Diversity and inclusion: Stop talking and do your homework

"If, however, you DEMAND a political conviction (which cultural marxism clearly does - especially when we've discarded the binding principle of meritocracy) you essentially split the community between political lines."

this is *absolutely* true. you cant have free software AND require that free software *conform* to a second ideology, because then it wont be free software.

you can offer a second (third, fourth) ideology as an option-- but the less that option is really optional, the more it changes the definition of free software as well as the mode of advocacy. you can have far lefty free software users-- but once you require free software to be far lefty, its something else. once its a requirement, its not a free software movement-- its a lefty software movement, innit?

whats freedom 0 then? "the freedom to use the software for any purpose, except in a way that disrespects the feelings of others?" freedom 0 isnt the one you have to worry about. the freedoms this stuff slowly erodes are freedom 2 and especially 3: "the freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others"

technically you have that freedom always. and you can have your little sjw free software community. but when a divisive, fundamentalist ideal like "total social justice" takes over, what they try to impose amounts to limiting peoples ability to modify or distribute copies of modified versions. they dont just try to create a "free software safe space" but they try to impose it across the board, and make it so the only freedom 3 that happens in public is through collaboration (on modified or distributed copies) that follows their additional philosophy.

when that becomes a mandate, it only reduces the circumstances under which freedom 3 can happen. and most people have yet to recognise that as a threat to freedom 3. the way you get around that recognition is to say "thats ridiculous! we are making it so more people can participate." yes-- and fewer people as well. so youre effectively dictating who can participate on freedom 3. and thats what the left tends to do. they say "freedom isnt allowing enough people what they need, so we are going to limit freedom and impose help on everyone."

the problem isnt helping people. helping people is fine! the problem is when helping people imposes limits and mandates on core freedoms. and thats the problem we have now-- its also why i refuse to participate in any events that mandate this nonsense. when you impose these mandates, you make a sham of the entire thing, youve subverted it. we probably disagree on some of the details beez-- but i think overall, we get what each other are saying.

@theBeez: it occurs to me that with <<those who pose behind "diversity" and "inclusiveness">> you were actually thinking of a certain political faction.

since politics is off-topic here, i don't want to go into details. let me just state that i misunderstood your statement as applying to everyone who talks about "diversity" and "inclusiveness".

just because "diversity" and "inclusiveness" are misused by political factions, that doesn't mean these concepts themselves should be summarily dismissed.

when i am asking for "diversity" and "inclusiveness" in the workplace, and in the Free Software community, then this has nothing to do with any political ideologies, but with the necessity that everyone whos live is affected by computers, has a chance to take control of those computers.

consequently, as computers play greater and greater roles in every aspect of our lives, this applies to an ever growing section of the human population.

hundred years ago, reading and writing was considered a skill necessary for everyone to acquire, and following that achieving literacy in 100% of the population was set as a goal.

today, i believe, programming is a skill necessary for everyone to acquire. it does not mean, that everyone should become a professional programmer, just like not everyone who learns to write becomes a writer, but it does mean that everyone should be able to read code, and be able to understand the software they are using.

we need "diversity" and "inclusiveness" in the workplace, and in the Free Software community, so that everyone is able to become a developer without feeling out-of-place.

greetings, eMBee.

i agree with this very strongly-- "today, i believe, programming is a skill necessary for everyone to acquire. it does not mean, that everyone should become a professional programmer, just like not everyone who learns to write becomes a writer, but it does mean that everyone should be able to read code, and be able to understand the software they are using."

this as well: "The problem is that even when that opportunity exists for everyone, it won't result in equal outcomes for all for all classes."

code is not a great equaliser-- though at this point, without a certain level of tech literacy (that does not yet exit) people will have no rights at all without being able to make decisions based on an understanding of the tech that surrounds them. this used to be a "first world problem" though there arent a lot of places where the relevance hasnt spread. the homeless have smartphones, the poorest regions of india--

without a fundamental tech literacy surveillance and helplessness will rule all else. to the point where tech illiterate people will assist in making terrible decisions for the tech literate. we need these self-professed "computer illiterates" as allies. we need more numbers.

that said, i firmly believe that these programmes to radicalise "diversity" are often promoted for self-serving or misguided reasons, and are a distraction from actually being inclusive. if one group is constantly told theyre not included, and the rest are disqualified for not being "inclusive" enough-- this is not going to help anyone in a way that doesnt set everyone back even farther. i dont think its always by design-- once you set a lousy enough idea in motion, it takes on a life of its own until people get a better idea. we *really* need a better idea.

@mbaehrlxer

Who are you actually trying to fool? Would there be any doubt about my political affiliation if I were talking about "capitalists", "reactionary forces", "agitprop" or "world socialism". Or blame all the worlds problems on the "patriarchate", especially "white privileged men" and saw the solution in "gender equality". If you use the lingo, you're part of it.

And if you're part of that movement then stand by it and don't hide behind the argument "that you created your own definition" of these subjects. You KNOW - unless you're very naive - that you would AT LEAST be causing confusion. I don't think you're THAT naive, frankly.

I feel that ANY endeavor should be achievable by ANYONE willing and able to do it. The difference between you and me is, I don't attach any numbers to it - and I'm not disappointed when any category is "overrepresented". After my biology study (and yes, I finished it, I do have a degree) I understood that nature isn't just. It's not instrumental to her goal.

You may think that's accepting the unacceptable. But I think it is wisdom to accept what you cannot change and put your energy in the things that you can change. Bottom line, still: we have to work together to make this FOSS idea work. And that means concentrating on the things that unite us instead of concentrating on the things that divide us.

Yes, I'm willing to put energy into teaching those who ask for my help - but I will demand (like all masters and pupils before me) discipline and determination. Those who are not willing to do that, sorry, but you're on your own.

100% computer literacy is not my goal and frankly, not my problem. IMHO, that was not what FOSS was created for or what the FOSS movement stands for. If you want to learn computing, I can provide you with a free compiler which you can use, take apart, study and modify. That's FOSS. And that's what I'm doing.

"100% computer literacy is not my goal and frankly, not my problem. IMHO, that was not what FOSS was created for or what the FOSS movement stands for."

i agree, 100% computer literacy is mostly a silicon valley thing. i mean code.org was endorsed early on by the zuck himself, if thats any indication. but its mostly to drive down the salary of coders.

which is funny, because it kind of dovetails with free software. not that free software is out to make coders less money, although thats the fud isnt it? so you have silicon valley doing something thats sure to have a quicker effect than free software at something free software is accused of. you can make money from free software but osdisc aside, it probably wont be made from selling copies.

i happen to think that computer literacy is increasingly important, but when you step outside industry and into education, you can tell that people interested in teaching are finding that the forces that keep females out of computers have in many instances already culminated at age TEN. unless theres a workforce of minors in the i.t. field, silicon valley is leaving this detail out of their message.

limited exposure to computers for several groups of people is a problem worth solving-- because thats WHAT EDUCATION DOES. without disputing the fact that gender discrimination happens (i think its safe to say that gender discrimination happens to all genders, without any implication that it happens equally to everyone) its got nothing to do with why i want to teach everyone to code. but i dont consider it free softwares job to do that (parents and teachers are better suited to the task) i do think free software is useful for that purpose. obviously, so does stallman: http://oss-watch.ac.uk/resources/stallman

@ mbaehrlxer

Now you show your true face again. Bravo.

Exhibit (a): "About the reality that is shown in a growing number of stories about discrimination."

Reminds me of the old discussion (SOFUD) that a random bunch of exemplary proof equals truth. Yes, even a single case of discrimination (let's use that word for arguments sake) is part of reality. The question is, is it significant?

And why are you overlooking all these men who are bullied at work? Don't you think every nerd has a story about bullying? So why are these so conveniently forgotten? Because they are "privileged white males"?

Exibit (b): My goal is not to achieve gender parity, my goal is to remove the things that are the cause for these incidents.

Again, SOFUD. The reason that females aren't programming is because "evil, white, privileged rapists" are bullying them out of the profession. Again, I agree there are incidents. Just as you must agree that in a safe environment like writing software in the comfort of your own home and publishing them "genderneutral" on the Internet does brings only 5% females to their keyboards. So, in short, as long as you don't have a definite causality between these two and ruled out each and every other possible explanation you're removing something, but not the cause of these incidents (which defers women from their rightful place in FOSS).

Quote: "It would be interesting to have a study that measures the occurrence of incidents in relation to the diversity in a company."

You can't even begin to define diversity. In biology diversity means that each and every ecological niche is filled. "Diversity" in your universe means that anyone that is white, male and anyone doesn't subscribe to your ideology is eradicated from the workplace. Different thing.

Quote: "i also hope that more diversity will improve the quality of our work. again, i don't know how much it takes. a quick guess might be, about one female on every team, so depending on team size, maybe 10-20%."

It would be nice to attach measurements and units to that statement, otherwise it's utterly meaningless.

"And why are you overlooking all these men who are bullied at work? Don't you think every nerd has a story about bullying?"

relevant and strongly recommended: "when nerds collide" - meredith l. patterson:

"...when our traditional pursuits (programming, electrical engineering, computer games, &c) became a route to career stability, nerdiness and its surface-level signifiers got culturally co-opted by trend-chasers who jumped on the style but never picked up on the underlying substance that differentiates weird nerds from the culture that still shuns them."

another apropos gem thats far too ignored:

"Many geeks can tell you stories of how they and a few like-minded companions formed a small community that achieved something great, only to have it taken over by popular loudmouths who considered that greatness theirs by right of social station and kicked the geeks out by enforcing weirdo-hostile social norms. (Consider how many hackerspaces retain their original founders.) Having a community they built wrested away from them at the first signs of success is by now a signaling characteristic of weirdohood. We wouldn’t keep mentioning it if it didn’t keep happening."

or in other words:

"hey, thats a nice subculture youve built here. it sure would be a shame if someone came and changed its core values from something fundamentally to superficially (but more loudly!) ecumenical, and wrote you out of the thing you belonged to, in a culture that generally has no social use for you anyway."

wait, i can participate in undervaluing myself further? oh gee, where do i sign? well count me ou-- oh, you already have-- gee, thanks.

the thing is, when people talk about "diversity" its usually for the sake of replacing an array of "allowed" views and ideologies with a single (mandatory) ideology. but then thats what newspeak is all about, right? now we are the savages, and here they come to bring civilisation to us. its funny how people always buy that old bit. and the colonists are always shocked about the lack of gratitude.

"well what did you expect from them? some of these guys dont even shave their necks!" "well, i dont shave under my arms..." "hey shut up jane, whos side are you on, anyway?" all for diversity and inclusion of course, lets create all new double standards about grooming. i mean, why not?!

its a sure sign that weve let the networks get too centralised, that we need to be more mobile, that we have an escape route. but its still not entirely safe to talk about the threat this all poses to free software. unless of course, we just stop caring what anyone thinks. how possible is that still, now that being a geek is a 9-5 thing? anybody?

not to mention that the whole neckbeard phobia crosses right into their own taboos against cultural discrimination. i mean, have they not heard of sikhs?

"thats cultural appropriation though." oh i get it, not shaving just because you tell me (in the name of acceptance and inclusion) that my body is gross, is something i stole from punjabi culture? i need your approval now, to grow my own hair? for all the sikhs ive met (i would guess hundreds) not one ever said "you know, you should really shave, you should cut your hair short." not one said "oh, thats gross, a neckbeard. i bet you hate diversity..."

i guess theres more than one kind of diversity. forced to choose between the silicon valley kind and the sikh kind, i will gladly choose the sikhs. but when someone who doesnt accept me because of my appearance says i should accept everyone else *but myself*, what am i supposed to do? laugh?