As if any of the tech companies would have had even a fraction of their success if they were ran like a Truth Social forum...
In the US, this also applies to Republican voters. What about them?
> we want the people building our technology to have more diverse views than just well off men from the suburbs
"Diverse views"? Like you want more people with conservative views? They're also pretty underrepresented in the tech industry, but somehow this isn't a problem for you, right?
> Stop picking fights with people trying to improve the abysmal representation problems in this industry, it makes you look like an anti-social freak.
I'm also trying to improve representation problems in the industry - the overrepresentation of liberal views.
Nobody cares about them. If you want to make a "coding for republicans", then go for it. Nobody is stopping you. You can't pretend people are stopping you so then you can turn around and act like a victim. That's not normal person behavior.
> conservative views? They're also pretty underrepresented in the tech industry
First off, not they're not. Second off - nobody is censoring conservative views.
They ARE censoring obvious racism, sometimes pedophilia, sometimes misogyny. Because those all suck. And when that happens, some conservatives cry. Which doesn't say what you think it says. That does not reflect well on you or the broader ideology.
At the end of the day, if I speak like Hilary Clinton at work, it's perfectly normal. If I speak like Trump and talk about "human garbage" and various brown people eating cats and dogs, I'm probably getting fired and potentially a referral to a psychiatrist.
That's the difference. Not the ideology, the words.
> In the US, this also applies to Republican voters.
No, in fact, in the US, it is closer to true of voters without any partisan qualification than it is to being true of Republican voters.
What alternative reasons have you explored?
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/punch-cards-pipel...
I'm sure there's studies in labor and education stats to show some quantitative evidence of this stuff but I'm not going to waste my time proving the obvious to you.
is this actually true? i think we tend to move people into the suburbs and demand they act like a well off man from the suburbs.
There's no St. Jude's Non-Cancer Cancer Research because that would be fucking stupid. Similarly, there is no "coding for white guys". Well, there is, we just call that the entire industry.
Source: I am a white man living in America.
It seems you're also making a false assumption that since "white guys" make the majority of the industry that means all kinds of "white guys" are properly represented there. But I don't see colors or genders like that.
We do have those programs ("coding for people who work manual labor jobs living in rural America") already and we have for quite a long time.
You bet your ass black Americans see color, because they're reminded of it every day. In our policies, communities, and workplaces.
Also: I agree such a program would be great, but it's not an either or type thing. We can, and do, do both.
This crab bucket sort of whiney baby mentality of "daaaad why do THEY get stuff?" is destructive. It's literally anti-solutions.
Making everything worse across the board for everyone might be fair, but it's also shitty and intellectually lazy.
Held: Harvard’s and UNC’s admissions programs violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Pp. 6–40.
"(b) Proposed by Congress and ratified by the States in the wake of the Civil War, the Fourteenth Amendment provides that no State shall “deny to any person . . . the equal protection of the laws.” Proponents of the Equal Protection Clause described its “foundation[al] principle” as “not permit[ing] any distinctions of law based on race or color.” Any “law which operates upon one man,” they maintained, should “operate equally upon all.” Accordingly, as this Court’s early decisions interpreting the Equal Protection Clause explained, the Fourteenth Amendment guaranteed “that the law in the States shall be the same for the black as for the white; that all persons, whether colored or white, shall stand equal before the laws of the States.” ...
"Respondents suggest that the end of race-based admissions programs will occur once meaningful representation and diversity are achieved on college campuses. Such measures of success amount to little more than comparing the racial breakdown of the incoming class and comparing it to some other metric, such as the racial makeup of the previous incoming class or the population in general, to see whether some proportional goal has been reached. The problem with this approach is well established: “[O]utright racial balancing” is “patently unconstitutional.”
42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(j) says:
> Nothing contained in this subchapter shall be interpreted to require any employer, employment agency, labor organization, or joint labor-management committee subject to this subchapter to grant preferential treatment to any individual or to any group because of the race, color, religion, sex, or national origin of such individual or group on account of an imbalance which may exist with respect to the total number or percentage of persons of any race, color, religion, sex, or national origin employed by any employer, referred or classified for employment by any employment agency or labor organization, admitted to membership or classified by any labor organization, or admitted to, or employed in, any apprenticeship or other training program, in comparison with the total number or percentage of persons of such race, color, religion, sex, or national origin in any community, State, section, or other area, or in the available work force in any community, State, section, or other area.
Which is to say, affirmative action or diversity programs.
29 C.F.R. § 1608.1–1608.1(c) says:
> Voluntary affirmative action to improve opportunities for minorities and women must be encouraged and protected in order to carry out the Congressional intent embodied in title VII.[4] Affirmative action under these principles means those actions appropriate to overcome the effects of past or present practices, policies, or other barriers to equal employment opportunity. Such voluntary affirmative action cannot be measured by the standard of whether it would have been required had there been litigation, for this standard would undermine the legislative purpose of first encouraging voluntary action without litigation.
34 C.F.R. § 106.3(b) says:
> a recipient may take affirmative action to overcome the effects of conditions which resulted in limited participation therein by persons of a particular sex.
The decision in United Steelworkers v. Weber states:
> Title VII's prohibition in §§ 703(a) and (d) against racial discrimination does not condemn all private, voluntary, race-conscious affirmative action plans. ... Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U. S. 405, 422 U. S. 418, cannot be interpreted as an absolute prohibition against all private, voluntary, race-conscious affirmative action efforts to hasten the elimination of such vestiges.
The decision in Johnson v. Transportation Agency similarly states that Santa Clara County Transportation Agency did not violate Title VII by promoting a less-qualified woman.
The decision in Cohen v. Brown University upheld the use of affirmative action to equalize opportunity.
The law _literally_ contemplates this. As you said, "you need to literally look it up sometime."
Nobody cares about your histrionics.
The cultural artefact of people identifying themselvee as the opposite gender is a different type of concept to this. It's more of a sociological or psychological phenomenon.
The rationale is the same for both: to provide opportunities for women and girls in an otherwise male-dominated space. Neither should be controversial.
To be sure, the line between “pure speech” that arguably entails discriminatory sentiments, see 303 Creative, 600 U.S. at 587, and the very act of discrimination itself may at times be hard to draw. And to be sure, Fearless characterizes its contest as reflecting its “commitment” to the “[b]lack women-owned” business community. The fact remains, though, that Fearless simply—and flatly— refuses to entertain applications from business owners who aren’t “black females.” Official Rules at 3. If that refusal were deemed sufficiently “expressive” to warrant protection under the Free Speech Clause, then so would be every act of race discrimination, ... "Moreover, and more specifically, each lost opportunity to enter Fearless’s contest works an irreparable injury because it prevents the Alliance’s members from competing at all—not just for the $20,000 cash prize but also for Fearless’s ongoing mentorship and the ensuing business opportunities that a contest victory might provide. "