The kind of discrimination alluded to upthread? No, I do not think it's common. That's my point.

What kind of discrimination (if any) do you believe can be common without triggering the negative consequences you describe?

I ask because you seem to be describing a world in which discrimination basically can't exist due to market self-regulation - i.e., all our industries problems are basically solved, which seems to differ from your usual position.

With apologies, I do not believe you are discussing this in good faith, and I think the distinction I am drawing is clear enough.

Fwiw I think the parent of your comment asked a very reasonable question and it's not really clear what distinction you are drawing from your GP comment.

That was a beautiful deflection. Your career is in politics tptacek.

Your second sentence is more hostile than needed.

One of the reasons I ask Tom these questions that he is one of the more rational folks on HN, particularly on other issues. It's pretty clear that he realizes he made a mistake, hence the deflection. Making a mostly rational person feel attacked is only likely inhibit their logical mind.

Just respond with a clear answer if there is a distinction. Don't resort to ad homs.

The parent seemed to be describing a world in which that specific and blatant form of discrimination can't exist, not all forms of discrimination.

Hence my question - what kind of discrimination can exist in such a world?

Not the kind where a board of wangbangers sit in their castle surrounded by scantily-clad ice sculptures and give toasts "to female misery," believe it or not.

I don't think it was implied that a particular form of hiring funnel discrimination was the only form of discrimination in tech.

What forms of discrimination does tptacek's argument not apply to?

Is there some reason that irrational taste-based discrimination would not trigger candidate embarrassment and self-selection, but rational lawsuit-fear based discrimination would? (More precisely, rational in a world where tptacek's hypothetical perfect market self-regulation mechanism did not apply, but irrational in such a world.)

a world where women are hired but not promoted? Or where the discrimination falls under the heading of "culture fit" instead of explicit policy? Or even where women are hired and promoted equally, but otherwise treated like shit in the office?

Why would non-promotion or "treated like shit" not trigger the negative consequences tptacek proposes? Would he and his fellow travelers not blow the whistle, quit or catcall their job ads?

What's perceived as discrimination varies. Society at large disapproves of discrimination, so everyone believes "it's not me". It's harder to pretend something as overt as a policy against hiring women is anything but discrimination, as opposed to "just having fun" or "random chance".

> What forms of discrimination does tptacek's argument not apply to?

Job ads that say let's bro down and crush some code? (Generally speaking if women are a small percentage of the applicant pool, it would almost certainly be the case that the optimal hiring funnel makes you more likely to hire a given man than a given woman.)

That would be discrimination on the part of the female applicants, not on the part of the employer. The woman is not hired because she chose not to apply, not because she was rejected by the employer's choice.

Just like how black people discriminate between businesses that have "whites only" signs in front and businesses that don't.