The vibe you're detecting is prejudice. They are exhibiting prejudice against individuals on the basis of immutable traits like gender and ethnicity.
I may just be racist or sexist though.. however i dont know why i would give a shit if that was the case?
and i have not seen a single alternative posted by anyone here, so all the argumnts against seem rather hollow and just self serving. blocking making playing field fairer as you wont be the one to benefit from the increased fairness.
I also think that people are missing the point that the entire work environment is tuned to a specific group of people.. which is not healthy.
that specific group of people are not going to actively de-tune their environment for potential future hires that they dont even have metrics to measure how tuned they are.
the only solution i can see is to get those other people in, see what need changing, change that.. wait a full generation and re-evaluate.
How do propose getting more diversity without some kind of support or appreciation of the value of the under represented? and to those thinking of themselves before the wider picture this will always seem "unfair".
If you were watching over some kids and you had not noticed but for an hour one kid had been bullying other kids to achieve a huge lead over them in the game they were playing. so you step and stop the bullying.. great. but where is the incentive for the other kids to keep playing together if the historical effects of the bullying are not addressed?
Because many people endeavour to be better people because they care about other people.
> How do propose getting more diversity without some kind of support or appreciation of the value of the under represented?
You could improve diversity without appreciating their value, as well; following proscribed formulas to balance quotas doesn't guarantee that those applying the formula are going to reform their views.
I'd improve diversity by dismantling systemic barriers; like unequal access to education, which must including access to after-school support, quality food, and so on.
> but where is the incentive for the other kids to keep playing together if the historical effects of the bullying are not addressed?
Because they are kids, and many kids are quick to forgive and forge new relationships.
as i said elswhere in comments - i saw my dad being respected for an ability to do stuff with his computer (computers were not generally used in offices etc. at the time). my childs mind wanted to get some of that respect.. so i invested time learning and playing with computers.
I saw white dudes on tv doing everything - they were all the good guys (and even most of the bad guys) i grew up thinking i could do anything. i would love to be able to say the same for my daughter.
Are you going to tell her how you did it?
This seems like a real ends-justify-the-means dilema. I think what you're advocating for is fundamentally immoral. I accept it probably achieves the result we want, but we mustn't do it because it's wrong.
Or am I misreading; what, specifically, do you think is immoral here? Perhaps I'm confused.
> i would love to be able to say the same for my daughter.
I thought you were expressing support for no longer hiring white men, which is what the thread was about? I think that's immoral.
I think it's immoral to prejudice individuals upon their immutable traits, like ethnicity, sexuality, gender and so on; so we're probably in agreement.
That's the same vibe I get from racists and sexists.
What is the fundamental difference between these essentialising, group-identity-based views?