> Historically, most things have been terrible. There is no historical era I would like to live in more than the one we have now.

Not even long history. I'm talking even our modern tech companies, where many were started out of a garage by a few very non-diverse people.

> Taking recent history, America has been enormously successful and prominent, especially in technology. And America, as a nation of immigrants, has unusually high levels of diversity and inclusion. What in modern America qualifies as non-diverse would still historically be very diverse.

I think you're right, although this doesn't make a strong case for diversifying our almost completely white/asian/male technology industry or any company.

> It's nice when people share their feelings. Do you feel better? If so, good.

"I also feel like it's a false equivalency" is the phrase I went with after softening down "your argument is dishonest and misleading," which is itself softened down from the original response of anyone rational watching you compare hiring both front end and back end developers to hiring "diverse" team members.

> That aside, I'm not sure why you think the feelings of J Random Commenter would be relevant to me as compared with my years of experience building and running teams.

Your comment I responded to asked for a contrary assertion. My apologies if I offended you, but I really think it's helpful for people in your position to be exposed to an alternative view. Few are going to honestly respond to things like this in person out of fear of being labeled racist / sexist, but these aren't racist or sexist views and they aren't uncommon.

> Given the throwaway account, even you don't appear to take your opinions very seriously.

I do take them seriously, but it's not prudent to say politically incorrect things on an account linked to your real identity. I apologize if the comment bothered you.

> Your comment I responded to asked for a contrary assertion.

No. No it did not. I asked oldmanjay if, having falsely criticized me for asserting things with evidence, he wanted to make a contrary assertion with evidence. This was a rhetorical device to draw an interlocutor out.

I neither asked for nor wanted an Internet random to offer half-baked, unevidenced pro-racist, pro-sexist waffle, thanks.

> I really think it's helpful for people in your position to be exposed to an alternative view.

Yes, because I never before would have encountered people justifying the status quo by suggesting that racism and sexism don't exist or, if they do, are in fact optimum. Surely, there is nowhere else on the internet I might have been exposed to an "alternate" view. I'm sure nobody on HN has ever taken that position, let alone in response to me. Gosh, thank you for bringing something new into the world.

> but it's not prudent to say politically incorrect things on an account linked to your real identity

My, aren't you the brave one. As we see in the US elections your opinions are indeed politically correct for a notable portion of the American electorate. They have been politically correct for most of American history.

What you're unwilling to do is to have a lot of people, the people you'd rather hang out with, think you an asshole. You lack the courage of your convictions. So instead of being openly pro-racism and pro-sexism, you'll do it quietly. Hoping, I presume, for the moment that the gang in white sheets get enough power that you can finally be "honest".

If you want me to take you seriously, own your words. The internet and HN have a custom of offering a free hood dispenser to anybody wanting to comment. But that you only feel comfortable opining from under a white hood should tell you something. It certainly tells me something.

> I neither asked for nor wanted an Internet random to offer half-baked, unevidenced pro-racist, pro-sexist waffle, thanks.

There's nothing pro-racist or pro-sexist about what I said, but that's the world we live in. Making an argument for hiring the best person for the job is called racist and sexist. This is the cause for anonymity--people like you demonize those you disagree with.

> Yes, because I never before would have encountered people justifying the status quo by suggesting that racism and sexism don't exist or, if they do, are in fact optimum. Surely, there is nowhere else on the internet I might have been exposed to an "alternate" view. I'm sure nobody on HN has ever taken that position, let alone in response to me. Gosh, thank you for bringing something new into the world.

Your frustrated response at someone who would have the audacity to challenge your view reinforce the claim that it doesn't happen enough. It's much easier to sit in an echo chamber where everyone pats themselves on the backs about how progressive they are and how racist and backward everyone else is, but it's hard to step back and examine things rationally when called out on it.

But it's OK! You're under no obligation to respond to my (or anyone else's) comments. You can return to your safe space whenever you'd like.

> My, aren't you the brave one. As we see in the US elections your opinions are indeed politically correct for a notable portion of the American electorate. They have been politically correct for most of American history.

It's irrelevant. I don't want to limit my hiring options to people who agree with me politically.

> What you're unwilling to do is to have a lot of people, the people you'd rather hang out with, think you an asshole. You lack the courage of your convictions. So instead of being openly pro-racism and pro-sexism, you'll do it quietly. Hoping, I presume, for the moment that the gang in white sheets get enough power that you can finally be "honest".

No. I just don't want to be fired or miss out on a job opportunity because of political disagreements with the hiring team. I wouldn't endorse a political candidate on an account linked to my real identity, either. It's not prudent.

> If you want me to take you seriously, own your words. The internet and HN have a custom of offering a free hood dispenser to anybody wanting to comment. But that you only feel comfortable opining from under a white hood should tell you something. It certainly tells me something.

It should tell you that you and the people like you have been successful in demonizing anyone who disagrees with you. That's all.

> Your [sic] frustrated response at someone who would have the audacity to challenge your view reinforce the claim that it doesn't happen enough.

The problem here is that you're not challenging my views. You're just repeating a generic pro status quo argument, which comes up every time anybody suggests that there might be some better approach than the (historically racist, sexist) status quo. I have seen it a million times.

I'm not frustrated by the argument. I'm frustrated by the zillion buttinskis who aren't willing to take an actual stand, who try to claim they are being apolitical, but somehow only choose to be "apolitical" when jumping in to object to antiracist or antisexist changes to the status quo.

I'm frustrated by the cowardice. It's not clear that you believe in anything but yourself. You'll argue to protect a status quo that benefits you. But you won't dare do it under your own name, because that might not benefit you. You don't want to limit your "hiring options", while you work to retain the limit on hiring options for women and black people.

> the people like you have been successful in demonizing anyone who disagrees with you

I am not interested in demonizing people. But I will happily repudiate the notion that those who aren't white dudes aren't really people, aren't deserving of the same respect, consideration, and privileges that accrue to white men.

There's no cowardice involved, and the sooner you realize that, the sooner you'll be on a path to a rational discussion. The argument's validity isn't based on who says it, and continuing to harp on this point really shows the hoops you're willing to jump through to avoid making a rational point.

> You don't want to limit your "hiring options", while you work to retain the limit on hiring options for women and black people.

I'd hire women and black people for every single position if they're the best for the job. It's amazing how somehow Asian males have a significant presence and we're all the better for it! Somehow they pulled it off without your help, and I'm sure they're proud they didn't need to play the race card or invoke white guilt to get where they are. They're there because they were determined to be the best for their position, and they earned every bit of it.

But yeah, maybe I'm just racist because I don't doubt women or black people's ability to do the same.

If you want to talk about making it easier to account for white privilege, I'm all ears. But equating hiring people based on skillset to doing so based on genitalia or skin color is dishonest. It's condescending to even think we'd buy it. Make an honest argument for hiring someone based on gender / race and we'll take it seriously.

> But I will happily repudiate the notion that those who aren't white dudes aren't really people, aren't deserving of the same respect, consideration, and privileges that accrue to white men.

Nobody said this, and the gap between "people who think we should hire the best person for the job" and "people who think those who aren't white males aren't really people" is colossal.

If there's no cowardice involved, start posting this stuff under your real name. Until then, adieu. I have enough honest interlocutors to talk with; you and your hood will just have to keep each other company.