5 ms·

You don’t think those are important?

by ffdjjjffjj 6y ago

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
throwaways885 6y ago
Most people don't care about D&I. Neither for or against, just an annoyance.
- cultus 6y ago
  Most white, straight men don't care about inclusion.
  - MadSudaca 6y ago
    Found the D&I Lead
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    Most white, straight men aren't most people. Heck, all straight, white men aren't most people. Heck, not even all men are most people.
  - 236dev 6y ago
    I'm for diversity, Facebook needs more white people. White people are currently under represented at Facebook. I'm thinking of creating an organization to lobby for companies like Facebook, Google, Netflix, etc to hire more white people where we are under represented.
  - joemazerino 6y ago
    Your racism is showing.
  - krageon 6y ago
    It's not very nice to immediately be racist when someone says something that you could observe to be true, even in many an office not filled by "white, straight men".
  - doorstar 6y ago
    Just wait a bit and someone is sure to say "It's not bigotry to believe that women and black people are less qualified for tech jobs".
- hannasanarion 6y ago
  If you think diversity and inclusion is "an annoyance", then you clearly aren't "neither for or against"
  - throwaways885 6y ago
    Sibling comment: > When people say they're "neither for or against, just annoyed" about something, they usually mean that they genuinely don't care about the underlying issue, and the annoyance comes from the idea that they have to care about it. I think this is pretty much just the maligned neutral you're describing.
- apacheCamel 6y ago
  Can you give more of a reason why "most" people don't care about it? Why would inclusion be an annoyance?
  - mmm_grayons 6y ago
    Because "diversity offenses" typically happens against minorities, which definitionally aren't most people. It's also a questionable use of funds in that the places that would hire one are probably less likely to need it. But treating everyone well and handling issues through HR as normal is no longer sufficient; a diversity and inclusion staff has become the requisite "Workers of the world, unite!" sign: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Power_of_the_Powerless#Havel's_greengrocer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Power_of_the_Powerless#Hav... Add to this that most people don't like being preached at not to be racist etc. when most already aren't.
    - apacheCamel 6y ago
      Okay so I am a bit more confused now. You are comparing being told about diversity and inclusion in the workplace to communism? > handling issues through HR as normal is no longer sufficient I am almost certain most of these "diversity and inclusion staff" you speak of are part of HR, so yes, it is still normal. I get it, you don't want to preached to about something you aren't, but isn't that life in general? Being told stuff daily that either doesn't apply to you, you already know, or would never do?
      - dx87 6y ago
        > I get it, you don't want to preached to about something you aren't, but isn't that life in general? Being told stuff daily that either doesn't apply to you, you already know, or would never do? To me, that's not life, that's being micro-managed or treated like a child. I'd never want to work somewhere that treats employees like that.
        apacheCamel 6y ago
        Do you throw your hands in the air every time your lead reminds you of a due date you already knew? Do you skip "meetings that could have been emails"? I have yet to find a place that doesn't tell me something I already know or hold on my hand on some minor things. I just go about it, being upset over it isn't worth my time.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > Most people don't care about D&I. Maybe, but: > Neither for or against, just an annoyance. Viewing it as an annoyance is both “against” and very much not an example of not caring. I'm not saying this is your actual motivation, but it kind of comes across as a clumsy attempt of someone hostile to the idea to try to get people in favor to back off by conjuring an image of the maligned neutral that they think those in favor will be more sympathetic to than actual opponents, but failing to be able to even imagine what neutrality would look like when presenting the argument.
  - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
    When people say they're "neither for or against, just annoyed" about something, they usually mean that they genuinely don't care about the underlying issue, and the annoyance comes from the idea that they have to care about it. I think this is pretty much just the maligned neutral you're describing.
usrusr 6y ago
Important as topics some people need to keep in the back of their minds while doing their jobs? Important as full time roles that are inherently out-of-hierarchy so that they conveniently need paycheck-induced status or else nobody will listen to them? Those are very different kinds of "important".
buran77 6y ago
Needing D&I simply means the company and its employees did not self-regulate. And not needing one doesn't mean you don't care or it's not important, just that you don't need one. You're probably not brushing your teeth right now and it's not because you don't think oral hygiene is important. If you're one of the people who don't need to be educated then D&I is an annoyance. If you're one of the ones who do then D&I is an annoyance. And unfortunately many times it's more than just an annoyance, it makes matters worse by polarizing or radicalizing people further. You don't necessarily need a function like this to fix a behavior. You don't need a Basic Human Decency Lead to achieve this in your company. You instill it with education starting at a young age, and then you filter for this at every step of the way, including via interviews, promotions, etc. But if it's one of those companies they probably couldn't care less about D&I, whatever they have works just fine for them. They want to look like they care so they proudly announce such functions and measures. All the while the people responsible for being in that situation in the first place still hang around, working just a bit harder to do the same things they always did and make it look legit this time. That's usually the role of D&I, shielding the company from responsibility while not actually changing much, if anything.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

You don’t think those are important?

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

throwaways885 6y ago

Most people don't care about D&I. Neither for or against, just an annoyance.

cultus 6y ago
Most white, straight men don't care about inclusion.
- MadSudaca 6y ago
  Found the D&I Lead
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  Most white, straight men aren't most people. Heck, all straight, white men aren't most people. Heck, not even all men are most people.
- 236dev 6y ago
  I'm for diversity, Facebook needs more white people. White people are currently under represented at Facebook. I'm thinking of creating an organization to lobby for companies like Facebook, Google, Netflix, etc to hire more white people where we are under represented.
- joemazerino 6y ago
  Your racism is showing.
- krageon 6y ago
  It's not very nice to immediately be racist when someone says something that you could observe to be true, even in many an office not filled by "white, straight men".
- doorstar 6y ago
  Just wait a bit and someone is sure to say "It's not bigotry to believe that women and black people are less qualified for tech jobs".
hannasanarion 6y ago
If you think diversity and inclusion is "an annoyance", then you clearly aren't "neither for or against"
- throwaways885 6y ago
  Sibling comment: > When people say they're "neither for or against, just annoyed" about something, they usually mean that they genuinely don't care about the underlying issue, and the annoyance comes from the idea that they have to care about it. I think this is pretty much just the maligned neutral you're describing.
apacheCamel 6y ago
Can you give more of a reason why "most" people don't care about it? Why would inclusion be an annoyance?
- mmm_grayons 6y ago
  Because "diversity offenses" typically happens against minorities, which definitionally aren't most people. It's also a questionable use of funds in that the places that would hire one are probably less likely to need it. But treating everyone well and handling issues through HR as normal is no longer sufficient; a diversity and inclusion staff has become the requisite "Workers of the world, unite!" sign: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Power_of_the_Powerless#Havel's_greengrocer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Power_of_the_Powerless#Hav... Add to this that most people don't like being preached at not to be racist etc. when most already aren't.
  - apacheCamel 6y ago
    Okay so I am a bit more confused now. You are comparing being told about diversity and inclusion in the workplace to communism? > handling issues through HR as normal is no longer sufficient I am almost certain most of these "diversity and inclusion staff" you speak of are part of HR, so yes, it is still normal. I get it, you don't want to preached to about something you aren't, but isn't that life in general? Being told stuff daily that either doesn't apply to you, you already know, or would never do?
    - dx87 6y ago
      > I get it, you don't want to preached to about something you aren't, but isn't that life in general? Being told stuff daily that either doesn't apply to you, you already know, or would never do? To me, that's not life, that's being micro-managed or treated like a child. I'd never want to work somewhere that treats employees like that.
      - apacheCamel 6y ago
        Do you throw your hands in the air every time your lead reminds you of a due date you already knew? Do you skip "meetings that could have been emails"? I have yet to find a place that doesn't tell me something I already know or hold on my hand on some minor things. I just go about it, being upset over it isn't worth my time.
dragonwriter 6y ago
> Most people don't care about D&I. Maybe, but: > Neither for or against, just an annoyance. Viewing it as an annoyance is both “against” and very much not an example of not caring. I'm not saying this is your actual motivation, but it kind of comes across as a clumsy attempt of someone hostile to the idea to try to get people in favor to back off by conjuring an image of the maligned neutral that they think those in favor will be more sympathetic to than actual opponents, but failing to be able to even imagine what neutrality would look like when presenting the argument.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  When people say they're "neither for or against, just annoyed" about something, they usually mean that they genuinely don't care about the underlying issue, and the annoyance comes from the idea that they have to care about it. I think this is pretty much just the maligned neutral you're describing.

usrusr 6y ago

Important as topics some people need to keep in the back of their minds while doing their jobs? Important as full time roles that are inherently out-of-hierarchy so that they conveniently need paycheck-induced status or else nobody will listen to them? Those are very different kinds of "important".

buran77 6y ago

Needing D&I simply means the company and its employees did not self-regulate. And not needing one doesn't mean you don't care or it's not important, just that you don't need one. You're probably not brushing your teeth right now and it's not because you don't think oral hygiene is important. If you're one of the people who don't need to be educated then D&I is an annoyance. If you're one of the ones who do then D&I is an annoyance. And unfortunately many times it's more than just an annoyance, it makes matters worse by polarizing or radicalizing people further. You don't necessarily need a function like this to fix a behavior. You don't need a Basic Human Decency Lead to achieve this in your company. You instill it with education starting at a young age, and then you filter for this at every step of the way, including via interviews, promotions, etc. But if it's one of those companies they probably couldn't care less about D&I, whatever they have works just fine for them. They want to look like they care so they proudly announce such functions and measures. All the while the people responsible for being in that situation in the first place still hang around, working just a bit harder to do the same things they always did and make it look legit this time. That's usually the role of D&I, shielding the company from responsibility while not actually changing much, if anything.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]