After reddit started banning people for upvoting the wrong things, this is a logical next step. Contrary to the popular belief, slippery slope isn't a logical fallacy.
Anonymity is the only way to combat this. Make sure your online identity isn't connected to your real name. Ideally, you should have separate identities for each website. Using Tor or a VPN is also a good idea.
>After reddit started banning people for upvoting the wrong things, this is a logical next step. Contrary to the popular belief, slippery slope isn't a logical fallacy.
People might read this and think that people were banned for upvoting things that were insanely bigoted, or personal attacks.
While I'm sure that was the case, the slope was indeed slippery, and reddit ended up banning people for upvoting posts such as "John Brown did nothing wrong" and "it is justifiable to kill slave-owners".
Moderators that agreed that this was unreasonable then saw their subreddits (some fairly major) banned for advocating violations of reddit policy.
All in order to score PR points and do some both-sidesisms. The actual ethical good didn't matter, it was all PR to Reddit.
> After reddit started banning people for upvoting the wrong things
As a daily reddit user, I wasn't aware of this:
"Users who consistently upvote policy-breaking content within quarantined communities will receive automated warnings, followed by further consequences like a temporary or permanent suspension. We hope this will encourage healthier behavior across these communities."
> Make sure your online identity isn't connected to your real name.
Yeah, well, my userid here, on reddit, twitter, twitch, github.....is my last name, so I guess I'm stuck. (:
My perception of Reddit change radically after I had some comments removed from a popular video game subreddit (from which the larger post was removed).
I expressed a critical opinion on a video game that I, overall, greatly enjoy, but have been feeling increasing frustration over how the developers have been supporting it. The comment certainly wasn't racist, sexist, political, etc. It was simply critical of an aspect of the game that I felt was holding me back from fully enjoying the game.
What made it even worse was my comment was shadow banned. It shows up on my profile. It shows up when I'm logged in. But, it doesn't show up in an incognito tab, it's [removed].
I started noticing this happening in a lot more places. I add a comment that I'd expect would get some sort of reaction (either positive or negative), but it gets nothing. Turns out, these comments were being removed without me be aware.
In the past, content removal would almost always come with an explanation - and that reason was likely clearly justified.
Yup, this is so common I made a site showing where it happens [1]. Prior to this there was no easy way to see what had been removed from your account. Even I as a developer had no idea it was happening for years because (1) mods do sometimes send removal messages, leading me to believe they are always sent, and (2) as you wrote above, removed comments do show up in the thread when you are logged in. Everyone else sees [removed].
you can get shadow banned from subs for posting on other subs and its all automatic as well. this I know first hand as I was a regular poster on an antique related sub only to one day find none of my posts getting noticed and the pictures not showing. came to find out they are part of a group of subs which ban people who post on another sub.
reddit has become a real cess pool and its not the users and what they post but the back door rules and such and pettiness among to moderators of many subs
Pretty sure that was a moderator action. If it was /r/games, the mods there don’t seem too interested in informing you when they action your comments or posts. They very very often remove comments because of the «no off-topic discussion» rule, even if it’s literally just one off-topic sentence in a paragraph long comment.
None of the logical fallacies upend an argument, anyway - Especially not a political one. Political discussions aren't logical - They're rhetorical. You can say "Not all sharks bite" and it will not have the slightest effect on my argument against a proposal to stock the local swimming pool with sharks.
They actually offered to become stewards of the language itself when it looked like it was dead, IIRC.
I think its development has picked back up, although I'm still not sure it's getting much love, as most developers are pushed just to use GNOME Builder instead.
Being able to switch to Genie on a whim is great¹. I've used vala on a few projects, and depending on the devs involved or type of project the ability to choose a syntax is really useful.
Although, quickly scanning through the GitHub topic doesn't paint the rosiest of futures² :/
We're getting downvoted for this but I'm not convinced that most people read past the first few sentences. The article was clearly not really about NEETs.
Anyway, yeah - to level these sorts of complaints against society's self-described losers - seems a bit "punching down" to me.
>There’s no part of me that finds it easy to believe that a female, minority worker in tech is going to get the same opportunities as a white male anywhere in Europe.
I agree, she's a woman, she will definitely get much more opportunities than a man. The potential employers will bend over backwards to fill their diversity quotas.
If we're talking about native (i.e. not using Cygwin or MSYS) shells, I believe Hamilton C Shell is the closest thing: https://hamiltonlabs.com/Cshell.htm
It has some drawbacks, though, most notably lack of Unicode support.
I am an Indian engineer in a tech company in Austin and out of the 8 people in my team 7 are Indians / Asians in their late 20s / early 30s who all followed roughly the same career trajectory (Undergrad in India / China from one of 2-3 universities, followed almost immediately by Masters in the US followed by joining tech jobs in the last 7-8 years).
The eighth guy is a white American guy in his 40s who grew up in Alabama, was in the US Air Force for a bit, then did his undergrad in an unrelated field from a relatively unheard-of university, then self-taught programming and worked a few odd IT jobs before landing here.
If you ask me, he is the true source of diversity in the team, but pretty sure none of the teams tasked with increasing diversity see it that way.
Yeah, if your team is made up of people from USA, France, Russia, India, China and Korea then you have plenty of diversity even if none of them are black. I'd argue that they are more diverse than a team comprised of people grown up in USA with latino, black, white and asian exteriors.
I've been the white guy in that situation, and it can be not great, but it was specifically with a 90% Chinese team. I can tell you who never quite fit in and who got laid off first...
I wouldn't join a team like that again because of how much harder it made things. Maybe this is an argument for why diverse teams are good?
Diversity doesn't mean "non-white," it means "varied." Yes, your team is diverse because of his inclusion, and it's diverse because of yours too.
Individual people aren't diverse, teams are. To say that one guy is the source of diversity is like saying that he is the source of the eight-ness of the number of people on your team.
> Diversity doesn't mean "non-white," it means "varied."
In USA it means "Black and Latino representation according to US demographics". It isn't the words actual meaning, but that it is how its used and if you are trying to argue something different you will almost surely be labelled racist by the person asking this question.
For example, lets say you answer this question:
> That’s a bit about what these values mean to us; what do diversity, equity, and inclusion mean to you?
With: I always worked on very diverse teams comprised of people from many backgrounds including Russians, Indians, Europeans. We worked hard to ensure that language barriers weren't a problem by forcing everyone to talk in English so nobody feels left out etc, it is a challenge but having a diverse team definitely is worth it.
Do you think you'd get hired? Maybe, but it is pretty likely they will see that answer as a dog whistle for being right wing and just end the process right then and there.
That doesn't sound like a right wing dogwhistle, although you could perhaps phrase "by forcing everyone to talk in English" differently to not be so negative.
But overall, it's a great answer. You talked about your specific team, which happened to include Russians, Indians, and Europeans. You pointed out that there were challenges involved, but you made an effort to make sure nobody felt left out, and that overall it was worth it. Nice!
Yeah, that was the point. My experience is working with teams with very varied backgrounds in Europe, and you really have to make a point to talk a common language. Instead of speaking my native language with others with my background I speak English. Similarly others have to do the same thing. If a group of Russians speak Russian with each other it hurts the group.
The reason I brought that up is because I've seen some American progressives say that trying to make people speak English is racist or non inclusive. But it is the other way around. in the teams I've worked nobody were native English speakers but everyone spoke English. That is the only sensible way to handle a diverse team and letting people speak their native language just creates silos and removes the point of diversity. And someone on the team being a native English speaker wouldn't change that point.
For example, if I worked in USA and a group of latinos spoke Spanish with each other I'd tell them to speak English. Not because I think they need to speak English in USA but because they are excluding other groups by speaking a language only they understand. Similarly if I were to speak Swedish with my teammates I'd expect others to say the same thing to me, and in diverse environments I even speak English when everyone around me knows Swedish just to make it a habit.
Thanks. The nuance you've added with this comment makes a lot of sense to me, and it wasn't quite apparent in your original comment. But even then, I (or most American progressives) wouldn't consider it a major red flag or blocker for hiring.
I know it would be fine with a lot of sensible people, but a lot of people just lock in on what they perceive to be a problematic remark and stop listening. You must have experienced it yourself at many points where someone you talk to just took something you said and refuse to listen to anything else. This is just as prevalent among all political sides, just that you are familiar with the group you grow up with so you don't trigger their irrational reactions as much.
Now I've read a lot about American culture and politics online, but a more ignorant person with my experience would just bluntly say that as if it was common sense and as you saw you homed in on forcing people to speak English yourself. If you were a bit less understanding it would have ended the hiring process right there.
Yes, which is why I said he was the 'source' of diversity. If 7 data points have value X and one has value Y, then Y is the 'source' of the variance, else the variance would be zero.
> Diversity doesn't mean "non-white," it means "varied."
It's funny that literally the sister comment of my comment links to how someone at Apple was driven out of their job for saying this. For your own sake I'd recommend you don't express these opinions at your workplace.
It's funny that literally the sister comment of my comment links to how someone at Apple was driven out of their job for saying this. For your own sake I'd recommend you don't express these opinions at your workplace.
Companies are, for lack of better wording... diverse. Not all of them are biased the same way politically, despite the fact that a few big and prominent ones are. I've never worked in FAANG, but there are plenty of others who haven't "drunk the woke-aid".
Yeah people always seem to assume diversity should be based on your skin pigmentation. Reminds me of that Apple Diversity VP who said, "There can be 12 white, blue-eyed, blonde men in a room and they're going to be diverse too because they're going to bring a different life experience and life perspective to the conversation.” Needless to say she was forced to resign after that comment.
I want to hire the least diverse team as possible, here are the traits that they are selected on:
- highly intelligent
- professional work attitude
- nice people to work with
If you want to hire a more diverse group where there are some jerks in there, and idiots that screw up all the time, that's fine. But I like my team uniformly aligned like this.
I went through the top results of that search, and most of them make no claims at all about the performance differences of diverse vs non-diverse groups (since they instead adress some quite different questions), and those in the top results of this search who do look into performance comparisons do not find such an advantage, they find that there is no significant difference. Furthermore, a large part of the studies are focused on artificial short-term cooperations e.g. study groups or team projects at a university course (which actually eliminates a key part of diversity by ensuring that all the team members are of a similar age group and of similar specialization, they essentially only measure the effect of ethnic variation) which aren't really representative of what the success criteria are in a business environment.
Perhaps there are studies that would justify a claim that "diverse teams are more successful", however, this particular search does not immediately lead to them and should not be used as evidence of some scientific consensus on the matter - quite the contrary.
I think it's likely that certain types of diversity produce better outcomes. My problem with the research is publication bias, publication bias where finding the opposite will cost you a career, most of the experiments being contrived, social science being a joke field, and the sort of people who are attracted to social science.
