Diversity, Equity and Inclusion

[emece67]

I realize now that my opinion about some other people on this thread has changed. In some cases dramatically and to worst.

There is the obvious possibility that the opinion that some other members of the forum have about me to also have changed in the same sense.

This is why I think that it is a big error to allow this kind of threads.

For me it is over.

Enjoy.

[james_s]

I realize now that my opinion about some other people on this thread has changed. In some cases dramatically and to worst.

There is the obvious possibility that the opinion that some other members of the forum have about me to also have changed in the same sense.

This is why I think that it is a big error to allow this kind of threads.

For me it is over.

Enjoy.

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. Yes there is a possibility that some are so fragile that exposure to a differing view could drastically change their opinion of others, but most of us will carry on and continue to engage in friendly discussions on other topics with them. You have not presented a counter point at all, instead you are pushing to have the discussion shut down. That is a nearly perfect example of the issue we are discussing, a vocal minority of people when faced with something they disagree with choose instead of presenting points in favor of an alternate point of view, to attempt to simply shut down the opposing view. I don't know, but I suspect that there is some cognitive dissonance going on, they lack intellectual points to support their view and instead it is based on how they feel. I admit I have never really understood why some people take some idea so personally that they themselves feel attacked when somebody points out flaws with that idea. An extreme example of this behavior are the cases where people have been brutally attacked for rooting for the "wrong" sports team.

[KaneTW]

It's a defensive reaction. Not positing that this is the case here, but:
* Disagreements often provoke the same physiological response as a physical attack
* When your worldview is being challenged, you instinctively want to defend it. When you don't have arguments to defend it with, you lash out.

For a lot of people, specific issues are a central tenet of their identity. Challenging it is like waving a red flag at a bull, but unfortunately we can't just gore people we don't like over the internet.


I see this with gender identity, Ukraine/Russia, etc, etc. Any contentious highly emotional issue, basically.

Echo chambers just make it worse (Twitter, State TV, ...)

[Zero999]

Here's something else to ponder. Companies that have used AI to find candidates, even in the efforts of perfect equality, often just end up perpetuating the racist stereotypes that built out the makeup of their workforce in the first place (because the AI is trained on data of a workforce that was historically built on discrimination by race, gender, or sexual orientation):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_intelligence_in_hiring#Controversies

And of course, this:
https://xkcd.com/385/

AI only relies on the data presented to it. It's possible to build an algorithm which performs well at predicting something, yet also yields politically incorrect results. For example, you could interrogate a database of postal addresses to find out who's most likely to default on a loan, or make an insurance claim and you'll find they're most likely to be the more deprived areas, with more of a certain ethnic minority group. The algorithm will be branded as racist, but it's working properly and generating good results. The problem is with society not the algorithm and the same applies to AI. Unfortunately it's not possible to fix society so everyone is equal, without resorting to unfair or even authoritarian social engineering, so we're stuck to some extent.

It's a defensive reaction. Not positing that this is the case here, but:
* Disagreements often provoke the same physiological response as a physical attack
* When your worldview is being challenged, you instinctively want to defend it. When you don't have arguments to defend it with, you lash out.

For a lot of people, specific issues are a central tenet of their identity. Challenging it is like waving a red flag at a bull, but unfortunately we can't just gods people we don't like over the internet.


I see this with gender identity, Ukraine/Russia, etc, etc. Any contentious highly emotional issue, basically.

Echo chambers just make it worse (Twitter, State TV, ...)

I agree. I think many of use have been there, myself included. I admit, it's difficult to  look back on the situation or debate and come to the conclusion I was wrong. It's something I'm working on and getting better at doing. Part of the problem is, when someone disagrees, they feel compelled to take more time offering an explanation why they think the other person is wrong, than when they simply agree with them. This is of course human nature, since preaching to the converted requires less effort.

It is frustrating how many people seem to have difficulty with disagreeing with someone one one thing, yet finding common ground on another. To demonstrate this is possible, I've picked out a post which I partially agree with.

In engineering (software engineering in my specific case), I think there is an observable outcome that suggests a strong possibility that some effects are happening to cause the profile of working engineers to be very different from the profile of the overall population.

Now, that could happen from a bunch of reasons that might be completely okay, supportable, understandable, or even beneficial.
Or it might be from biases or filters that we should work to reduce.

For my own actions, I'm very supportive of examining the questions and working to reduce apparent biases (or even introducing offsetting biases) when they involve groups of people.
As a concrete example: I fully support adding all-women's or historically-black colleges with strong tech programs to the set of campuses that we recruit at. I also support something like the "Rooney Rule" for professional hiring levels.

I strongly disagree with you here. I deem any policy which treats people differently, based on irrelevant characteristics, i.e. interviewing quotas for minorities, is a good idea. My dad had that problem when he worked at the council. HR commented on how he didn't select any CVs of ethnic minorities and wanted him to interview a group of minority candidates, who were clearly unsuitable. It wouldn't have been fair for them to have wasted their time travelling to the interview, especially given they were from further afield. What was even more silly is most of the information giving away their ethnicity had already been removed form their CVs by HR.

Everyone has their biases and there's little evidence to suggest they can be changed, via training. I admit it's not a bad thing to make people aware of any biases they may have, but they can't be improved or eliminated.

I do not support introducing "offsetting biases" when it comes down to individual people.
As a concrete example: While I fully support recruiting at Wellesley College or Florian A&M, I don't support having a different hiring bar for candidates from those schools versus others. Similarly, while I support the Rooney Rule (or equivalent), I don't support differences in promotion or hiring criteria to give "diverse candidates" an advantage. I find the desire to award such advantages understandable but still significantly undesirable.

IMO, you fix inappropriate discrimination with a strong move towards fairness and impartiality, not with counterbalancing/offsetting discrimination.

Inappropriate discrimination is unfair, undesirable, and value-destroying regardless of the motivations of the people practicing that discrimination.

I agree everyone should have to meet the same criteria, when applying for a position. As you said in another post, lowering the bar is bad for those it's supposed to help.

[tom66]

AI only relies on the data presented to it. It's possible to build an algorithm which performs well at predicting something, yet also yields politically incorrect results. For example, you could interrogate a database of postal addresses to find out who's most likely to default on a lone, or make an insurance claim and you'll find they're most likely to be the more deprived areas, with more of a certain ethnic minority group. The algorithm will be branded as racist, but it's working properly and generating good results. The problem is with society not the algorithm and the same applies to AI. Unfortunately it's not possible to fix society so everyone is equal, without resorting to unfair or even authoritarian social engineering, so we're stuck to some extent.

I'm reminded of car insurance companies who used to be able to charge women less - the idea was that women, in general, have fewer accidents and the accidents they do have tend to be less serious.  Men, in contrast, are more likely to be aggressive when driving, more likely to drink-drive, and more likely to drive when tired.  And, they're quite likely to do any one of those when they have others in the car with them.  So the average payout is higher.

But, it's not legal any more to charge less to women (or more to men) on the basis on gender alone.  They can charge more or less based on insurance history, so an average female driver will pay less than an average male driver.  But for new drivers, or those with limited history, the price has to be the same.

It's completely bonkers - why shouldn't you be able to charge on actual risk?  Why do we pretend these things are equal when they quite clearly are not?

[John B]

AI only relies on the data presented to it. It's possible to build an algorithm which performs well at predicting something, yet also yields politically incorrect results. For example, you could interrogate a database of postal addresses to find out who's most likely to default on a lone, or make an insurance claim and you'll find they're most likely to be the more deprived areas, with more of a certain ethnic minority group. The algorithm will be branded as racist, but it's working properly and generating good results. The problem is with society not the algorithm and the same applies to AI. Unfortunately it's not possible to fix society so everyone is equal, without resorting to unfair or even authoritarian social engineering, so we're stuck to some extent.

I'm reminded of car insurance companies who used to be able to charge women less - the idea was that women, in general, have fewer accidents and the accidents they do have tend to be less serious.  Men, in contrast, are more likely to be aggressive when driving, more likely to drink-drive, and more likely to drive when tired.  And, they're quite likely to do any one of those when they have others in the car with them.  So the average payout is higher.

But, it's not legal any more to charge less to women (or more to men) on the basis on gender alone.  They can charge more or less based on insurance history, so an average female driver will pay less than an average male driver.  But for new drivers, or those with limited history, the price has to be the same.

It's completely bonkers - why shouldn't you be able to charge on actual risk?  Why do we pretend these things are equal when they quite clearly are not?

That actually sounds fair. Judge people neutrally until their personal actions and choices dictate one way or another.

[EEVblog]

I realize now that my opinion about some other people on this thread has changed. In some cases dramatically and to worst.
There is the obvious possibility that the opinion that some other members of the forum have about me to also have changed in the same sense.
This is why I think that it is a big error to allow this kind of threads.
For me it is over.
Enjoy.

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.

It seems that I have video for everything:

[EEVblog]

As long as things stay civil and somewhat relevant to the field of engineering they will generally let things slide.

I mostly see people attacking lefties. Not very civil, I think, and definitely not relevant (see my post above: https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/diversity-equity-and-inclusion/msg4365721/#msg4365721).

That's because so many people here have been cancelled by those on the left.
If you have left wing views, that's fine, but why not air them here, rather than moaning about this thread not being locked? If you don't like this thread, then don't read and post in it.

Here's the thing.
The only people who seem to want this thread shut down are those that basically support DEI, because they are being challenged here. So they compare it to talking about wars, covid, religion, etc as an excuse to have it shut down.
And this is exactly the problem with cancel culture, they want all discussion shut down. No.

This impacts this industry directly with employment, promotion, forced DEI courses, our EE universities, engineering terminology we supposedly are and aren't allowed to use, and the list goes on and on. It has infiltrated everything. And we have a history of discussing this kind of stuff on this forum. This is why I let it remain.
If you don't like it, or get offended by stuff beign said, or think less of your fellow forum users because of something they said, then simply put the thread in your ignore list and you won't see it again.

[sokoloff]

engineering terminology we supposedly are and aren't allowed to use

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].”

For the same reason, I wouldn’t let a conference room be named after Auschwitz, Hiroshima, or World Trade Center. These seem like common courtesies, even to my engineer brain. I realize that some see this as the start of a slippery slope (and I can’t explain exactly why that isn’t a concern for me.)

[KaneTW]

engineering terminology we supposedly are and aren't allowed to use

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].”

Wasn't there a book about this?

I fundamentally disagree with the retirement of master/slave, and continue to use it in my projects where appropriate. Change for changes' sake is just wasted resources. Same as here in Germany with "Studenten" (plural of students) => "Studierende" ("those who study") because "Studenten" is supposedly too gendered. Millions spent on renaming everything in universities for a word that sounds worse and has no benefit.

[james_s]

I'm reminded of car insurance companies who used to be able to charge women less - the idea was that women, in general, have fewer accidents and the accidents they do have tend to be less serious.  Men, in contrast, are more likely to be aggressive when driving, more likely to drink-drive, and more likely to drive when tired.  And, they're quite likely to do any one of those when they have others in the car with them.  So the average payout is higher.

But, it's not legal any more to charge less to women (or more to men) on the basis on gender alone.  They can charge more or less based on insurance history, so an average female driver will pay less than an average male driver.  But for new drivers, or those with limited history, the price has to be the same.

It's completely bonkers - why shouldn't you be able to charge on actual risk?  Why do we pretend these things are equal when they quite clearly are not?

As far as I know they still can and do do that here in the USA, and speaking as a male I don't like paying more but I also accept this because insurance costs are based on statistics, and statistically males such as myself are more aggressive and do have more serious accidents. It's perfectly logical that they do this, I myself have never been in an accident where I wasn't sitting stopped when I was hit by somebody but I understand how statistics work and I don't take personal offense when somebody points out that members of my group are statistically more likely to be in a serious accident. The data doesn't lie, and doesn't care if it points to politically incorrect conclusions.

[james_s]

engineering terminology we supposedly are and aren't allowed to use

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].”

For the same reason, I wouldn’t let a conference room be named after Auschwitz, Hiroshima, or World Trade Center. These seem like common courtesies, even to my engineer brain. I realize that some see this as the start of a slippery slope (and I can’t explain exactly why that isn’t a concern for me.)

I strongly disagree here. Master and slave in the context of technology has *nothing* to do with slavery (which still exists actively in many parts of the world even today). It accurately describes the relationship of the devices in question, and these devices are inanimate, they have no feelings and no rights, they do not get offended, they are not self aware. Absolutely nobody who was alive 150 years ago is alive today so that is totally irrelevant. A slave device has NOTHING in common with a human slave and changing the word used to describe it does absolutely nothing. Personally I think people who are in favor of the euphemism treadmill have some deep guilt within themselves that causes them to be made uncomfortable by these words. The thing is, words are merely tools used to carry meaning, it's the meaning that matters, not the words. Changing words does nothing more than make certain people feel good about themselves and make them feel like they are doing something useful even though they are not.

Stop focusing on the word, focus instead on the meaning, and realize that there is nothing morally objectionable about enslaving inanimate objects.

[EEVblog]

engineering terminology we supposedly are and aren't allowed to use

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].”

It's bullshit.

[T3sl4co1l]

I haven't watched that video yet. I might not agree with everything he says, but he definitely makes more sense than some of the far-left radicals. Matt Walsh is another person on the right who talks a lot of sense.

This Matt Walsh..?



https://twitter.com/MattWalshBlog/status/1549713211188027394

The person X is bad, so all of what they say is wrong, mob mentality of many people nowadays is grating.  You do know it's possible to agree with someone on one thing, even if you strongly disagree or even despise some of their other views. I think many people forget that.

Not repeating the other thread here, but expanding on some related thoughts.

Sure, they could be forgiven, if these were one-off cases.  Everyone has days when their communication just doesn't land.  That happens.

Like, I don't know if the above is a one-off.  But a glance at what's on top of the account looks pretty par-for-the-course among right-wingers.

It's when they double and triple down on it, dig in deeper, and associate with other groups of negative impact -- and at an age well past obvious ability/intent to better themselves?  Nah, it's intentional, willful, and evil.  At best it's ignorance, but again given the age, there's no evidence it can be fixed; the next best then is stupidity.  (And for those clever enough -- like Peterson or Shapiro -- I doubt it's stupidity.)

And what we're really missing, then, is why.

Evil almost never exists for its own sake.

Almost always, it's money.  If we saw who's giving these people money for speaking engagements, interviews, books... and we saw what else they're financing, and who's financing them, and how that fits into the overall picture -- *gestures vaguely at all the stupid and criminal shit happening at high ranks everywhere* -- a very different picture would be painted about them, and their position on, and role in, all these bad things happening.  Of course, most of these flows are, very intently, kept quiet, whether by lobbied-for laws (e.g. PACs), or through private persons/groups (including laundering thereof, e.g. Political Donor Sentenced to 12 Years ...).  Whether or not individual actors in these webs realize it -- or if you choose to accept this as motivation for disregarding those individuals -- they have a hand in the decline of democracy.  Which is after all, the right's preferred modus operandi -- ignorance at all levels, plausible deniability, keep the money flowing, don't ask questions (or ""do your own research"").

A better framing of your point might go something more like: "not everything that's touched by evil money, is evil in turn".  I certainly agree with that: "evil" (and here I'm using "evil" in a broad, informal sense, as relates to the previous paragraphs) needs many goods and services that everyone else needs; indeed, those expenditures are arguably a moral good (if very mildly so), as they are direct costs, without specifically advancing any goals.  It's the web of relationships, and finances, that does advance their goals, that is problematic.

Which is also the fundamental reason corruption must be entrenched to survive -- it must also be inseparable.  You can't just cut it out, without killing off much more of the economy.  US defense spending, for example -- even by fairly right-wing standards, I think? -- is notoriously bloated.  It's intentionally divvied up into as many contractors and districts as possible, to make it benefit the most local economies.  Whether or not the incremental value of that budget is justified (which, when even the Pentagon itself says it wastes that money -- most right-libertarians I think might agree that it isn't justified), let alone if you want to include any other related, secondary, knock-on/extenuating, or left-leaning costs (like the continued destabilization of the middle-east (and various other countries around the world); or the military's vast consumption of fossil fuels; or the abuse, destruction and death of civilians in affected areas, let alone combatants, let alone in their own ranks, e.g. see rates of female suicide, and probable rape/murder in the military) -- it's a terribly expensive converter of money into human misery, for a minor gain at home.  Yet we allow it to continue, because it gives us token jobs making humvees and missiles, etc.

Just to emphasize, I mean the budget being far in excess of what an efficient, responsible, auditable military service would be, of essentially identical international impact.  So, completely aside from any knock-on costs, like whether that impact is really something we want to have.

We could get rid of that waste, but it would require airing out a tremendously deep and tangled web of corruption, and that just isn't going to happen at this time.  (It must happen.  We need to push for change.  But it's not going to happen just sitting around, I mean.)

And that's just one, more prominent example; the same repeats all over.  Any project big enough to be of notional public good, is going to have enough graft attached to it to make it worthwhile for all the politicians, investors, contractors, etc. who have a stake in keeping things the way they are: they have a vested interest keeping things expensive for the average person.  Keeping housing scarce.  Keeping automobiles mandatory to get to work, the store, the doctor.  Keeping work mandatory to survive.

Even on the smallest level, you have your bills with all the hidden costs.  Sure there's the service, oh but there's a wiring fee, and a service fee, and a utility tax, and a sales tax.  Your bill is now twice what we sold you, how would you like to pay, thank you and have a nice day!

We can't even put taxes on our grocery store labels, for god's sake.

And it's the little things that we accept, that condition us to also accept the big ones.

Anyway, in summary -- all these tangled webs of corruption, the major political pundits are very much active participants of that web, and we can hold them accountable as such.

I can't expect you to be aware of how much history I have seen, with respect to a given person [who you may complain I'm being unfair with], nor of how I've seen traits, they're exhibiting, that very much justify disregarding them.

Likewise, you shouldn't expect that I'm disregarding the majority of points [among some, or many, of which, you may still agree! so it looks very unfair indeed to you!], that someone makes, when I do not, in fact, blanket disregard them -- more that they are wrong far more often than they are right, and therefore it is of negative value to me to sift through their points, critique and debunk their claims, let alone, say, categorize and summarize all of these in a neat format for anyone else to review.

Would you employ someone who votes for a politician or disagrees with you on something, even though they might be the best person for the role? If not, why not?

Going from our discussions on other threads, it appears you disagree with me on many things, yet I thing you're one of the best engineers here. The fact you might be on a different part of the political spectrum than me wouldn't put me off working with you, just as long as we can agree to disagree and keep politics out of work.

It must sound utterly bizarre to you, but some believe there are other costs to be considered, besides the most direct and visible flows.

First, let's be careful -- "best", I'm going to assume this means purely in technical terms?  As opposed to an overall business decision, on hiring that individual (or plural, as the case may be -- one person might even be substituted with several)?

- Do I need the absolute best person for the role?  Will they demand a higher salary than the business can handle? -- or more to the point, will that maximize my profit?

Since we are ultimately working within a capitalist system here, I must disregard, to some extent, the conditions of my workers: negotiating against them for least salary/benefits, force them to work unpaid overtime away from their personal time, or families, etc.  If I don't, someone else will, they'll secure a profitability edge, gain more capital, and out-compete me.  It's not my choice, it's the system we operate in.  Stick a point in this, but take it for granted at the moment.

Or, flip it around: I'm certainly among the technically-best for a lot of EE jobs.  I've also priced myself out of many bids.  That has many explanations of course; not least of which, maybe I'd just not explained myself well enough to convince them.  But it's happened more than often enough to expect that many of those were simply declined by budget.

And my not being tied to cheaper, more common tasks (which, presumably, I could do more of / faster than others -- granted, whether or not I can convince clients of such, and actually pull that off in practice, are other matters!), means I have time to commit to more advanced and lucrative tasks -- like, instead of those bids I missed, I won a niche induction heating project earlier this year -- which has been profitable for me, and the client says they were "lucky to find [someone with induction heating experience]".  There you go.

So, cost serves here as a sorting mechanism, for instance.  A price is crude, and depends on many other variables still (not least of which, regional differences for example), but generally a "good enough" employee will be more practical for a given task.

So, there's reason to choose less technically competent individual(s).  Business doesn't need "the best", it needs "good enough".  Mediocrity is the norm (as you have no doubt noticed!!).

So that defeats the "[technical] best" point.  But maybe that was a straw-man and this was redundant (which is fine, again, communication is hard).

Second: how might I handle the described situation (hiring someone politically highly divergent)?

There are many:
- I could reject for the above reasons, certainly.  That's explained, so, aside.
- Perhaps they themselves decline after the in-person interview.  Say I have a lot of visibly LGBTQ+ employees, and visible postings of colorful banners, and they "didn't feel comfortable" in such a space (not that most would say so out loud, but that might be their internal reason).
- What if I'm a PoC, or woman, or trans, and I see them drive up in a truck with a confederate flag, or "lets go brandon" or "fuck your feelings" or "life begins at conception" sticker, or something else similarly problematic?  Or they have problematic tattoos (e.g. swastika) [and don't immediately make light of having changed their ways, just not having had time/budget to cover or remove them*]?

*Which, that's lit AF.  Expensing that shit right away.  Improve yourself, disregard hate, embrace love.  Easiest non-strictly-business-related cost I'd approve.

If they get hired, but later show various kinds of warning signs, what then?
- I could choose to post banners such as above (if not already present).  Is that a bad idea, does it constitute escalation, would it make things worse before they get better?  (I, personally, probably wouldn't.  I'm a coward, honestly.  I don't like in-person confrontation.  Sucks, but I'm honest enough with myself to know this.  I also don't particularly feel a need to control employees -- but also don't have a business need to hire any -- so I don't have any besides myself right now.  So, this is all hypothetical, and best-intent.)
- I could make it clear that some fraction of our profits is donated to beneficial causes (ACLU, women's rights, LGBTQ+ rights, progressive PACs, etc.).  Emphasizing how each employee's value-creation is distributed accordingly ("$X of profits you generated, were distributed to these helpful causes:"), so it doesn't just feel like a slush fund.  (Perception is everything.)  Mind, they can fight back in kind, if they like -- donating some of their income to counter causes -- but that also reduces their income, and presumably, my share of their value (profit) is larger than their discretionary budget -- another strong reason why capital must keep worker incomes down: to further their own goals (industry reps / lobbying, etc.).

Indeed, this happens at some corps with donation-matching policies; it's still not much (it's at the employee's expense), but with the match, it's that little bit more effective, and anything to help dilute the influence of megacorps and etc.

Anyway, if such an employee is okay with helping, well, they must not actually be all that concerned about it.  Or they're rather ignorant about how their personal alignments ultimately, if ever so incrementally, affect the people around them.  Which, see earlier point: mediocrity.  I've met plenty of engineers/technicians who, I assume (or know, in a few cases), made more annual income than I typically do, but who aren't particularly good at their jobs.  Again---price is only a crude indicator of quality.  And then, consider that there are plenty of other things to be ignorant about, besides ones' direct profession.  I've seen little evidence that cleverness in one area, automatically generalizes to cleverness in other areas.

I mean FFS, there's plenty of things I've been ignorant about throughout my life, and if I think a bit, I can probably pull up a few more that I still am.  But you'll understand, I'm not going to list examples here...

Never underestimate a human's ability to compartmentalize thoughts, whether by natural process (or lack thereof, as the case may be), or willful action (i.e., paid to)!

Anyway [again], maybe such a situation would resolve with positive change; maybe with construction of an HR file, and eventual dismissal for-cause.  Hopefully it wouldn't escalate to harassment or other such traumatic events, but that is unfortunately the system we work in (reactionary).

And like, there's plenty of examples of, say, Jan. 6 rioters getting identified, and fired.  And also prosecuted.  That's a very right-wing-relevant example, and a good enough cause for business reasons.  (You'll notice the lack of rainbow flags at that particular event...)

And, I personally, can also make conscious decisions about what employers I choose to work for, or suppliers I do business with.  I could probably have doubled (or more?) my net worth if I went to work for Raytheon, for example.  I got... so many recruiter messages about them (at least, hmm when was it, maybe 2018ish? they've mostly stopped nowadays, it seems).  I have no doubt the pay would've been excellent, and the work interesting (in and of itself, mind; the office politics, probably shite, par for the course?).  But then I'd have to know the designs I'm making are used to oppress or kill people I don't even know, let alone that have done anything against the country, or me personally.  Fuck that.

Tim

[John B]

engineering terminology we supposedly are and aren't allowed to use

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].”

It's bullshit.

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

[Nominal Animal]

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.

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.

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

[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]

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.

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

[tszaboo]

engineering terminology we supposedly are and aren't allowed to use

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].”

It's bullshit.

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

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.

[paulca]

On a more personal note.  Related mind, I think.  I suffer, like a lot of us, from depression.  I was watching one of JPs pre-fame lectures on depression.

Something rung out.  He said, when a negative thing happens to you, something upsets you, something doesn't go to plan, someone is rude to you, something makes you feel "pain", you have to ACTIVELY limit it's scope.  A depressed mind will allow that hole of discontent to expand, cracks and fishers will shoot off it, it will pick at the hole, make it worse.   Suddenly an isolated event in your life expands from "I did a bad interview" or "I accidentally deployed a dev config to prod" jumps to, "I'm a fraud", "I shouldn't be here.", "Who am I kidding?", "They'll be on to me.  I'm useless.", "I should leave my job, but then what do I do?  Jump off  a bridge?".  Instead a healthy mind will surround the hole and try and limit it's scope, try and force it closed, not deny it, but stop it growing out of proportion.

Damn.  That is far, far too close to home for me.  Before I even went to seek help for it, I got warnings in work for exactly that.  For picking up a problem with a solution and going at it like it was the end of the world.  Partly I found this created a feedback loop, along the lines of "cry wolf", so my negative warnings began to be unheard.  I esculated by using more extreme examples of how this issue or problem could explode and cause the whole project to fail.

It spiralled and spiralled with me feeling like I was being ignored (I was) and repeatedly seeing things that I had warned about manifest and then having to fix them after the fact when it was much harder.  I ended up completely disillusioned, disconnected and demoralised.  It only took a couple of actual bad things to happen in my life, a death, a  potential issue with my child and the start of the-virus to nearly send me over the edge.  I remember a feeling I've had in my life before, a feeling of another part of me deep within reaching out and holding me, like when I get so, so low there is a part deep within me, normally silent, which stands up and takes me by the shoulders and escorts me off to deal with myself calmly.

I got anti-depressants.  They work.  Most of the social anxiety I didn't even realise I had went away.  Most of the "spiralling" out do control to the negative stopped.  The only downside is the side effects on higher doses are just too much for me, so I'm on about half of what I should be and find I'm having good days and bad days.

Back to how this relates to the point here.

For me the Equity and force hiring is coming at me from the USA customer side.  They are not really allowed to override my UK employment legal framework.  So the worst of this stuff does NOT actually apply to me, yet.  It may never get that bad here (RAF's pause of male/white recruiting asides).  My own employer still talk of Equality and while they do go on and on and on about Women in Tech, the awards where all female, I have not attended one of their meetings to see how bad their rhetoric is, or isn't.

I'll limiting scope.  It's not a big deal yet for me.  It may never be.  It might never get as bad as it could get.  I only have 19 years left in me anyway before I retire.

The last thing I want to do is start sticking my head above a parapet fighting in a war that isn't mine (yet).  Although maybe that's cowardly. 

[Neper]

I realize now that my opinion about some other people on this thread has changed. In some cases dramatically and to worst.

There is the obvious possibility that the opinion that some other members of the forum have about me to also have changed in the same sense.

This is why I think that it is a big error to allow this kind of threads.

If anything, they're divisive and they poison the atmosphere.

Why can't the people starting those discussions take them to the usual political ratholes instead of spoiling the fun on here?

[paulca]

If anything, they're divisive and they poison the atmosphere.

If anything, they are diverse of opinion and reflect the atmosphere in the industry.

Why can't the people starting those discussions take them to the usual political ratholes instead of spoiling the fun on here?
Why can't these people starting those discussions not feel welcome discussing engineer's and engineering issues on here?

Fix it for you.

EDIT:  So far, with very few exceptions, the discussion has been civil.  It hasn't gone partisan and slagging matches and name calling have not, yet, started.

People are expressing opinions, not all of them the same.  There is a sort of concesous that the more extreme end of DEI and modern neo-identity-politics is problematic on many fronts.  But it's certainly not an echo chamber.  I have found a few points on here uncomfortable, but I've listened, considered and they have made me wonder, think and probe vunerabilities in my own values.  That is a good thing!

If people were at each others throats over this, it would be different, but it seems we have divided into "Want to discuss openly, even opposing views" and "STOP, SHUT UP!"

I don't think the later should ever be allowed to win.  "I'm not listening", absolutely fine.  "I disagree", absolutely fine.  "SHUT UP!", not fine.

[Zero999]

I haven't watched that video yet. I might not agree with everything he says, but he definitely makes more sense than some of the far-left radicals. Matt Walsh is another person on the right who talks a lot of sense.

Long post.

Wow there's a lot there to go through.

Why do you think Matt Walsh is evil because he disagrees with the idea of the hole in the ozone layer being due to human actions? I would say he's misguided and perhaps ignorant on that regard, but wouldn't say he's evil. I don't think climate change is a conspiracy theory, but the last two years has taught me to question things more and be more accepting of people who have unpopular points of view, so wouldn't label someone as a quack who thinks that. We mustn't forget many people have been demonized in the past because they have an unpopular opinion, yet have been proven right: Galileo being a classic example.

Evil can be found on both ends of the political spectrum, on the far left, just as much as the hard right.

I agree corruption is bad, but it's just as much of a problem on the left as the right. Neither side is squeaky clean. I could post examples of both, but won't because it'll just derail the thread.

I consider critical race theory and gender ideology to be evil, yet of course I don't have any problem with ethnic minorities and trans people. I don't tie nasty ideologies with people, unless they support them and even then, I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt. Quite often feeling marginalized from society can drive one to extremism and the same applies to the hard right. I'm also aware people can be manipulated and some may believe they're being virtuous for supporting a cause or organisation, yet are unaware of the extremist elements.

Are you aware of the conflict between trans rights and women's rights? Can you even define what a woman is, without offending some people? How does one go about resolving this? Is it possible?

Why not try to understand why someone votes for a politician you disagree with, before dismissing them as bad? It's possible they don't agree with everything, they just consider them to be the least bad option. As I said before, maybe they've felt discriminated against or marginalized?

Have you considered the party you vote for might be the greater evil? What if you're wrong? How is suppression of right wing views good for democracy? If we're not allowed to hear all views, both good and bad, then I don't see how democracy can function.

Regarding the January riots. It's plausible agent provocateurs were put there by the Democrats. I'm not saying this is definitely true, but wouldn't rule anything out given the corruption which is known to happen on both sites. And don't you think it's odd the rioters didn't have guns? If the rioters really wanted an insurrection then one would've thought they would have been armed. It seemed like a protest which turned violent, which I obviously don't condone, but I could say the same about riots in the name of left wing causes, some of which have resulted in greater loss of life and property, yet not received the same level of condemnation by the mainstream media.

Just a few things you might not be aware of.

Both the Democrat and Republican parties have discriminated against black people in the past.  Plenty of non-straight/white people are conservative. It's true minorities are more likely to be left leaning, but not all of them vote the same. Some black people still believe the Democrats are more racist than the Republicans, because they: disagree with critical race theory, get called all sorts of racial slurs i.e. Uncle Tom, when they express right wing views and Biden saying "If you don't vote for me, you ain't black." didn't help. Yes, I know Trump has also said some racist things "Laziness is a trait in blacks.". Neither side is perfect. Pick your poison.

The terms people of colour and African-American are deemed to be offensive by many black people, especially conservatives, who consider themselves to be American first and foremost, they just happen to have a darker skin tone. It's true, everything is offensive to some people. It's impossible to avoid it. You can't win.

Many gay people resent the term LGBT. They have fallen out with trans activists who have accused them of transphobia for refusing to consider trans people as potential partners. Lesbians have taken the brunt of this. They don't want sex with people with penises and are fed up with being told they're bigoted. In the UK, a group of people left Stonewall (an LGBT charity) to form LGB Alliance because they felt threatened by gender ideology.

Transgenderism is a complex topic and gender ideology is political, rather than scientific. It's misguided to lump them all into one group. A middle aged male with autogynephilia i.e. gets sexually aroused at seeing themself as female, is psychologically very different to a teenage female who wants to appear masculine, due to a history of unwanted sexual attention and abuse from males.

Not all non-straight people agree with pride. Many believe it reinforces stereotypes and some events are overtly sexual, therefore inappropriate for children and shouldn't occur in public view.

Quite often woke organisations who display pride flags and push diversity, only do so in countries where this is accepted. They don't have pride insignia on their Arabic websites and branches. It's just virtue signalling. This represents the lowest, of the low.

Personally speaking. I would run a mile if I went to an organisation for a job and discovered it was plastered in rainbows and BLM insignia, but would do the same if they displayed English Defense League posters. The problem is nowadays it only works one way. Left wing posters and memes are tolerated, yet the same is not applied to the right. I do feel uncomfortable dealing with someone who puts pronouns in their email signature because I feel as though they're more likely to take offense to something I say, when none was intended and report me to HR.  Keep this kind of crap out of work.

[pcprogrammer]

I realize now that my opinion about some other people on this thread has changed. In some cases dramatically and to worst.

There is the obvious possibility that the opinion that some other members of the forum have about me to also have changed in the same sense.

This is why I think that it is a big error to allow this kind of threads.

If anything, they're divisive and they poison the atmosphere.

Why can't the people starting those discussions take them to the usual political ratholes instead of spoiling the fun on here?

Nobody is forcing you to read threads like these.

Even though this is an engineering forum, these issues have an influence on many engineers daily lives, and I encourage this kind of discussions. Life is more than just engineering.

My point of view on positive discrimination in this respect is that it should not be taken so far that a lesser candidate gets a job just because it belongs to a minority. Only when there are equally experienced or educated candidates for a single job it should be in favor of the candidate from a minority group. For the rest the procedure should be blind, just like "lady justice". And there lies a whole other can of worms to be opened, "lady justice"