Fantastic thread. Identity politics flavored social justice warfare peeves me because it misses this grand overarching point: there is untapped potential here. When I hire an unorthodox candidate that is typically given short shrift for not matching a given profile, I am not hiring in order to foster diversity and inclusion. No, it's the other way around.
Building a diverse and inclusive team full of highly competent people is actually _how_ I successfully compete against firms with larger pockets than me. It lets us not just outrace them but out-strategize them. I'm getting not just an underpriced call option, but an underpriced put option as well. Along with a lack of bureaucracy, it's one of the few (but powerful) advantages I have over a larger firm. More than anything else (for me), at an early stage startup, hiring is arbitrage. If you find a passed over gem with an unorthodox background that don't fit the typical "pattern matching" that many tech companies use to build a monoculture and yet executes well, you can easily generate six to seven figures of alpha for your company. Of course, the employee gets the opportunity to advance their career, but in order to do so, they generate value for your company first. It's a win-win.
I've seen this so many times during my career. It's the hungry person with the unorthodox background that laps the Ivy educated wonder kid who by all external indicators and pedigrees should not have been outproduced. And yet, not only did it happen, but when it did, those folks became absolute superstars. I've been that person before, and I've seen (and help coached) others to become that person. It's one of the most magical things I've experienced career-wise.
Hiring is about risks and rewards. If you find a risk with an asymmetric reward profile, you can build an organization that is seriously ahead of the curve -- in part because the competing opportunities are not, by definition.
> Fantastic thread. Identity politics flavored social justice warfare peeves me because it misses this grand overarching point: there is untapped potential here.
I feel like you're just taking a shot at "SJWs" without realizing that your untapped potential comment is exactly what is at the core of most of these movements.
All politics is identity politics, and it's the identity politics of the past that has repressed millions in America and wasted potential. Potential was wasted when folks were slaves instead of being able to exercise their freedom and pursue their individual talents, potential was wasted when Black soldiers returning from home were denied the benefits of the GI bill. Affirmative Action is explicitly a mechanism to provide more opportunity, so is the modern D&I movement in corporate America. An untold amount of potential is being wasted right now due to America's inability and inaction when it comes to eliminating poverty and providing equal opportunity for all.
It's not really at the core of these movements, in part because there isn't really a core of these movements. They're loose confederations full of warring factions that don't agree with each other -- it's why purity spiraling is sadly so common. You'll find identitarians as much as you'll find eager acolytes of realpolitik, and everyone in between. But it's the radicals that are most effective at branding, perhaps in part because their most able to summon the punk rock, contrarian flavor and associate it with themselves. Sometimes, they really do walk the walk. But sometimes, it's talk.
I'm gonna be honest here: it sounds like you're mainly getting your perspective on these issues from internet forums rather than non-internet sources.
However you want to describe these movements, one thing is clear: if America had a more equal distribution of opportunity among demographics these movements would have no reason to exist. There are definitely extremes to the movement, and that's what most criticism (especially online) likes to focus on. But as someone who has been in the trenches working with the D&I organization at my company I can assure you most people are not there with a "kill all white men" or "destroy capitalism" mindset. It's about finding ways to equally distribute opportunity.
I agree that we have a long way to go to get to a true meritocracy. That said, even if we ever achieved that, "these movements" would still exist, because someone's going to have more grapes than someone else and that's going to be considered unfair by the group who didn't get as much money/power as some other people did, regardless of whether or not that outcome is "deserved". (That's probably not you, but I think it's a mistake to think that they'd vanish once equality of opportunity was achieved.)
You do't need identity politics to provide more equal distribution of opportunities. Why not just assess every person as an individual, and dole out help according to their specific situation? For example, a kid from a dysfunctional (or even just very poor in money and culture) family needs extra help and skin color or gender are not relevant.
Now imagine instead a black kid from an area where gang violence is rampant and schooling opportunities are poor. You would have to give that kid extra aid to counter the issues he faces which are a result of years of white flight and systemic racism.
When you assess each person as an individual, the whole result would be that minority families would need more aid than white families. But if you chose to implement policies that recognize this problem, you get accused of playing 'identity politics' and people demand you ignore race/gender.
Which then the end result is that by attempting to be color blind, you're effectively denying minorities the aid they need. You've circled all the way back around to racist policies that ignore the problems at hand.
>
When you assess each person as an individual, the whole result would be that minority families would need more aid than white families. But if you chose to implement policies that recognize this problem, you get accused of playing 'identity politics' and people demand you ignore race/gender.
Do people really accuse color blind social policies of that? Under color blind policies, a child of a black middle upper class family would get no help, so it's hard to see how it implements identity politics.
One way I could see how someone would oppose to such policies is, they could say that these policies are set up in a way which, in practice, gives money goes to minorities - but such claim itself is a form of identity politics (i.e. seeing people through the lens of the group they belong to and not seeing the individuals), so someone would have to be stupid to use that argument.
If equal opportunity means removing one groups opportunity to prop up that of another, then you are most likely incorrect to say that that will be an overall benefit of harvesting untapped potential.
The world doesn’t function off raw potential, sadly. You can’t just be smart or driven and magically become a functioning ceo of a major company. You pretty much have to have a certain groomed background to be successful in that role.
This is an extreme, but the same logic applies throughout the workforce hierarchy. Equality movements have demonstrated that they intend to actualize policies which disregard this fact for the sake of an ideology. That is more than enough reason to criticize these movements.
I think you're off base by saying I'm getting my perspective on these issues from internet forums, and I think you're illustrating my point and proving my fears. The people who work at D&I organizations are often the same level of callous and see any fundamental criticism of their labor as something that could be hand waved away by association with "those" online alt-right idiots.
In actuality, nothing could be further from the truth. I find it interesting to observe the far-right, far-left and center, but I form my opinions independently of that. Most damningly, your insinuation that this different opinion from yours on your labor is an opinion "from an internet forum" shows the standard of care you'll have for carrying on with your work.
In fact, I don't disagree with you that "if America had a more equal distribution of opportunity among demographics these movements would have no reason to exist" but I also think that painfully, ironically, these movements become ouroboros of their former selves because the door is opened for people to perform their politics rather than labor towards them. They become co-opted by opportunists looking for fame, in part because the image of doing social justice becomes a social cachet in and of itself, and this perverts the true, altruistic labor of actually achieving it. And this fundamental duality really unnerves me, and I don't have an answer on how to solve it.
But judging by your dismissiveness, you are probably guilty of exactly what I am worried about. And you too do not have the answers.
This is a good reply and I particularly like the point you make in your fourth paragraph. I note that 40acres made the ideological statement "All politics is identity politics" in their first reply to you. There is a good essay [1] that explicitly rejects this statement and which makes a similar point to yours:
> In practice, contemporary identity politics does little to challenge the roots of oppression. What it does do is empower certain people within those putative identities to police the borders of ‘their’ communities or peoples by establishing themselves as gatekeepers. It has allowed self-nominated authentic voices or community leaders to consolidate and protect their power. As solidarity has become redefined in terms of ethnicity or culture, so those who demand to be the voices of those ethnicities or cultures are afforded new privileges.
Economic arguments (“treat people better so you can make more money”) are disgusting and morally bankrupt to a large chunk of the social justice community, particularly those who see all capitalist business and employment relationships as fundamentally exploitative. There’s a strong undercurrent of hatred for the corporate D&I ideology.
Viewing the world primarily through the lens of a struggle between oppressed and oppressor demographic groups isn’t uncommon, but other politics do exist.
I'm pro-"economic arguments", but if you're a victim of being undervalued, especially for some immutable part of your identity (such as race), I can see how it'd be enraging that the primary defense of you relies on your economic value to an employer rather than a more innate sense of worth.
Of course, it's ineffective and self-sabotaging to try to avoid the economic side (mainly because the issues /are/ significantly economic, in addition to cultural), but I think at least sympathy is warranted for the social justice community's view on it.
> Economic arguments (“treat people better so you can make more money”) are disgusting and morally bankrupt to a large chunk of the social justice community, particularly those who see all capitalist business and employment relationships as fundamentally exploitative. There’s a strong undercurrent of hatred for the corporate D&I ideology.
I'm tempted to ask for sources, but I recognize that's not really possible or fair with this kind of statement.
Suffice to say, I fundamentally disagree with your assessment, and I think you're painting a large group with a very broad brush.
The opinions of a few people in a very large population—or even the opinions of five, ten, or twenty people—do not allow you to ascribe those views to everyone in the group. I know I could find examples of right-wing nuts saying women are inherently poor engineers, or something like that.
Now, if you're aware of a gallop poll that randomly sampled self-identified "leftist-activists" and asked "Agree or disagree, is most capitalist business morally bankrupt?", that would get us somewhere. Since I'm pretty sure it doesn't exist, this discussion is a bit difficult.
Maybe I shouldn't be posting this comment, since I clearly don't have much useful to add. I don't know. I guess I primarily want to say, I'd really encourage actively listening to (a diverse set of people in) the groups you describe, if you're not doing so already. I suspect, based on my own imperfect and unprovable anecdotal evidence, that you will find a much broader set of viewpoints than what you're describing.
The parent did not back their assertions about “what is at the core of those movements” with any polling. If my claim is inappropriate, than so is the one it’s responding to.
There is sort of a semantic game here: I would call those with more moderate/mainstream stances “liberal” and not include their views in a characterization of what “social justice warrior” means. The same way you draw a distinction between anyone right of center and a “right-wing nut.”
Employment relationships are fundamentally exploitative though. While it's absolutely true that smaller companies can do a lot better in treating their employees right, the fact of the matter is that there is an asymmetrical relationship between an employee and the company due to a large power gap between the two.
And the issue can be worse with people that are working doubly hard to escape poverty or just to survive. Those are the people that cannot afford to lose the single opportunity they've received, which means they are often further exploited through lower wages, fewer benefits and so forth.
Considering I've been in that position myself, there were times when I had a deep fear of losing absolutely everything.
> “Employment relationships are fundamentally exploitative though.”
that you a priori assume this makes me sad. a company has no fundamental right to a power differential over an employee.
an employment agreement is between two equal parties looking for a fair value exchange. with that said, of course power differentials often exist in those situations (unfortunately), but it doesn’t always have to. that’s one of the reasons everyone should always apply to multiple jobs at once, and hopefully get multiple offers, so you have leverage in the employment negotiations.
and the best managed organizations consider managers to be support staff with decision-coalescing responsibilities rather than overlords.
an employment agreement is between two equal parties looking for a fair value exchange.
That you can believe and type that with a straight face, makes me boggle. Ideally, maybe. Employee-owned cooperatives, maybe.
One side is a non-human entity, a multi-multi-millionaire with on-tap access to an economy full of high spec legal, financial, and any other kind of consultant. Working on decades of procedures and organizational habits buit from the experiences of hundreds of humans, with many human brains and many years of time-horizon to research any given topic, fronted by the humans selected for being good at "playing the selction game" - convincing, manipulating, looking the part, extracting as much as possible from employees.
The other side is a person, who can spare a small fraction of one human brain, with very limited money and access to resources, who has a Hobson's choice of "work or die of starvation".
It isn't two equal parties. It's barely even two /comparable/ parties.
and when was the last time you talked to someone who felt their employement was "fair value exchange"? Someone at the pub who felt their employer paid them enough, didn't ask too much of them - and wasn't boasting about having an unusually good situation?
In fact, when was the last time you talked to someone who /didn't/ dream of getting enough money to never work again? Would that be such a popular meme if people generally felt fairly treated, equal partners, in value-creating systems they participated in by choice?
A great example of the power vacuum however is non-competes and how prevalent they are in our industry. It's not just one person negotiating with another, it's one person negotiating with a company and an entire industry. An entire system designed to swing the balance in the favor of the company.
With my work experience the balance shifted a bit to me, giving me options to find companies without non-competes. When I first got started however, I didn't have an option to negotiate nor did I have the financial backing to challenge a non-compete if it ever became an issue. Ultimately this is where unions should come into play, but I highly doubt we'll ever see the tech industry unionize.
That's a whole 'nother can of worms though; employee-owned companies can still treat new employees badly depending on how their system is set up. Plus they're an incredibly small fraction of the overall working world we participate in and at most would be an exception to the rule and not the norm.
Though I would say that non-profits and things like you mentioned are generally more inclined to treat their employees fair.
There are no free lunches. None of those examples work as well as pure employer employee relationship companies, otherwise there would be many, many more of them. A works with more cöops and partnerships would be poorer because they’re just less efficient.
> Employment relationships are fundamentally exploitative though. While it's absolutely true that smaller companies can do a lot better in treating their employees right, the fact of the matter is that there is an asymmetrical relationship between an employee and the company due to a large power gap between the two.
Yes and no. I don't think our society does enough to protect and help the people at the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder, for the reasons you state. But, I also think if it weren't for our capitalist system, these same people likely wouldn't have any jobs at all, and that a lousy job is usually better than none.
I'm absolutely not in favor of tearing down the entire capitalist system, as your parent comment implies. And I certainly don't think it's immoral to look at diversity hiring as a competitive advantage—quite the contrary, in fact.
There are many ways to skin this cat: people characterized online as SJWs are mostly persuaded by the push for equal opportunity, neo-liberals will be persuaded by the untapped economic potential that is covered up by discrimination. There's an argument to be made to libertarians, etc. etc.
The fact of the matter is that our society is based on western liberal ideas, core to that idea is the freedom, liberty, and equality. You simply can't square America's past with that idea and if you believe in the western liberal philosophy then in my view you can be persuaded to see the value in these movements.
Much of your comment I agree with but I do take issue with the concept of "identity politics flavored social justice warfare".
If you put yourself in the shoes of underrepresented people and our allies, you might understand that it's impossible to predict exactly what sort of political expression will jolt folks wielding power into doing right by us without making them feel like we're being too loud.
People very much thought of Dr. King as a social justice warrior in his time. He was deeply unpopular most of his life. And even he had difficulty making progress without having more aggressive folks as the alternative to dealing with him.
The fact is, very little gets done without the social justice warriors, and certainly not at scale.
The thought of having to confront inequality or having to recognize that minorities are treated differently solely on the basis of their skin color, sexual orientation or gender is one that is unfortunately still deeply uncomfortable it seems. MLK's understanding of the white moderate still remains as pertinent today as it did when he wrote that letter.
Thank you for that comment, I think you definitely do have a point. It's true that Dr. King was far more radical than people remember him being, and that's part of what I admired about him. But I don't think it's true that "even he had difficulty making progress without having more aggressive folks as the alternative to dealing with him." I used to think this was the case, but now I'm not so sure.
This may be naive of me, but I think what he was most successful for was not warfare but persuasion and oratorship. He was a cogent, persuasive speaker, and he won hearts. That's not warfare. That's diplomacy. Yes, he had radical views, and he had things to get done. But although he rightly criticized the white moderate, he did not demonize them. There are analogies to be drawn here. Lots of folks are laboring to build diversity, but there are just as many folks who are more interested in the warfare side of it than the achieving diversity side.
Being a woman or black is not unorthodox, though. And priding yourself for hiring somebody black or female seems odd. It should be a normal thing - if the skills (or whatever unorthodox aspects you fancy) are a match.
I agree with everything you said. I don't pride myself for hiring anybody based on their appearance. However, I dispassionately acknowledge that it is because other firms do not do the normal thing that if I do it, I'm at an advantage to them. It doesn't mean I'm a better person, or I have something to be proud of. It only means that I am more competent than folks who are incompetent.
They never said that. They said unorthodox background that doesn’t fit the pattern matching at a big company. i.e. resume is a bit off but they have potential.
Maybe they meant the actual "diversity" of ideas and personalities. It is just that these days if you say "diversity", it has become synonymous with more women, different racial backgrounds, and for some reason also sexual orientation.
It should be normal but unfortunately it is not. I don't see the problem with applauding people who actually make a difference here. In the future it will be nothing noteworthy but right now, again unfortunately, it is.
I'm not convinced that it is not normal. Disproportionate numbers of females and black people in certain professions are more likely because of different proportions in applications. And perhaps also in different distributions of skills and education.
Indeed. I don’t see anyone wringing their hands over most nurses, K-12 teachers, and child care professionals being female, that a majority of the trades are male (construction, welding, electricians, plumbers, pipe fitters), nor that a majority of professional athletes are people of color. I’ve only seen it in tech (disproportionate gender and race composition) described as a “crisis”.
> Identity politics flavored social justice warfare peeves me because it misses this grand overarching point: there is untapped potential here.
?
That’s one of the points that gets repeated over and over as far as benefits of including people with diverse and/or unorthodox backgrounds. But you should also consider hiring for diversity simply because different sorts of people with different backgrounds and experiences likely have different world-views and approaches to thinking about and solving problems. A diverse culture will simply have more ideas on the table to work with than a monoculture.
The problem is that most companies boasting about diversity don't actually do that. They hire individuals from similar backgrounds based on surface level features. No, having more women from MIT or Harvard isn't really making the company more 'diverse' in any real way, since many of them have the same backgrounds and experiences as your male employees. It's tokenism. If X% of employees are female/from some minority but they're all educated in Ivy League/Oxbridge schools, all from fairly wealthy backgrounds, share political leanings and grew up in similar situations, does it really matter or make any real 'difference'?
Economic differences are basically ignored in a lot of modern 'identity politics'
> does it really matter or make any real 'difference'?
the answer from the various underrepresented identity groups themselves is abundantly clear. it's yes.
they insist that, yes, absolutely it definitely does make a critically important difference to have an actual person from the actual underrepresented identity group in those jobs.
they say that only such a person could have fully experienced the kind of opportunity denial, the kind of repression, the kind of discrimination that such corporate measures are supposed to address.
they say that such a person and only such a person can truly and faithfully represent the perspectives and needs of that identity group within the corporate setting.
they say that only such a person in that job can truly open the door so that other young people, other potential future employees, from that group have the confidence to pursue such a job in the future. (could an openly gay man ever lead a Fortune 500 US corporation? in theory, yes, but it was still an important step for Tim Cook to step out into the open https://www.cultofmac.com/585278/tim-cook-interview-gay-priv...)
It gets repeated at face value, but it's at a surface level.
That's parroting. It's not often utilized as a process and as a tool to achieve other goals. That's when it becomes application.
You're entirely correct that a diverse culture will simply have more ideas on the table than a monoculture -- and that's exactly why it's an advantage.
It's my experience that "hiring for diversity" advocates are very much in favor of a monoculture. For example, devout Christians are severely underrepresented in most professional fields, and I've never seen a diversity program targeted towards obtaining their wildly different worldviews.
Building a diverse and inclusive team full of highly competent people is actually _how_ I successfully compete against firms with larger pockets than me. It lets us not just outrace them but out-strategize them. I'm getting not just an underpriced call option, but an underpriced put option as well. Along with a lack of bureaucracy, it's one of the few (but powerful) advantages I have over a larger firm. More than anything else (for me), at an early stage startup, hiring is arbitrage. If you find a passed over gem with an unorthodox background that don't fit the typical "pattern matching" that many tech companies use to build a monoculture and yet executes well, you can easily generate six to seven figures of alpha for your company. Of course, the employee gets the opportunity to advance their career, but in order to do so, they generate value for your company first. It's a win-win.
I've seen this so many times during my career. It's the hungry person with the unorthodox background that laps the Ivy educated wonder kid who by all external indicators and pedigrees should not have been outproduced. And yet, not only did it happen, but when it did, those folks became absolute superstars. I've been that person before, and I've seen (and help coached) others to become that person. It's one of the most magical things I've experienced career-wise.
Hiring is about risks and rewards. If you find a risk with an asymmetric reward profile, you can build an organization that is seriously ahead of the curve -- in part because the competing opportunities are not, by definition.