Outreachy Applications Open For The Winter 2019 Round

[starshipeleven]

It is completely reasonable to approve of someone's intentions but strongly disagree with the way they go about executing something.

No it is not. Because it allows bullshit nonsense to happen.

Your example still explains the same point I'm making. The hypotetical car maker is making a very bad decision on the hypotetical car, and this is not a good thing nor reasonable.

The only reason why it's allowed to happen is because they decoupled the motives from the methods, and this lets the motives blind their judgement.

The hypotetical car designers said to themselves "but it's for a car with better fuel economy", and didn't see the brick wall they were running at.

The same applies to many "green" or "pro animal" or whatever new-age-bullshit movements, that are little less than facades for money collection schemes.

Like for example Peta, that "saves" animals from whatever source, but then sends them to shelters that will put them down in a week due to limited facilities not allowing longer stay.

[ZeroPointEnergy]

I'm not sure why this racist and sexist organization is still being advertised for here.

[schmidtbag]

No it is not. Because it allows bullshit nonsense to happen.

Sometimes; not always, and certainly not inherently. You can still outwardly express "I do not approve of Outreachy's methods" while still agreeing with them that there is a proportional disparity of women and certain ethnic groups in software (I am not going to get into the debate whether or not something needs to be done about that). The 2 are not mutually inclusive. Problems are allowed to have multiple solutions. Proposed solutions are not necessarily a fix to a problem. Just because you agree with a sentiment, that doesn't mean you are allowing or wanting "bullshit nonsense to happen" when there could be an alternative solution. Hypothetically, let's say they approached this in a method that nearly everyone was agreeable to. The fundamental intention is exactly the same, the only difference is the execution.

Your example still explains the same point I'm making. The hypotetical car maker is making a very bad decision on the hypotetical car, and this is not a good thing nor reasonable.

None of that changes the fact that they're doing something that most people would agree is a good thing. Just because some people want more affordable and efficient cars, in no way does that mean driving something uncomfortable, boring, and unsafe is the only solution. There are other solutions. Opting for a different/better solution doesn't make the original intention less relevant.

The only reason why it's allowed to happen is because they decoupled the motives from the methods, and this lets the motives blind their judgement.

In the context of Outreachy, that may be the case for some people. But, it doesn't have to be that way, and you can still agree with their motives while actively advocating against what they do.
That being said, let's use an example where there are multiple solutions to a widely agreed upon problem: affordable living for those in poverty. Some people say "lower taxes". Some say "raise minimum wage". Some say "increase taxes to the rich". The first 2 ideas are stupid in the long run, and the 3rd one is never going to happen. And yet, those aren't even the only solutions - there are others that could be more widely agreeable. People in all groups have the same intention and agree on the same problem, yet vehemently disagree with the solution. Does that make the problem any less important or real?

[starshipeleven]

Sometimes; not always, and certainly not inherently.

Same as not using seatbelts. It's not a guaranteed kill, just a higher likelihood one.

You can still outwardly express "I do not approve of Outreachy's methods" while still agreeing with them that there is a proportional disparity of women and certain ethnic groups in software

Hey there.

"there is a proportional disparity of women and certain ethnic groups in software" is not a motive but a fact.

We were talking methods and motives here.

A motive would be "make IT world more inclusive for non-white males".

Just because you agree with a sentiment, that doesn't mean you are allowing or wanting "bullshit nonsense to happen" when there could be an alternative solution.

It's not a matter of possible solutions, but of clouding one's judgement.
Humans work like that, if you split the motives it's easier to convince people.

None of that changes the fact that they're doing something that most people would agree is a good thing.

Huh? Making a car that none wants and won't sell for shit is a good thing now? What are you, FIAT-Chrysler's CEO?

You are falling victim of what I said. You judge the intentions, not the whole.

In the context of Outreachy, that may be the case for some people. But, it doesn't have to be that way, and you can still agree with their motives while actively advocating against what they do.

As I said, you can do that, but it's not advisable. It will lead to bad judgement.

affordable living for those in poverty. Some people say "lower taxes". Some say "raise minimum wage". Some say "increase taxes to the rich". The first 2 ideas are stupid in the long run, and the 3rd one is never going to happen. And yet, those aren't even the only solutions - there are others that could be more widely agreeable. People in all groups have the same intention and agree on the same problem, yet vehemently disagree with the solution. Does that make the problem any less important or real?

Red herring much?

This is not about different proposals to solve a problem, but about splitting the motives from the methods.

[Panda_Wrist]

Outreachy is both racist and sexist. a program for only white males would be hated by all, but a program that is against white males i.e. outreachy is loved by all. both are bad and should not exist.

[schmidtbag]

Same as not using seatbelts. It's not a guaranteed kill, just a higher likelihood one.

Oh, so you do see my point then? Not wearing a seatbelt doesn't guarantee you'll die, whether you get into an accident or not. Not approving of someone's solution doesn't mean you disagree there's a problem.

"there is a proportional disparity of women and certain ethnic groups in software" is not a motive but a fact.

We were talking methods and motives here.

A motive would be "make IT world more inclusive for non-white males".

Fair enough. I deliberately phrased myself that way because I'm really not interested in arguing about the motive itself, so, I avoided saying it. But since you brought it up - I do agree that's what it is, or at least can be interpreted as.

It's not a matter of possible solutions, but of clouding one's judgement.
Humans work like that, if you split the motives it's easier to convince people.

I get that. Just because you can agree with a motive, doesn't mean your judgment is clouded. It can be; maybe even likely to be, but it's not as absolute as you make it out to be. This is especially true if you are aware of other possible (and better) solutions. So I repeat: you can agree with a motive while disagreeing with a proposed solution. I really don't see how you think people must have misjudgment of a solution just because they agree there's a problem.

Huh? Making a car that none wants and won't sell for shit is a good thing now? What are you, FIAT-Chrysler's CEO?

That's not what I said, or even what I implied... I said that everyone agrees that a faster and cheaper car is a good thing. How you go about that is where people differ in opinions. That's my point. You're allowed to think that a crappy unsafe car isn't a desirable solution, while still wanting something faster and cheaper. Doesn't mean you're going to get it.

As I said, you can do that, but it's not advisable. It will lead to bad judgement.

Bad judgment to who? And what exactly isn't advisable? Are you suggesting that you will be judged poorly because you prefer a different solution to an acknowledged problem? Because if so, that's utterly absurd.

Red herring much?

This is not about different proposals to solve a problem, but about splitting the motives from the methods.

It's not a red herring in the slightest. I'm going to spell it out for you:
With Outreachy, there's a motive to a known situation most people would agree exists (again, whether or not it is a problem I'm going to get into) and there's only one proposed solution.
With the poverty example, there's a motive to a known situation most people would agree with, and multiple proposed solutions.
In both cases, there are people who strongly disagree with the solutions.
The only difference between these 2 is how the poverty example already has multiple propositions; Outreachy has the potential for more, but doesn't yet have them.
You are basically arguing that you can't split the motive from the method, but if that were true, how do people agree there's a poverty issue yet are at each other's throats for the solution? There's a literal split from the motive and method there.
There is nothing preventing Outreachy from having an alternative solution. Just because one doesn't yet exist, in no way does that mean you can't divorce the motive from the method. You're allowed to disagree with something without having a proposed alternative.

[starshipeleven]

Oh, so you do see my point then?

I only argued about the validity of thinking like that, not that you cannot do so.

I get that. Just because you can agree with a motive, doesn't mean your judgment is clouded. ... you can agree with a motive while disagreeing with a proposed solution.

Yes but it makes no sense to do so.

I mean, everyone agrees to big vague motives like "everyone should feel good" and "cars should be better and cost less", or "IT should have more black strong independent trans women". What does that add.

everyone agrees that a faster and cheaper car is a good thing

And that's where I said that you are spindoctoring. It makes no sense to pull ideals in a vacuum because it does not add anything, it only runs the risk of fooling you.

Are you suggesting that you will be judged poorly because you prefer a different solution to an acknowledged problem?

no. I mean that you can fool yourself into not evaluating well all the solutions.

With Outreachy, there's a motive to a known situation most people would agree exists (again, whether or not it is a problem I'm going to get into) and there's only one proposed solution.

that does not work for shit and is counter-productive.
But for many it does not matter, because "oh look, a good motive!".

[schmidtbag]

I only argued about the validity of thinking like that, not that you cannot do so.

But the validity is not up to you to decide. It can be valid. I take your point that it often isn't, but, it's not so black and white.

Yes but it makes no sense to do so.

I mean, everyone agrees to big vague motives like "everyone should feel good" and "cars should be better and cost less", or "IT should have more black strong independent trans women". What does that add.

So... you're saying it doesn't make sense to seek improvement?
If not, why can't people agree something can be made better while disagreeing with a proposed solution? What is invalid in that way of thinking? You are inserting your opinions into this, which doesn't help solidify your point.
Like I said before with the car example - just because you'd like to see something happen, doesn't mean it will. But, that doesn't make the desires invalid either. Just because there isn't a currently known solution, doesn't mean there isn't one and that the solution can't be sought after. Otherwise, why do we bother trying to solve the questions we have about the universe, such as dark matter or quantum physics?

And that's where I said that you are spindoctoring. It makes no sense to pull ideals in a vacuum because it does not add anything, it only runs the risk of fooling you.

In what way am I pulling ideals into a vacuum? I'm not asking for your opinion here because frankly I don't care about it. I'm asking for an objective reason.

no. I mean that you can fool yourself into not evaluating well all the solutions.

Sure you can, but your tone suggests that's the only possible outcome, which is blatantly false.

that does not work for shit and is counter-productive.
But for many it does not matter, because "oh look, a good motive!".

And that's the reason why people like Britoid do not agree with the method.
As for "many", yes, that's a good word. There's an important distinction here:
In one category, you have people who say "I agree with the motive and although I'm not a fan of the solution, I'd like to see this succeed".
This is very different from people who say "I agree with the motive, but the solution is a step in the wrong direction and there needs to be an alternative".
Many people fall under the first category, but not everyone. Had you made this distinction from the beginning, we wouldn't have this argument. The thing is, you made it pretty cut and dry that everyone was the first category, or else you wouldn't have disagreed with Britoid (who, as far as I'm concerned, fell under the latter category).

[tildearrow]

Look. Women are not "under-represented". They apparently are, but actually are not.
They just want to do other things and don't feel like coding.

Better to have quality code than 50% males and 50% females.

[gabber]

e.g. I agree that there's something wrong in that the computing field is completely dominated by white men (I'm one too), when the population is fairly evenly divided between male and female,

The only thing wrong is your assumption that males and females have the same preferences.

but yet there is nothing about computing that makes white males any better at it.

Who said better? Males simply prefer computing, like females prefer other fields. No Outreachy Program for Kindergartenteacher, is there?


We are a sexual dimorphic species, let's embrace this and not try to force things because we feel it should be different.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_psychology#Intelligence

There are differences, and one is not better than the other.