What's going on

Posted Mar 13, 2016 15:40 UTC (Sun) by corbet (editor, #1)
In reply to: Outreachy: an intern's perspective by ezqw
Parent article: Outreachy: an intern's perspective

What's going on is that we intend to have zero tolerance for personal attacks toward Outreachy participants or anybody else. Please do not attempt to do that again.

What's going on

Posted Mar 13, 2016 17:32 UTC (Sun) by ezqw2 (guest, #107656) [Link] (8 responses)

I just said that, if I were an Outreachy participant, that fact that I was selected because of my sex, instead solely because of my intellectual valors, would be pretty much insulting for me and my ambitions.

How is that a personal attack toward any particular person?

Yes, it is unfavorable for the Outreachy concept, but it isn't a personal attack on anyone.

If criticism of Outreachy isn't allowed here, please state this clearly in the terms of use, instead of making up such unsubstantiated excuses for comments removal.

I posted this response twice using my original account, but it didn't appeared. Editors apparently redirected all subsequent comments I post to /dev/null. Therefore, I had to create another account to get this visible.

No wonder there is so little criticism of Outreachy and similar sexist/racist initiatives here, if everyone who criticize them becomes banned in a few minutes after posting his/her first unfavorable comment...

What's going on

Posted Mar 13, 2016 18:39 UTC (Sun) by madscientist (subscriber, #16861) [Link]

I assume that someone who would feel insulted by being chosen to participate in Outreachy, would not apply to participate in Outreachy. Last I heard it wasn't mandatory that everyone MUST apply to Outreachy. Clearly the people who do apply have a more robust sense of their own worth and don't feel insulted if someone helps them achieve their goals. And clearly people who donate to Outreachy want to help those people achieve their goals.

It's not for you, we get it. Thanks for sharing. Luckily for all concerned it seems likely you're not eligible. I fail to see the problem.

What's going on

Posted Mar 13, 2016 21:26 UTC (Sun) by ovitters (guest, #27950) [Link] (4 responses)

> instead solely because of my intellectual valors

You're saying that they're solely selected because they're female and that intelligence had nothing to do with it. How you don't see that 1) you're pretty stupid for assuming that they're not intelligent and 2) don't understand how this is not attacking the person posting here 3) highly inappropriate.

Would you state this to the person in real life? If you wouldn't then don't go out of your way to do the same online. In case you wonder, I'd say above to your face, no problem!

What's going on

Posted Mar 14, 2016 7:36 UTC (Mon) by corbet (editor, #1) [Link]

Even if you'd say it to their face, this, too, is a bit of an attack and is what we'd really like not to see here. Please help us to keep the tone reasonable..?

What's going on

Posted Mar 15, 2016 11:53 UTC (Tue) by pjm (guest, #2080) [Link] (2 responses)

You read too quickly, perhaps misreading where the word "solely" occurred. The quoted message doesn't say either that they're selected solely because they're female or that intelligence had nothing to do with it, let alone express an assumption that they're not intelligent; it merely repeats what the original article seems fairly clear about, that selection criteria (i.e. causes of selection) include membership of under-represented groups rather than being solely based on intellectual ability. Far from assuming that intelligence had nothing to do with it, the word "solely" where it does occur makes it fairly clear that the commenter assumes that "intellectual valors" *are* one of the causes of selection.

It is good to help someone understand a situation, but this is rarely achieved with an attacking tone. [Which is a lesson I could do well to learn myself, come to think of it.]

Perhaps it suffices to direct people to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action , which might be of interest both to ezqw (for explaining the motivation behind affirmative action and for some reassurement that it does appear to have a positive effect despite some costs such as that he fears), as well as to anyone to anyone interested in minimizing unintended harms of affirmative action.

What's going on

Posted Mar 15, 2016 19:25 UTC (Tue) by pjm (guest, #2080) [Link]

(If I could modify my post, I would change “assumes ... *are*” to “assumes ... might well be”. The additional step of assuming that they are a part of the criteria depends on the guess that anyone who considers the possibility would guess that they are a criterion; whereas on reflection, I'm not so sure that the goals of Outreachy do need intellectual ability to be among the selection criteria[*], so I'll avoid ascribing that assumption to someone else.)

[*:] I know of a selective school where the principle criterion is something like interest or enthusiasm rather than ability. Though it does happen that interest and enthusiasm are positively correlated with ability, as is whether a person applies in the first place, so it happens that the students are on average very capable.

What's going on

Posted Mar 17, 2016 20:55 UTC (Thu) by k8to (guest, #15413) [Link]

You can't refer someone with an agenda like that to an article about Affirmative Action and get any positive result. That term is a hot-button trigger word in American politics which will derail any sort of discussion. The "common wisdom" is that it is "reverse racism" and consists of "handouts and quotas" that "destroy the drive to succeed on your own merits". Also "we tried that and it didn't work" in the 1970s.

I'm not even getting into the idea of whether I agree with it as an approach. Those are just all the stock talking points that will come out in a parade while no actual communication occurs.

What's going on

Posted Mar 14, 2016 6:44 UTC (Mon) by k8to (guest, #15413) [Link]

If your "criticism" is a claim that it's "sexist", then yes that is not wanted. It's a claim that's false on its face and clearly motivated from a silly agenda divorced from relevance to the article. That's why it's unwelcome.

Enjoy!

What's going on

Posted Mar 14, 2016 9:03 UTC (Mon) by anselm (subscriber, #2796) [Link]

I just said that, if I were an Outreachy participant, that fact that I was selected because of my sex, instead solely because of my intellectual valors, would be pretty much insulting for me and my ambitions.

It's safe to say that to get into Outreachy, you still need to be quite smart, capable and motivated – your sex alone probably won't do the trick.

In that case, being able to realise your ambitions with some help from Outreachy sure beats not being able to realise your ambitions at all because there is a widespread prejudice that people like you, on top of not finding “bro” culture entertaining, can't code in the first place and hence your stuff isn't really worth evaluating fairly.