I don't disagree, but quite often $GROUP lies to itself about who and how it accepts those into the $GROUP.
And let's be honest, this isn't a problem if the $GROUP is a bunch of people hanging out in their living room or grabbing a beer once a week, but it does become a problem when the $GROUP is making hiring decisions or when $GROUP decides to harass someone online. Then it is those subconscious selectors that define the group and its members more than the how the $GROUP thinks it defines itself.
I think that's an effective commentary on how those outside the group see it defined, rather than one on how the group defines membership.
It's also a commentary on the limits of certain political lenses.
Re:When Nerds Collide (2014)
by spiritplumber on Wednesday March 11, 2015 @02:46AM
(#9182892)
It's less "we aren't against diversity" and more "diversity is orthogonal to what we care about", I think.
It could... if you choose to cast it that way. It could also come from any self-selecting group where the selection process is part of the group identity.
Group identity isn't just a matter of waking up one day, declaring yourself a member of $GROUP, and $GROUP being obliged to accept you.