were on "my side" that she saw the rest of the day. I think if we have enough of that maybe we can change some minds but I don't expect anyone to simply come to an accurate realization on the state of affairs based on what they are exposed to in the media and on the internet.
1. There is no standard of what ethical behavior entails. Many thoughts are actually incompatible. In this context:
1a. Some people might think it's unethical or immoral to be violent even in a consensual sexual context. This could include certain religious people, but it could include certain kinds of pacifists and feminists as well.
1b. Some people might think it's unethical or immoral to have anything beyond a "don't ask, don't tell" policy. In this view, if you know about it and they didn't tell you personally, it's messed up.
1c. Some people might think it's unethical or immoral to be anything less than 100% supportive of any kind of sexual expression.
1d. Some people really don't care and are offended that their desire to be left out of all this isn't respected.
...there are certainly more positions and combinations of positions here.
2. There is the secondary question as to what means in the pursuit of (1) are ethical or moral.
2a. What information is public?
2b. Once something is leaked, can we use it? How do we pretend we hadn't learned something?
2c. What opinions are worth respecting? Understanding? Should we silence people with unconscionable opinions?
2d. Can we outright exclude people for having non-inclusive beliefs?
a) You are implying that this article is an exception to the rule,
b) This article is an example of the rule insofar as you can believe anything at all insofar as "practical" conformity is enforced regardless?
Diversity(tm) and Inclusion(tm) have a cost of inviting Diversity Experts to tell you why you cannot do any of this on your own and why you need to pay them for it, even though none of their materials or solutions have been peer-reviewed and the readily observable effect is that they make everyone miserable.
One is how communities work, the other is how protection rackets work.
Communities have always been free to choose their members and morals. If I can kick someone out for being verbally abusive, why can't I do it for whatever the community agrees on?