[pathseeker]

>The larger subtext of the entire diversity conversation is learning to coexist. It's not about black people, women, the LGBTQ community, or any other single group. It's about a better working environment for everyone indefinitely. Being against that is literally pathological.

You claim the site doesn't have thoughtful comments and then you build up a strawman of diversity efforts and then claim being against it is 'literally pathological'. This is the problem.

People with grievances about how diversity programs are ineffective or are causing harm are labeled as 'pathological', etc by people on the left because they think the criticisms are against diversity in the first place. You are making enemies out of people who believe in equal opportunity because they point out flaws and injustices in diversity programs.

I recommend that you reflect on your positions if you want to build bridges. Assuming that everyone who points out flaws in an approach are against the much larger goal is a good way to needlessly divide everyone.

[kwamenum86]

You misunderstand. I'm saying that being against a better working environment for everyone is literally pathological because it's antisocial behavior. I didn't say disagreeing with the way companies approach diversity is pathological.

[repolfx]

But that's a strawman position nobody has. Can you point to anyone who has literally argued "Today I want to stop the workplace becoming better for everyone"? It never happens.

[kwamenum86]

I think you're misinformed. There are plenty of people who are either fine with status quo (which is not totally equitable from my POV) or completely fine with prejudice. Few people articulate it as "I want to stop the workplace from becoming better for everyone" but the outcome is the same. I'm not speculating - I've experienced both groups first hand.

I think an even more subtle problem is people who attack ineffective policies as opposed to focusing on the primary objective, which is coexistence. In other words, people focus on attacking solutions as opposed to helping create better ones. That behavior is pervasive, insidious, counterproductive, and seems to be picking up steam.

[repolfx]

Being fine with the status quo is not the same thing as being "against a better working environment for everyone" and is wildly, insanely far from being "literally pathological" - your words, not mine.

Please, reflect on your position for a moment there. You're saying that anyone who is happy with their workplace and thinks things are OK is engaged in "literally pathological anti-social behaviour". That's the kind of overblown, extremist rhetoric that makes diversity initiatives a toxic topic in the modern workplace - it's a demonisation of anyone who thinks that maybe their firm has bigger things to worry about than a never-ending, apparently unsatisfiable quest for "equity".

In other words, people focus on attacking solutions as opposed to helping create better ones. That behavior is pervasive, insidious, counterproductive, and seems to be picking up steam.

It's actually your behaviour that's counterproductive here. There is never any obligation to propose something better when criticising a proposal.

It might be helpful to the proposer, and if someone can think of a better approach then you'd hope they would propose it. But if something is a bad idea, or represents a bad tradeoff (there are no solutions in life, only tradeoffs), then it's a bad idea and shouldn't happen. This is independent of anything else. Indeed, making the status quo worse is absolutely possible with any change, and something people are right to point out if a proposal might lead to it.

That doesn't make them insidious, or counterproductive.

[kwamenum86]

I think you're taking lots of liberties here so I'll try once more: I think that actively or passively resisting progress toward greater coexistence is antisocial and therefore pathological. My stance is that being fine with inequity (which is the status quo) is passive resistance.

You make some valid points about what constitutes active/passive resistance and your comment made me think. I don't think everyone is obligated to come up with better solutions but I do think if you're going to participate in the dialog, focusing solely on attacking existing solutions is counterproductive and makes me question your motives.

[pathseeker]

>I don't think everyone is obligated to come up with better solutions but I do think if you're going to participate in the dialog, focusing solely on attacking existing solutions is counterproductive and makes me question your motives.

If all of the proposed solutions are garbage and it's a complex problem, rational people will only be attacking them.

Consider when papers are submitted for peer review. The outcome is either paper is acceptable, or you get a bunch of negative feedback. That doesn't mean the reviewers don't want the problem solved, it just means that you're solution is flawed. People who want to solve problems seek peer reviews because they want to find flaws in their logic, data, or methodology.

Critical feedback is absolutely necessary for any solution to a real problem. Calling it counterproductive is misguided at best.

[pathseeker]

>In other words, people focus on attacking solutions as opposed to helping create better ones.

Because many of those policies are actively harmful and are worse than the status quo. You don't need to have a better solution to point out that implementing quotas results in more racism than having no quotas at all.

When it comes to approaches to diversity, many are significantly worse than nothing at all because they embolden divides by highlighting that fact that some people are different and are incapable without special provisions.

>That behavior is pervasive, insidious, counterproductive, and seems to be picking up steam.

They are only counterproductive if you are already convinced reverse discrimination is the answer to discrimination.

[skh]

* You don't need to have a better solution to point out that implementing quotas results in more racism than having no quotas at all.*

The U.S. implemented quotas/affirmative action in the 1960s. Are you suggesting that this caused an increase in racism? Do you think the U.S. would be better off now if it had not implemented those policies? I think you'll have a very hard time adequately supporting the position I quoted above.

[boombust]

the irony of your post is that you don't seem to follow your own advice.

[PeterMikhailov]

I read this thread early this morning when the only comment was "the left is eating itself", got mad, decided HN sucks now, then decided to try understand the point of view of the commenter, I read the rest of their comments, decided my original position was correct.