sudneo

Thanks, I can read that much. That seems a conclusion of a reasoning, not a reasoning. Hence, I asked the arguments that lead to that conclusion. If everyone would discuss like that, we would have simply conversations in which people call each other names, which is not what I would like in the world.

I am just saying that this burden shouldn't fall on other people in material need. It is simply extremely unfair from my point of view to imagine that a person which happens to be a man, and is in need of a job should just sit quietly and leave space for women, because generally, in the whole field, women are under represented.

Again, this is just some kind of thought process that can only come in my head if I am not risking for my house to be repossessed by the bank, or when I have enough cash to keep paying rent, or I don't have a family to support. It's a complete luxurious form of integrity that is completely detached from the real world (the one I live in, at least). This seems completely peak war between poor people, where we stop challenging the arbitrary scarcity of resources and we want to solve the problem just by creating a hierarchy by which the crumbles should be shared.

I am from a different country, maybe it's cultural, but this position is completely alienating and unrelatable for me.

Let me say this: to me this seems the completed detached thought of someone who never faced material difficulties.

I can only think this if I am in a position of privilege where I can choose. I absolutely can't relate with any of this, I completely agree to disagree.

It also didn't explain why, nor made the distinction you are making. So yeah, it was a blanket statement to karma farm on Lemmy...

Neither and both, depending on the context. There is no point to tell a person (who is maybe in need of a job and behind with the mortgage) "sorry, your group is privileged, fuck off". At the same time it still makes sense talking generally about solving sexism, ageism and other form of discrimination still too common in tech. Both perspectives exist, but you can slice the population in many groups, with different "average" experiences, therefore is overall shortsighted to categorize people only based on "one slice". Hence, the class analysis which is I find both more effective and more functional.

This is pure rhetoric, I can flip the argument:

"You care more about the gender than about my material condition."

Also, the moment I need to let prevail abstract concepts over my material condition (i.e., caring about "my group" being over represented while I am out of a job) is the moment in which the class unity is broken. Me and those women who are out of a job have so much in common that there is no reason for me to consider us part of two separate groups. That's the whole point of my argument, I advocate for worker solidarity and I absolutely feel that this attitude is overall harmful for it.

But it is an asshole move to show up to an event meant for one group of people when the original issue is how over represented your group is. I’m a developer. The grind sucks. But I would be an asshole to show up to this.

If I was out of job, I would honestly care less about the fact that "my group" is over represented. There is no white male lobby that pays my mortgage. That said, I - as in the actual me - would not go to such event either, but that's also because I wouldn't go to any job fair atm since I don't need a job.

Thank you, whenever you feel like having an actual conversation, you can reply to the comment.

How is this relevant? What does that tell you about particular individuals also?

Yes.

If you can also argument your position, I would be grateful.

I respectfully disagree. If you think that organizing such events, with sponsors of that caliber is just a matter of "go do one", then we simply have different point of views. I also did not make qualitative comparisons between who gets oppressed, I am simply observing that there are so many components to discrimination in tech that focusing on only one (intentionally, even after the opportunity to expand opened up presented itself) is not synergic with the long term strategy.

It's fine to disagree, this is ultimately a subjective ideological call. I simply disliked the tone of the article overall. I would have liked some more in depth analysis of the impact (and reasons) of layoffs and maybe some interview to those people who "crashed" the event. Maybe with some sprinkle of discussion of unionization and collective fight, but I guess it was not fitting in an article about an event sponsored by the very same who laid off tens of thousands of people.

I was going to answer, but then I realized that if this is what you chose to understand from my comment(s), probably that means you don't want to have a conversation. I will save my time, if you don't mind.