←back to thread

376 points undefined1 | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
dnautics ◴[] No.22975063[source]
Not Harvard, but (being Asian American) this sort of soft characterization as being deficient in personality metrics rings true in my head.

For starters, my father in his full time government job repeatedly got "no leadership potential" reviews. Meanwhile in his part time job with the US Navy, he advanced to the level of captain and in his final act for the Navy led a team that completed its first fully digitized inventory system, saving the Navy billions of dollars, and delivered it under budget and ahead of time. (Fwiw he was non-technical, just "good at making things happen for nerds", his words not mine)

In my personal life, I've encountered several situations where people have expressed to me explicitly or implicitly they didn't consider me to be leader-worthy despite my having successfully managed small teams several times in my career.

replies(5): >>22975163 #>>22977521 #>>22978881 #>>22979025 #>>22986655 #
emmelaich ◴[] No.22977521[source]
“When somebody says it’s not about the money, it’s about the money.”

- H.L. Mencken

replies(1): >>22978422 #
MiroF ◴[] No.22978422[source]
Sure, but the (mostly) white and Asian commentators here agitating for an end to affirmative action for under-represented minorities are similarly not doing it just due to their severe opposition to racial discrimination in all forms.

This opposition is just as much, if not more, motivated by people feeling like their class interests are at risk.

replies(3): >>22978797 #>>22979253 #>>22982014 #
ThrowawayR2 ◴[] No.22978797[source]
> "This opposition is just as much, if not more, motivated by people feeling like their class interests are at risk."

Are under-represented minorities not highly "motivated by people feeling like their class interests are at risk" in the form of a desire to increase their class? Seems improbable to me, invalidating the rather unkind suggestion that it's only one side that's all about the money.

replies(1): >>22979359 #
MiroF ◴[] No.22979359[source]
> invalidating the rather unkind suggestion that it's only one side that's all about the money.

I certainly didn't mean to suggest that, so I'm sorry if my comment was unclear to you. Indeed, I was actually replying to GP which seemed to be making the insinuation that only one side was about the money, so perhaps your comment would function better as a reply to that one?

I think it's pretty transparent that advocates of affirmative action are interested in promoting the economic interests of under-represented minorities, so I didn't think it needed to be explicitly said. Further, many of the advocates of affirmative action are not of the group being benefited directly, whereas most of those with a stake in dismantling diversity policies seem to stand to benefit from it.

replies(2): >>22979624 #>>22980615 #
1. ThrowawayR2 ◴[] No.22979624{3}[source]
> "Indeed, I was actually replying to GP which seemed to be making the insinuation that only one side was about the money, so perhaps your comment would function better as a reply to that one?"

Oh, if that's the case, my apologies for the misunderstanding .