[hbrn]

> if your hiring funnel doesn't represent the general population then it is biased

So 0.1% of engineers in the funnel should be Amish and 18% should be younger than 14.

There might be a flaw in your logic.

Jokes aside, this is maliciously reductive. There's too many factors contributing to the funnel (location, sourcing channels, employer, job preference, hiring market state) that makes predictions about funnel virtually impossible. But you already know it. You're not here for the truth, you're here to push your ideology.

> It's good because we enslaved a population for generations

My ancestors were thousands of miles away from US territory when slavery happened. In fact, it is quite likely they were slaves themselves. And yet you're saying I'm supposed to pay the price for your crimes just because of my skin color.

That sounds quite racist to me. Luckily, my skin is not only white, it's also thick.

[feoren]

"we" is clearly referring to the history of the U.S., the history which has led to you having a cushy, high-paying desk job doing whatever you do, and which has led to an enormous under-representation of black people in the workplace. You don't get to ignore the history that has led to the life you currently live just because Genghis Khan burned down your (great)^30th ancestor's village. It has nothing to do with that.

> I'm supposed to pay the price for your crimes

Whose crimes, the person you're replying to? Do you believe in some sort of original sin handed down by your ancestors? Your blood is pure because your ancestors were victims, but GP's blood is tainted because their ancestors were slave owners? You're making some seriously insane judgements based on a person's ancestry.

And who's paying any price anyway? Hiring from a limited pool of candidates is sub-optimal. What price are you even talking about?

[hbrn]

> history which has led to you having a cushy, high-paying desk job doing whatever you do

So when a white person gets a high-paying job, it's because of history of slavery. If a black person gets a high-paying job, it's because they worked hard. Did I get that right?

No wonder Trump got elected when this is the agenda.

> You don't get to ignore the history that has led to the life you currently live just because Genghis Khan burned down your (great)^30th ancestor's village. It has nothing to do with that.

So Genghis Khan has nothing to do with that. But slavery has everything to do with that. Is there a threshold I'm not aware of? How far in the past we have to look at to be able to claim "event X led to event Y".

Lots of Jews ended up in US during World War 2, and now their grandkids are doing quite well. Should they be thanking Hitler because he is the "history that has led to the life they currently live"?

> Do you believe in some sort of original sin handed down by your ancestors?

Obviously I don't, but that's what this person implied.

> You're making some seriously insane judgements based on a person's ancestry.

When I speak your language, I sound insane. Good.

> Hiring from a limited pool of candidates is sub-optimal

To me "optimal" is the minimum amount of effort that leads to maximum results. E.g. if you get enough resumes by posting a job on your website you don't need to put extra effort to find more candidates. I'm curious to hear what's your definition. I suspect it requires augmenting math with morals.

Finally, here's a couple of questions for you to think about:

1. How should countries with homogenous skin color deal with history of slavery?

2. Should we exclude Nigerian Americans from DIE / affirmative action policies, because they are doing better than average American?

[feoren]

> So when a white person gets a high-paying job, it's because of history of slavery. If a black person gets a high-paying job, it's because they worked hard. Did I get that right?

Not quite. I said "led to", not "because", and everything that happens today was "led to" by history, including a black person getting a high-paying job. Remember this was all in response to this rather amazing comment:

> My ancestors were thousands of miles away from US territory when slavery happened ... and yet you're saying I'm supposed to pay the price for your crimes just because of my skin color.

You're using "my" and "we" to mean "me and my particular ancestors" and "you and your ancestors", whereas the person you were replying to was very clearly using "we" to mean "the history of all of humanity". The latter acknowledges reality as it is right now and the events leading up to it, and the former relies on some magical inheritance of responsibilities depending on your blood ancestors.

> So Genghis Khan has nothing to do with that. But slavery has everything to do with that.

Again you're ignoring the point. Both of these events led to the world as it is today, and neither of us is more responsible for them than the other. Your ancestors, my ancestors: that has nothing to do with it. And you're the one who started out assigning blame and "why should I pay!?" based on whose ancestors are whose. Affirmative action proponents are not doing that. They're looking at the situation as it currently exists right now and trying to make it better. We can debate whether their particular approach works or not, but we can not say "it's not my problem because of who my ancestors are".

(That's not even mentioning the fact that Genghis Khan died in 1227 and there are people alive today whose grandparents were born slaves.)

> To me "optimal" is the minimum amount of effort that leads to maximum results. E.g. if you get enough resumes by posting a job on your website you don't need to put extra effort to find more candidates.

So your definition of "optimal" is wrong, in any reasonably complex situation. What if your job posting was written poorly and all your applicants thought the job was something a little different? They could literally all be mis-qualified for the job, and you'd never have the opportunity to realize there are much better candidates out there. That's an example of "systemic bias" that prevents optimal outcomes. If you suddenly realize your job posting was crap and your candidate pool is sub-par because of it, you should take some affirmative actions to fix it, rather than spend "the minimum amount of effort."

Can we think of any other systemic biases like that, that prevent optimal outcomes? Any at all? Like, oh, I don't know, race discrimination?

> 1. How should countries with homogenous skin color deal with history of slavery?

By learning about it and understanding its effects on their society today? The same way I'm suggesting the U.S. does?

> 2. Should we exclude Nigerian Americans from DIE / affirmative action policies, because they are doing better than average American?

I don't agree with all the ways DIE / affirmative action are practiced today. I agree with many of the criticisms levied against it in this comment thread. Many other criticisms sound like they're rooted in the fundamental idea of "racism is natural/historical/OK and I'm racist for saying so, you're racist for disagreeing". I'd rather have DIE / affirmative action as we have right now than nothing, and certainly than whatever world you imagine where we (humanity) can essentially bully another group of humans for centuries, and then when we realize that actually doesn't lead to optimal outcomes in society, we shove them back down again anyway in some sunk-cost fallacy in order to avoid those nasty uncomfortable feelings of shame, regret, and blame (which have nothing to do with it anyway).

[hbrn]

> everything that happens today was "led to" by history, including a black person getting a high-paying job

Then why focus on the past at all? "everything led to everything" is meaningless statement, it adds no value. But we both know that the reason you made it is because it allows you to use emotions as an argument.

And I still don't understand it, is average income black male more deserving of a good job than poor white male? If you focus on the past, the answer is yes. If you focus on the present, the answer is no. Which is it?

> we can not say "it's not my problem because of who my ancestors are".

On it's own it's a terrible argument. But one can definitely use it in response to "this is your problem because of who your ancestors were".

> That's not even mentioning the fact that Genghis Khan died in 1227 and there are people alive today whose grandparents were born slaves

It's not the gotcha you think it is. You're the one who brought up Genghis Khan in the first place.

FYI slavery in Russian Empire ended in 1866. So yeah, there are people alive today whose grandparents were born slaves. And those people as white as it gets.

Not to mention that slavery still exists in many parts of the world.

So I'm still failing to understand why one group of ancestors of slaves is more deserving of inclusion than another group of ancestors of slaves. In fact, it seem to be more deserving than today's slaves. It is almost like slavery has nothing to do with those policies, and yet all your talking points are about slavery.

> What if your job posting was written poorly

Then it would not lead to the results and would not be considered optimal.

> By learning about it and understanding its effects on their society today?

Bad answer. Learning and understanding are not actionable.

> I'd rather have DIE / affirmative action as we have right now than nothing

That's a false dichotomy. Minorities well being has been improving decade after decade. That's not nothing.