There was an interesting write-up on this by Hintjens at http://hintjens.com/blog:111

Slightly less comfortable for the most-privileged people on earth; probably more comfortable for everyone else.

cf. Every other American industry's initial foray into diversity.

Oh, it's fine that it's racist, because I as a white male have it so good?

Seems odd to me mate, there are things that being white certainly doesn't buy, it's not a ticket to middle-class.

Being cis doesn't make me any more worse at my job than being gay would, don't judge me on that merit it's bullshit.

FWIW I grew up incredibly poor and my "advantage" in IT was that people don't care about your background. If I had wanted to be a lawyer or doctor I would bet my life that I would have failed. Tech is definitely inclusive as hell by default and making it less so is rather stupid.

If there are people who are actively stopping women in tech or downplaying them then those people are at fault, I would argue as at fault as a company that wont interview me based on my skin colour or gender.

> Seems odd to me mate, there are things that being white certainly doesn't buy, it's not a ticket to middle-class.

Perhaps not.

But there are things that being white does grant you:

1. Police won't hassle you for driving a nice car.

2. Police won't hassle you for walking in a nice neighborhood.

3. People won't report you as "suspicious looking" for wearing a hoodie and walking in a neighborhood.

4. Police won't be as likely to use force to resolve a situation.

5. People will be less likely to have negative assumptions about your career, your intelligence, and your capabilities.

//

Being white is not a ticket to success, but it's not a hindrance either. That's the difference.

Exactly. This is a frequently misunderstood set of points. Having non-economic privileges does not automatically make you wealthy or even non-poor, and it doesn't automatically give you the best jobs or even any job. Some non-econ privileges are also relative not just to each other, but to each other in a geographic sense (skin color privilege helps you a lot more in Atlanta than in a town in Appalachia, for example.)

What it can do, for example, is help keep you from getting shot by the police on the way to your interview.

> Having non-economic privileges

I can't stand referring to my comment as "white privilege." It's just another way to discount a person simply because of their race.

Being white is like starting a race at the starting line. Being black can be like starting that same race 10 feet back.

Starting at the starting line, isn't a privilege--it's just how a race should be, in order to be fair for everyone participating.

What it also means is that being black means you just have to run faster to win.

> What it can do, for example, is help keep you from getting shot by the police on the way to your interview.

Which we should solve the problem, not badger whites to feel guilty by calling it a privilege.

It shouldn't be a privilege, but that's how things worked out. History made it a privilege. If we ever reach a place in societal development where everyone starts at the same place, we can, and perhaps will, stop calling it that. Until then, it is a privilege, and people will continue calling it that.

No one should feel guilty for having it, and others shouldn't being trying to make others feel guilty for having it (both of those things obviously happen, and people should speak against that, too. Some in the social justice world do exactly that.) Social Justice language is sometimes used as a cudgel, used opportunistically, used cynically, and abused in half a dozen ways (non-identarian left vs identarian liberal fights are often over these issues.) That doesn't mean the language is all wrong, or the meaning is wrong, it means bad people can use tools just like good ones can.

Those with some privileges, but without economic privilege or other similar power can help by speaking out, and may change some minds; those with all kinds of privileges can help even more. When Sam Altman talks about diversity hiring, for example, he does the work of potentially thousands of non-Sam Altmans. It's not about guilt, it's about using power for purposes of a more equitable society.

Saying that someone is suffering from "black hinderance" sounds even more terrible.

Maybe it sounds more terrible but it accurately describes the problem. You shouldn't be guilt tripping white people, you should be encouraging black people to perform better. "White privilege" falls into a mentality that I call victimization, where instead of people looking at things through the lens of "how can I change myself and be better", they look at it through the lens of "how can others change themselves to help me be better". You need both mentalities for things to work out but there's a heavy focus on the second one, because it's a lot easier and more convenient.

> You shouldn't be guilt tripping white people, you should be encouraging black people to perform better.

White people are the ones in power in this country. You can't just expect people to pick themselves up by their bootstraps, because it'll never happen unless the people in power put in effort to change the status quo, which is exactly what some tech companies are trying to do.

Like I said, I think both mentalities are necessary but there's a heavy focus on the wrong thing. The message it sends to people is wrong. The signal is that there are systemic problems that can't be changed because people in power are guilty of having power. This is a hopeless signal that doesn't help anyone. What we should be saying to people is that they should strive to be better because that's the only sure way they can hope to improve their situations. Waiting for other people to help you isn't going to do anything. The only thing you have control over is your own life. If the public discourse around these issues focuses solely on how other people have control and how you have no control, then the situation only becomes worse because then people have an excuse to not try, and they don't.

6. Your own peets won't harass you for "acting white"?

> Being cis doesn't make me any more worse at my job than being gay would

Gender identity and sexual orientation are not the same thing.

Ok... My point was really:

> In my opinion being heterosexual does not make me better or worse at my job in IT than being homosexual.

No. Giving irrational ideologues structural power in the workplace can make any thinking person uncomfortable, regardless of their privilege points.

Personally, I don't think I would be very comfortable knowing I was hired because company X has to meet diversity quotas and not solely because I was the best candidate for the job. I think it's an offense to hackers in general—I'm hired based on merit.

This is where affirmative action is a step backwards. The unconscious assumption goes from "they're an X in this field, they have to be good" to "they're an X in this field, they're probably just here to fill a quota" and makes matters worse for everybody.

GitHub is definitely focusing more on social justice than any company its size.

Maybe it pushes out some employees, but ultimately allows GitHub to hire from a larger pool of developers. They attract the best and succeed in the market. Diversity and a social justice focus is proven to make a company more successful, and historically marginalized groups are inspired by the GitHub leadership. A great outcome.

On the other hand, maybe it becomes a significant distraction from the business side. The "social impact team" increases its influence, and the culture becomes one of fear of saying the wrong thing or offending the wrong person. Employees leave, and are difficult to replace due to the negative reputation of the internal culture. The company fails.

Whatever the outcome, it's a great experiment and we're sure to learn something.