Probably wouldn't say this if you were underrepresented.

Yeah, people seem to be more sympathetic to plights they've experienced themselves.

Regardless of whether or not such a plight is the biggest problem the overall society needs to solve.

> Regardless of whether or not such a plight is the biggest problem the overall society needs to solve.

What if societies could work on solving multiple problems at once?

Sure, but how do you prioritize which ones to solve? The capacity for a society to solve problems is not infinite.

Furthermore, how do you define what a "problem" is for a society? It seems "because it happened to me" is a relatively weak definition.

> Sure, but how do you prioritize which ones to solve? The capacity for a society to solve problems is not infinite.

Thankfully, neither are the problems that society is faced with.

> Furthermore, how do you define what a "problem" is for a society? It seems "because it happened to me" is a relatively weak definition.

It turns out, you don't actually need to! Some problems are faced by a subset of a society, and often that subset are most interested in solving them.

> Thankfully, neither are the problems that society is faced with.

True, yet I think we can agree that some problems are more easily solvable than others. Likewise, solving some problems will have greater positive impact on society as a whole than others. Therefore, it's probably a good idea to have some type of estimation strategy for determining the above stated properties of societal problems.

> It turns out, you don't actually need to! Some problems are faced by a subset of a society, and often that subset are most interested in solving them.

Then what you are describing is not a societial problem. I can define any individual as a subset of a society. That does not make that individual's problems societal. Expand your subset to include 0.05% of the population, their problems still are not societal. I would say there is some critical mass of people that must experience a problem before it becomes a societal problem. What that proportion is I do not know.

Furthermore, there are ways to solve problems for one subset of people by damaging another subset of people. Example, slavery. In these cases I don't think you have actually solved a societal problem. You've caused one.

I would claim this is the case for the "diversity" issue. A small set of "experts" have determined based on little to no evidence that for a certain set of job roles the proportions of people in said roles must reflect some vagued idealized ratios based upon superficial biological characteristics. In order to address the "problem" that the current propotionality of members in these job roles do not reflect their ideal a public smear campaign is unleashed in order to threaten non-compliant organizations into instituting exclusionary hiring policies and moralistic internal propaganda campaigns.

> I would say there is some critical mass of people that must experience a problem before it becomes a societal problem. What that proportion is I do not know.

Good idea... let’s use it to evaluate diversity programs. Well, it’ll help women, which is roughly 50%. And black males (since we’ve already included women), another 6%. That’s pretty good! Does your “critical mass” include 175 million people, do you think?

From a practical standpoint it's good for teams to be diverse and inclusive (it raises effectiveness, increases the talent pool, etc...) but also from a more philosophical point of view diversity and inclusion are necessary for an actual meritocracy as it's hard to say you have a true meritocracy when some people are hampered unnecessarily by cultural differences. The problem is that some people take "diversity initiatives" too far and it ends up being counterproductive (like agile and TDD and all that).

Seems to me that requiring, rather than simply allowing, a team to be diverse actually restricts the talent pool.

That is, it reduces the number of viable teams one can form from a population. And if you have an existing team you need to grow, it can rule out some candidates.

Yeah, this can be an example of going maybe too far if they are very strict about it. It's a balancing act

True. But if we want to break a feedback loop and exit a local minimum in hopes of reaching a global minimum it might be needed to force diversity out of the local minimum for a period before letting it to naturally settle.

I understand your position I agree with it in theory. In practice, that’s not how things work. If it was, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.

In practice, simply “allowing” for diversity doesn’t work. The only way to reach diversity goals is to actively include people. So long as those people are qualified, I am okay if the cost is missing out on a slightly more qualified candidate. Not least of which because horing isn’t an exact science in which qualifications are completely measurable and all possible candidates are always considered.

Again, reality is messy. So a few white dudes (such as myself) might not get a job because of a quota. Big deal. If I am such hot shit that I definitely should have gotten the job, then I won’t have a problem getting a job elsewhere.

>So a few white dudes (such as myself) might not get a job because of a quota. Big deal.

It is. You're either racist or you're not. You can sugercoat it with comfy terms such as "diversity" or "inclusion" but as soon as you positively discriminate for one race, you negatively discriminate against another and that is racism, even if it "only" affects white males.

Or stated differently, would you be for quotas if it meant a POC doesn't get the job, because there are already too many? If not, why?

> You're either racist or you're not.

If only it were this simple...

In reality, life doesn't seem to be constrained to our underdeveloped conceptual boxes, no matter how much we get attached to them.

I think I understand what you're getting at, but I didn't intend to draw a hard line of what racism is, but merely wanted to point out the slippery slope you're of using racist policies to fix discriminatory issues.

Is it actually racist to make reparations for former wrongs that have had a direct, severely negative impact on the aggregate experiences of a group living today? Those reparations have to come from somewhere, so in most cases anyone could complain that it's "taking away" from whatever.

I don't think it is so easy to answer that question off the cuff, especially without further details.

Also, I think it is very important to remember: these situations are usually _not_ zero sum. Helping one group does not mean another group has been harmed in equal magnitude.

>Is it actually racist to make reparations for former wrongs

They are not reparations. A reparation is a material compensation for a past harm. You don't take away from a group, you take away from individuals. I can't help but think of soviet farmers that were dispossessed in the name of communism.

>Helping one group does not mean another group has been harmed in equal magnitude

Again, you don't harm groups, you harm individuals. It's something different if you take taxes, where white people happen to pay more because they earn more, and use them to improve education in areas mainly inhabited by people of color. That would actually be not zero sum. But a position at a company is a limited resource. And if one person get's the position the other person can't get it. This is very much a zero sum situation.

I do welcome actions that help marginalized groups. But the way these issues are currently handled is short-sighted, ill-conceived and unethical.

> A reparation is a material compensation for a past harm.

That's not correct. First definition on google: "the making of amends for a wrong one has done, by paying money to or otherwise helping those who have been wronged." Reparations are not limited to material compensation.

> You don't take away from a group, you take away from individuals.

A group is a collection of individuals. Some things happen on the individual level. Other aspects or dynamics are only present on the group level and must be analyzed there.

> But a position at a company is a limited resource. And if one person get's the position the other person can't get it. This is very much a zero sum situation.

This is correct on the specific dimension you are looking at. But you are ignoring second order effects. That job may have a significant positive effect for the marginalized individual, and then in turn have a positive ripple effect on the marginalized community that he or she comes from. This could certainly result in a positive sum situation for society as a whole.

EDIT: To be clear, I'm totally with you that this could be taken too far, and we must proceed with caution. I also agree we should try to focus on cases where the positive sum benefits are most clear. But it is a difficult problem, and I think many instances of positive sum benefits are not fully appreciated.

Hear hear! If you're not against racism, and you support racist policies, you're a racist!

There is no need for sarcasm. I'm not a native English speaker, but I'm sure I didn't call anyone "a racist". I intended to use racist as an adjective. Such a misunderstanding could've easily been avoided had you asked me for clarification or picked a more charitable interpretation of my comment.

..... Why would you think I was being sarcastic? I agree with you ...

Non sequitur. You're having this conversation because the current political climate in the USA leads to conflicting opinions on this subject.

How come you're so confident that "that’s not how things work"? Do you have any idea about epistemic standards in social sciences? And if qualifications are not completely measurable, then how much more qualified is "slightly more qualified" and thus disposable? Lastly, on what grounds can people that promote diversity claim to have enough expertise to regulate this process of affordable exclusion?

Slightly more qualified is anything so slight as to make not hiring the person simple based on race make me feel unconfortable. Is that subjective? Yes. Do I care? No.

My expertise is no greater than my expertise in selecting people to hire. I make no claim that this effort should be enforced by regulation. I enforce it through my hiring and recruitment efforts.

> In practice, simply “allowing” for diversity doesn’t work. The only way to reach diversity goals is to actively include people.

What makes you say this? Doesn't this kind of assume that there aren't other reasons why such gender, racial, or cultural imbalances exist?

> So a few white dudes (such as myself) might not get a job because of a quota. Big deal.

There are large areas of the country still recovering from the recession. It's not like everyone is living in an economically prosperous area of the country. In those areas, not getting hired is a _huge_ deal.

There absolutely are other reasons. First, people are biased against those groups. Second, folks in those groups may not have the same degree of education and experiece, stemming in large part from lack of opportunity. That farcical “discrimination of low expectations” argument has no place in civilized discussion.

In any area, not getting hired is a huge deal to the person not hired. It is just as huge for everyone else as it is for white men.

I think this comment encapsulates pretty clearly the "ally" role advocated by "diversity" "experts".