News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on U.S. Supreme Court Curbs Excessive Design Patent Damages. Parent comment

Re:U.S. Supreme Court Curbs Excessive Design Patent Damages by mzw_mzw on Thursday December 08, 2016 @04:01PM (#13134265)
"Anti-diversity" is a rather uncharitable term to use; it takes people who, say, dislike bullying tactics or prefer meritocracy and lumps them in with racists. One reason threads on the topic often degrade into flame wars is the attitude that there is only one moral way to view the situation.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:U.S. Supreme Court Curbs Excessive Design Patent Damages by jdp23 on Thursday December 08, 2016 @09:30PM (#13136229)
If you think there's a better term, I'm certainly up for suggestions.

But why do you think it's uncharitable? People who say they "prefer meritocracy" are in fact taking an anti-diversity position. Maybe they don't understand it's anti-diversity, in which case pointing it out may encourage them to think more about it and understand why. Or maybe they don't care, in which case they certainly wouldn't take it as a moral judgement.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:U.S. Supreme Court Curbs Excessive Design Patent Damages by grzm on Thursday December 08, 2016 @04:16PM (#13134376)
I think I follow what you're saying. It's a framing issue, similar to the pro-life/pro-choice, which encourages false dichotomies. I agree that "anti-diversity" is sub-optimal. Do you have suggestions for more neutral terms to apply to the topic?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:U.S. Supreme Court Curbs Excessive Design Patent Damages by mzw_mzw on Friday December 09, 2016 @02:43AM (#13137336)
I would cautiously argue that the two sides don't define themselves internally so much by what they are for as by what they focus on opposing. So maybe anti-racism and anti-activist? Or anti-politics?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:U.S. Supreme Court Curbs Excessive Design Patent Damages by grzm on Friday December 09, 2016 @02:53AM (#13137368)
Naming is tough :/ Trying to name concepts in programs is tough enough. Thanks for giving it a shot. I don't have any better ideas. It'd be nice to be for something, though, right? Maybe I should convene a focus group! :)
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:U.S. Supreme Court Curbs Excessive Design Patent Damages by eli_gottlieb on Friday December 09, 2016 @05:40PM (#13142496)
>"Anti-diversity" is a rather uncharitable term to use;

I don't think it's uncharitable for people whose explicit, self-proclaimed position is that diversity makes things worse than homogeneity.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:U.S. Supreme Court Curbs Excessive Design Patent Damages by mzw_mzw on Monday December 12, 2016 @04:23AM (#13156776)
No, the mainstream explicit, self-proclaimed position is that these positions should be allocated on a meritocratic basis, not on the basis of racial quotas.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:U.S. Supreme Court Curbs Excessive Design Patent Damages by eli_gottlieb on Monday December 12, 2016 @11:09AM (#13159056)
That is the mainstream, but paradoxically, the mainstream is the quietest right now. Public debate has ended up being between people who want quotas for the "minorities" and people who want to re-homogenize an already diverse workforce.
[ Parent | on HN ]