[worik]

> Until 20 years ago, nobody in OS cared who you were IRL, your gender, ethnicity etc. I

So was it only white boys interested?

True, maybe, nobody cared. But it was all white boys, with very few exceptions, when I started.

I think we need diversity. Am I wrong?

[ranger_danger]

I think their point is that there was never any reason to even know what people identify as, or your political views, and that there still shouldn't be. That things like "diversity" in online-only circles doesn't really make sense. I don't want to know your sexual preferences or your gender identity, not that I am against anything, just that it's completely irrelevant to writing code and learning about technology etc. and only seems to lead to more drama by including it at all.

As a more personal example, I no longer support the Linux kernel because I no longer consider it fully "open" to contributions, especially when accepting those contributions are no longer based solely on technical merit, but are also actively rejected for political reasons, even for patches that are merely fixes, which benefits everyone, and not just a sanctioned country. Even going so far as removing names from the maintainers list because of some unspoken combination of their country of origin, employer or political affiliation. Not only the lack of advance notice, transparency and empathy, but the abusive attitude Linus continues to display to the world about this and many other issues.

[anonfordays]

>So was it only white boys interested?

No, great technologists like Ted Ts'o were critical to OS development 20+ years ago.

>True, maybe, nobody cared.

No maybe, fact.

> But it was all white boys, with very few exceptions, when I started.

No it wasn't.

>I think we need diversity. Am I wrong?

If by "diversity" you mean racism, then yes, you are wrong.

[subsistence234]

> So was it only white boys interested?

Back then my field had plenty women and asians, I also knew a bunch of middle easterners (mostly iranians, but that's probably by accident). They got into the field because they were interested in it, so they were good at it!

Nowadays many people (including the despised white boys) enter the field because they think it's an easy way to make money, not because they're interested in it. But at least with the white boys, employers are still allowed to filter based on interest and ability. They can't filter out "oppressed identity havers" on the basis of interest or ability, who as a result are just as bad as nepotism hires -- some are good, most aren't.

What we should have focused on for the last 20 years was reducing nepotism, instead we created a new type of nepotism based on identity. In traditional nepotism you need an uncle who is friends with the boss, here you just need the skin color that is friends the boss of your (boss's)^n boss.

> I think we need diversity. Am I wrong?

There are definitely some circumstances where identity and cultural background can be very job-relevant -- for example for understanding your customers.

But that's pretty limited. Does your skin color or genitals have an effect on what kind of networking problems you can solve? The only reason we haven't proven the Riemann hypothesis yet is because we forgot to hire a Manchu-Bantu queer Muslim with ovotesticular syndrome and vitiligo? I don't think so.

Even if you believe that, this perceived need does not justify identity-based discrimination. Discrimination creates resentment.

Actual, legally enforced, culturally glorified discrimination (which corporate america currently has against white and asian men, unless they're nepotism hires) creates more resentment than does the ethereal, unfalsifiable, hypothetical discrimination that you assume to exist based on outcome disparities, even though companies are aggressively punished for any actual such discrimination (against anyone besides white and asian men).

The main unfairness in corporate America is nepotism. If you fight that, you'll automatically fight more white men than members of other identity groups. The main unfairness in America in general is poverty. If you fight poverty you'll automatically help more minorities. The main beneficiaries of DEI are "oppressed identity havers" from high income backgrounds. DEI reinforces/extends nepotism and income inequality instead of fighting it.

[andrekandre]

  > The main unfairness in corporate America is nepotism. If you fight that, you'll automatically fight more white men than members of other identity groups.

adolph reed says something similar to this as well.

one important addition to that conversation is that what dei (in many cases) represents is the implicit acceptance of the system as-it-is except that the only problem remaining is 'equal representation'

so if (going to extremes) you have a corrupt organization, just making the identify of that organization represent the makeup of society doesn't fix that corruption; it just makes it look more legitimate...