[dx034]

The crux is that a different color of skin doesn't mean different culture. Esp. those companies hiring from a selected set of universities will often come to realise that most employees think alike, independent of where their parents or grandparents were from.

I'd go as far and say that you can get more diversity with an all-white/all-black (or any other color of skin) workforce that come from very different backgrounds and went to a wide set of universities than having a perfectly mixed (as in skin color) set of employees that all grew up in the Bay Area and went to Stanford.

[retailbuyout]

That’s true. Skin color is especially meaningful in the US, where privilege, opportunity, education, and many other aspects of life fall mainly along racial lines. In america, race is inextricably tied to skin color. I’m a little disappointed people have such issue acknowledging this. Once you do, you will acknowledge that the success criteria is a defacto racial criteria. Does this mean anyone is trying to be racist? Not necessarily. Is it racist? Yes. Should you care about it? Well, I suppose it’s a little antiquated to care about your country these days. But you should probably give a fuck about why there aren’t a lot of black people at google, because it says a lot about the US and about google—basically, corporations have no qualms about moving into an area, forcing people from their homes, and then not sharing in the profits.

And it says a hell of a lot about Thiel—there’s basically no evidence he isn’t a complete psychopath.

[vidarh]

You can. But this line of argumentation is usually used as an excuse to justify a total lack of diversity. If we lived in a world where people didn't routinely abuse these kinds of arguments that way, then it'd be a fair argument to make, but as it stands odds are firmly in favor of assuming that people using this argument probably has an agenda that has nothing to do with wanting diversity of thought.