Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Outreachy Applications Open For The Winter 2019 Round

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • starshipeleven
    replied
    Originally posted by schmidtbag View Post
    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!".

    Leave a comment:


  • schmidtbag
    replied
    Originally posted by starshipeleven View Post
    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.
    Last edited by schmidtbag; 09-09-2019, 12:19 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Panda_Wrist
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • starshipeleven
    replied
    Originally posted by schmidtbag View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • schmidtbag
    replied
    Originally posted by starshipeleven View Post
    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?

    Leave a comment:


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

    Leave a comment:


  • starshipeleven
    replied
    Originally posted by schmidtbag View Post
    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.
    Last edited by starshipeleven; 09-09-2019, 10:18 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Britoid
    replied
    Originally posted by schmidtbag View Post
    I agree, but I don't think Britoid was suggesting that Outreacy is justified. It is completely reasonable to approve of someone's intentions but strongly disagree with the way they go about executing something. To exemplify this, take a look at a non-political situation:
    Let's say a car manufacturer wants to edge out the competition by having the best fuel economy without having something gutless or expensive. The manufacturer decides to accomplish this by stripping out all amenities, and replace normal wheels with bicycle tires. A lot of people would love the idea of something that's faster and cheaper than everything else in the same segment, but once you realize what it is they did to achieve that, suddenly, you're not so interested. It's perfectly fine to like what they intended to do but walk away from (or even ridicule) their solution.
    Pretty much.

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

    However, I think it's caused by stereotypes and in-balances in society (coming from schools, parents, media etc) and I'm all for fixing that, but actively excluding against the perceived majority group is putting a weak plaster over the problem rather than fixing said problem and further deepens divisions in society.

    Leave a comment:


  • schmidtbag
    replied
    Originally posted by starshipeleven View Post
    That you should not split motives from methods. That's spindoctoring.

    You can attach pure motives on anything, "the end does not justify your means" still applies.
    I agree, but I don't think Britoid was suggesting that Outreacy is justified. It is completely reasonable to approve of someone's intentions but strongly disagree with the way they go about executing something. To exemplify this, take a look at a non-political situation:
    Let's say a car manufacturer wants to edge out the competition by having the best fuel economy without having something gutless or expensive. The manufacturer decides to accomplish this by stripping out all amenities, and replace normal wheels with bicycle tires. A lot of people would love the idea of something that's faster and cheaper than everything else in the same segment, but once you realize what it is they did to achieve that, suddenly, you're not so interested. It's perfectly fine to like what they intended to do but walk away from (or even ridicule) their solution.

    Leave a comment:


  • starshipeleven
    replied
    Originally posted by schmidtbag View Post
    What are you suggesting here
    That you should not split motives from methods. That's spindoctoring.

    You can attach pure motives on anything, "the end does not justify your means" still applies.

    that the motives aren't agreeable?
    Tangential to my point.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X