General > General Technical Chat

Diversity, Equity and Inclusion

<< < (24/76) > >>

Nominal Animal:

--- Quote from: james_s on August 18, 2022, 07:50:58 pm ---And that illustrates precisely what people are complaining about. You have come right out and said that you have drastically changed your opinion of some people after finding out that they have a different perspective than you on some topics and because you are offended by somebody saying something you disagree with you are advocating that they be silenced.
--- End quote ---
Well said, james_s.

I'm utterly bewildered at how this kind of behaviour has become acceptable, and the "norm" nowadays.  I just don't get it.

Also, what is it exactly that is so offensive in this thread?  We all basically agree that
* Absolutely anyone can and could become an engineer or a scientist.  Your gender, religion, political views, or stuff like that does not matter.  All that matters is that you are interested in it, and are willing to learn.  You do not become an engineer or scientists because you belong to group X, you become one because you want to –– and you can.

So, we're definitely inclusive, just at the individual level: if you want to do engineering or science, and are willing to learn, you are welcome among us, regardless of your other personal details.  Once you start doing engineering/science, you become one of us, and those personal details are just your individual attributes that do not define you as an engineer/scientist: the work/research/hobby and how you interact with others, does.
Many of us do not see you as a X engineer or scientist, but an engineer or scientist that happens to also be X.


* We value engineers and scientists with different views and experiences, because we all want to learn from each other.  That's why many of us are here, especially in the beginner section: we get to ask and get help in all kinds of technical stuff from others who have lots of practical experience.

So, we're already a diverse bunch, again at the individual level.  Basically no scientist or engineer expects other scientists or engineers to have the same social attributes as they do.  Instead, if you do engineering or science, you are a fellow scientist or engineer like us, because those other attributes do not matter (at all to most of us).  There are exceptions, of course, but it is those that such stuff matters to, that are considered the odd ones out (and often considered unsuitable for professional environments).  To simplify, you are accepted as a member of the community, and if someone says otherwise because of some kind of social detail or personal attribute, it is them that are not welcome.


* The only thing that should cause incompatibilities between coworkers in a technical field is dissonant attitudes towards the work itself.  Any kind of friction stemming from social details is unprofessional and unacceptable.  Refusing to work with someone because they're male/female/gay/trans is unprofessional (and in my personal opinion grounds for dismissal, but opinions on this might vary, because of cultural differences and protections wrt. religion).
We all seem to agree that finding the persons that are interested in engineering or science and have the interest and capability to learn, regardless of their background, is a good thing.  We do not want to leave any potential engineer/scientist out; we want to work with them.

Very few of us want to work in "sausage fests" where juvenile male humor is the rule.  Those are the exception, the negative stereotype.
Most of us enjoy actually working on the subject matter, and interacting with colleagues and other people like adults.

Because many engineers and scientists are thing-oriented as opposed to people/social-oriented (again a detail that has been observed in other species, especially primates and monkeys, so not purely a social construct or effect of upbringing, but something that has at least a partly biological basis –– we cannot help but be like this), many of us fail to acknowledge social details.  This is not coldness or rudeness or antisocial behaviour; it's just that many of us tend to focus on the things –– and work –– instead of the persons involved.

Here are the opinions that seem to me to cause offense, which I honestly do not understand:
* There are statistical differences in the fraction of people interested in science and engineering, among various social groups, including between males and females.  Statistics and even animal experiments show that this has at least some basis in biology, so we guess it is natural.  However, there may be unwanted biases in exactly who is encouraged to seek science or engineering fields, and we want to make sure that does not happen, that everyone interested should be reached and social-based obstacles eradicated.  However, at the admission and hiring phase, any kind of quotas are counterproductive, because they are fundamentally unfair, which causes their total effect to be negative instead of positive.


* Fairness is a concept that has a biological basis, as it has been observed in many species, not just in humans.  Because of this, any attempt at eradicating discrimination by "positive discrimination" will fail, because that positive discrimination itself is unfair at the individual level.  Even in animal experiments, "positive discrimination" will fail to yield positive results.  So, why would it work in humans?  Why is it "offensive" to point this out?


* For the longest time, freedom and fairness have been associated with the freedom of opportunity and equality among individual humans.  In a very short time, just a decade or two, this has been suddenly twisted into equity, equality of outcome, removing any effect of individual effort, and basing any rewards on the immutable or social characteristics of the person instead of their personal efforts and accomplishments.
This is fundamentally unfair at the individual level.
Furthermore, it has already been attempted in communist societies like the Soviet Union, and it lead to a horrific loss of productivity there.  Why is this historical factual experience completely ignored, and not acknowledged by those who push equity?  Why do they think it will lead to different results this time?
I myself often mention that I have done my best work in a small team with very diverse individuals, each with their own focus and domain of expertise, which overlapped slightly.  I have never had issues with a coworker because of personal or social reasons; only when there was a serious conflict arising from the work itself.  (However, I have found out a couple of times, afterwards, that a coworker had an issue with me because of a social detail: either because of my directness and refusal to let unfairness remain, or because I failed to acknowledge social details about that coworker.)  I have happily worked for people from all sorts of backgrounds, and the biggest "issue" is that I've often missed social details I consider uninportant/ancillary, like whether my employers were a gay couple or just co-owners.  (Because I like self-deprecating humor and openly acknowledge my faults, it has never been an actual issue.  I'm very easy to read, socially speaking, in real life.)
And for reasons outlined above, I definitely prefer a diverse workplace over a mono-one –– as long as I am not required to acknowledge any work-unrelated social details like the exact position of each colleague in the gender spectrum, because doing so is difficult for me: I have to concentrate and work it out, I just do not automatically observe those things.

Many scientists and engineers are like this, to differing degrees, based on conversations that I have had.  (Granted, I am assuming my limited sample is at least somewhat representative of the whole; so, if what I described above is in conflict with what other members here have observed, please do correct me.)

So, what is it, exactly, in this that is so offensive and "alt-right"?  It is all verifiable, non-antagonistic, and definitely welcoming any individual regardless of their personal attributes.  I do not understand, and I am very tired of being constantly barraged by the factually incorrect but "politically correct" agenda demanding I change, and atone for my audacity to even think this way.  Why?  None of that barrage is rational, and none of it makes any sense to me.

Ed.Kloonk:



janky copy/paste of transcript.

--- Quote ---you know what just occurred to me i just
realized something there's a whole
faction of people out there not only on
the internet but also out in the real
world as well who strive to get
biological women who speak out against
them about the
erasure of women who have a problem with
being called a womb hover and a cervix
hover we speak out against these things
and then this group of people make a
very concerted attempt to get us banned
off the internet to get us fired and
doxxed and harassed
and they do all of this
while appropriating our sex
--- End quote ---

paulca:
To be honest the component of this that make me want to speak was the irony, contradiction, miss-use of terms and hypocrisy.

Every single DEI email in the past year has been about women only events, women only incentives.  It's agenda for meetings have been Women in tech, Women in tech, Women in tech, Women in tech.

How is that inclusive?  How is that diverse?  How is that Equal?

It's hipocracy.  I feel like, but won't out of fear, joining one of their meetings and asking straight out what each of those words actually means.  Then read the dictionary definition to them and leave without having to make a point.

Ed.Kloonk:

--- Quote from: paulca on August 19, 2022, 08:51:49 am ---

It's hypocrisy.  I feel like, but won't out of fear, joining one of their meetings and asking straight out what each of those words actually means.  Then read the dictionary definition to them and leave without having to make a point.

--- End quote ---

Youtuber Alex Stein gives them a dose of their own medicine.

tszaboo:

--- Quote from: John B on August 19, 2022, 02:54:44 am ---
--- Quote from: EEVblog on August 19, 2022, 02:02:25 am ---
--- Quote from: sokoloff on August 18, 2022, 11:58:43 pm ---
--- Quote from: EEVblog on August 18, 2022, 11:32:08 pm ---engineering terminology we supposedly are and aren't allowed to use
--- End quote ---
For me, retiring the usage of “master and slave” falls into the category of “yeah, that’s probably a good thing to do [to avoid dredging up discomforts from over 150 years ago].”
--- End quote ---

It's bullshit.

--- End quote ---

It's also painfully, painfully US-centric, as is the entirety of the woke caste system and it's dogma.

No offense to any US members.

#NotAllUSA

--- End quote ---
Oh, the engineers should've just said its a kink/fetish thing, and not history. Like penetration distance or male and female connectors.
Once your realize that you don't care at all about what these woke people think about you (and why would you), you can just one-up them anytime with some ridiculous  claim, that they are not allowed to question or debate.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

There was an error while thanking
Thanking...
Go to full version
Powered by SMFPacks Advanced Attachments Uploader Mod