Hacker News Reader

Comment by catapart | Hacker News Reader

>"seems to be"

But see, it isn't. You've got an axe to grind; I get it. I just don't care that you don't like DEI for these slippery-slope, made-up reasons you have, in your head.

Learn what DEI is actually about. Then learn what the interviews actually produced (read: get your information from as many different sources as you can; not "one", even if it supports your bias). Then learn how the interview results correspond to the associated DEI standards. THEN you can speak constructively about what points are being misconstrued, which ones are being purposefully distorted, which ones are being ignored, and which other actions are unrelated to DEI and are only using it as a way to cover for politically-motivated actions.

OR, just go on believing that this "confirmation" doesn't have anything to do with your "bias", and believe it wholesale. Whatever floats your boat, dog.

View on HN

From my understanding the "E" in DEI stands for equity. Equity favours equality of outcome over equality of opportunity.

How does the commenter you're responding to have it wrong and what is DEI really about if it doesn't include equity?

I didn't contend that DEI discludes equity. I made the point that "equity" isn't what the commenter said it "seems to be". As in, ne said it seemed to be "outcome-based instead of opportunity-based". It's a complicated subject but I don't think any earnest reading of the tenets of DEI can be summarized as "outcome based" and especially not in place of "opportunity based". It immediately sets up a false dichotomy which implies a certain shallowness to the interpretation. Which is why my response took aim at the "axe to grind"; it sets up the foundation for the larger complaint (that professors shouldn't be employed based on ideological conformity), which makes that complaint resting on an un-validated argument. If ne wants to make that argument, ne needs to validate ner accusation, or refactor it to not be reliant upon a shallow understanding of DEI.

"ne" and "ner"?

Sorry; They are just gender-neutral pronouns, since I don't know the comment author's gender. I find it easiest to parse, when reading, as "she" and "her", in my head, because trying to use "he" and "him" gets me mixed up when I read "ner".

I know it's not the common pronouns, and I'm happy to use whatever "xe", "they", or [insert] anyone wants me to use, about them. But when I'm making the editorial decisions based on ignorance (don't know the person's pronouns and have no reasonable way to get them before publishing), I prefer the "ne" pronouns because they don't have the plural confusions* that "they" does, nor do they turn your mouth to mush when you try to pronounce them, like "ze"/"xe".

*(heading this off at the pass) yes, "they" is often used singularly. But where "they" can, in contrived instances, be confusing as to whether you mean a group or not, "ne" simply doesn't have that problem. "ne" removes one more complication and I'm all for that. I also prefer plain JS to typescript; I'm aware that "simplicity" is a vice of mine.

"They" has been used for the unspecified singular in English since long before our births; "ne" is completely unfamiliar and resembles a typo.

"The original poster said that their dog bit their cat, and then barked at their TV."

Yes, it has. And can still lead to confusion, in certain instances.

I'm not trying to convince you, or anyone else, to write or speak the way I do. And I'm amenable to any specific person or group of persons representing their (<- there's one!) own interests telling me how to describe them. But I'm not particularly interested in etymological diatribes; I've seen them all and understand the arguments. I have made my decisions, and will continue to make my decisions, with all of those arguments in mind. Rest assured that you have nothing to gain by advocating them to me, as a third-party trying to police writing. I use "they" singularly, all the time, just like everyone else. And I use "ne" when I'm specifically acknowledging that I don't know the preferred pronouns, and have been left to fill them in using my own standards.

> I'm not trying to convince you, or anyone else, to write or speak the way I do.

This isn’t about you. We speak English on this forum, in fact it’s a requirement, please use it.

I'm sorry that you think you have a say in that. But I'll speak however I want to. Your criticism on this matter means nothing to me, so fire away.

> I didn't contend that DEI discludes equity. I made the point that "equity" isn't what the commenter said it "seems to be". As in, ne said it seemed to be "outcome-based instead of opportunity-based".

What is equity then? Everything I've read on the subject defines it as being equality of outcome. Every definition I find contrasts it to equality being the equality of opportunity and that the focus of equity is a focus on equality of outcome. You're saying it doesn't mean what every source definition I can find says.

So what does it mean if I can't even trust the first page of Google results?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com