[slily]

I don't disagree that historical systemic discrimination has effects that lasts generations and I'm not against affirmative action when applied carefully, but I think it's presumptuous and counterproductive to try to "counterbalance" a perceived systemic bias that occurred in the past at one level (for example in education), today at another level (employment or public speaking opportunities).

Equal opportunity was the right idea and technologies like the Internet helped equalize the playing field to the point that socio-economic background matters less than ever. Now we're regressing back to judging people first and foremost based on their skin color, sex, and even sexual orientation. I see my company's DEI leader making shameless statements saying that they will make sure to promote more "people from underprivileged groups" (that means people who are not white or Asian by their own definition) with no apparent regard for performance or merit. It's racist to a comical degree.

[dagmx]

The internet doesn’t equalize things like hiring and conference representation though. Imho it’s a complete non sequitur to this discussion about the real world.

I think assuming that the anonymity afforded by the internet extends to real life is naive.

[slily]

What does anonymity have to do with this?

The Internet gives you unparalleled access to information. There's virtually no barrier to learn about a subject you're interested in, especially software-related. You don't even have to be able to travel to a public library nowadays, which is what I did as a kid, reserving time slots on public computers to access the Internet. It's easier than ever to teach yourself a skill like programming, as well as build a portfolio through open source contributions, and that certainly directly translates to work and public speaking opportunities.

[dagmx]

Having access to knowledge isn’t an equalizer in terms of biases in the real world though.

Have you been judged by the color of your skin and denied opportunities ? I have.

the internet doesn’t do anything for me when people can see me.

[slily]

> Have you been judged by the color of your skin

Yes. I'm pretty sure I've been judged for every single one of my identifiable immutable characteristics. For my skin color, out loud in the street, for sure when I lived in a place where I was the minority.

> and denied opportunities

Do you mean directly, aside from that conference where white males were told to attend less, or my employer openly favoring people who are neither white nor Asian in upper ranks? If so no, no one has told me that I couldn't do something specifically because I'm white. Have you? In what circumstances? And was it an isolated event or evidence of a systemic problem?

[dagmx]

Told to attend less because there needed to be space for other demographics? That’s not discrimination because it’s not preventing white men from attending, it’s just allowing other people to also attend unless you believe that you’re also somehow better than everyone who was allowed to attend.

the same goes for favouring people in your job. If you have a systemic issue in your place of work, then report it.

But otherwise people are chastising the person in question for pointing out that there isn’t diversity in representation. So what? They’re not meant to even mention what they think is an issue because somehow the systems are just and fair because of the internet???

Anyway I won’t be responding further. I don’t think you actually care about understanding or supporting equality, or letting other people prosper if they’re not your demographic.

The fact that you think the internet is an equalizer of opportunity just shows how people here don’t actually want to understand the issues people in other demographics go through.

Edit: ah and of course the reply below is it’s the minorities fault they’re not represented enough. This is why I don’t care to respond to people who are so deeply rooted in the idea that the world is somehow a just and fair representation. It’s the same argument for decades.

[slily]

I'm sorry but discouraging white males from attending a conference has approximately nothing to do with "allowing other people to also attend". It's a weird brand of discrimination (racism and sexism) based on the unfounded idea that any coveted group must have a racial and sexual profile equivalent to that of an arbitrary overall population. Additionally, there would be no need to exclude people on the basis of their race and sex if the minorities they'd like to include simply participated in the desired proportions, and in fact equity programs originally prioritized outreach to achieve that, but as it turns out, few industries have a demographic profile that matches the overall population. Therefore some have turned to racist and sexist exclusion.

Prioritizing non-whites and non-Asians for things like university admissions, employment and promotions is the same thing. You're not just giving your preferred groups the opportunity to compete, you're lowering your standards for them and raising them for the disfavored groups, creating barriers based on an immutable characteristic, which is skin color. Plain and simple racism.

You don't have to post your alleged experience with racism if you don't want to, but to then imply that I am racist for sharing mine and asking you to reciprocate sure is disingenuous. For the record, I care about equality, which is why I reject equity, since its implementation is predicated on the discriminatory policies that I described.

[JyB]

You are talking past each other. I just see bad faith.