Also, in this scenario, even if the tech industry is not actively sexist, it is being affected by the sexism of the wider society - and, if you think there is anything wrong with that (eg decreased pool of potential employees/founders/idea people), then it is quite possible to make tech-industry-specific moves that counter the extra disadvantages imposed from outside the industry, like affirmative action programs for girls that give them increased access to the tools that will allow them to forge their merit, even when you can't quite identify the process that is reducing their access in the first place. In fact I think that for a field which prides itself on solving big problems, saying 'it's not us it's the rest of society' is a cop-out, and to agree with your statement and not support affirmative action in some form is equivalent to supporting entrenched sexism.
I guess in these cases they are being blamed for not seeing the problem and so perpetuating it, rather than for causing it. But at some point it seems reasonable to say that ignoring or denying the existence of something so well-studied is wilful rejection that makes you part of the problem. How about the phrasing 'tech industry, you are perpetuating sexism/racism even if you don't intend to and you should be ashamed of yourselves'?
Is there any argument against your views for which an ad-hominem attack would not be a reasonable counterargument?
Meanwhile, people tend to forget that half of successful startup founders are immigrants, including large portions from China and India. Most tech companies I've seen are not very white. If Silicon Valley is a good old boys network, the good old boys have done a terrible job at exclusion.
false. a meritocratic system will very closely match the demographics of the population at large, because no given demographic is inherently better at a given task[1].
> It is only if there are too many white men, and only white men, that a group can no longer be considered meritocratic.
it's no coincidence that most un-meritocratic systems are overrun with white men-- white men are, historically, a priviledged group. so, of course, if a system values privilege over merit, one will see more white men. is that really that hard to understand?
[1] there are, of course, some small differences in average ability among different populations, but in most every case this is not the overriding factor leading to population imbalances in a given field.
Your statement is just a statement of faith, contradicting all available evidence.
And yes, faith in humanity IS needed for an enlightened thinker.
The meaning and purpose of life will never be proven. There is plenty of room for faith in our world of rationalism.
You need more art in your life! The world is more than just a bunch of metrics in a spreadsheet to fret and argue about.
We should be skeptical of superstitions, but not skeptical of love, truth, and beauty! Don't misinterpret the quest of the Enlightenment! To listen to love and to live!
(get it, the play on "faux outrage"? faux/fallacies, outrage/raging flames? sorry to ruin the poem for you, but you know, part of the problem here is that too few people on this forum have ever learned how to read/listen/see...)
That is the real Silicon Valley of today.
Maybe I'm just dumb, but I don't see any Marxism here.
Honestly, I think you're just tossing the word "Marxist" in as a form of name-calling, with no viable connection to your point.