[teacup50]

How do you know the (heavily politicized, myopically chosen, inescapably coarse-grained) identity groups they're targeting offer a form of diversity that actually has value in the realm of Rust? Why do you believe that these identity group traits correlate strongly with intellectual diversity that is necessary for the project's health?

If anything, this process (and the efforts from which it stems) seem purposefully designed to eliminate intellectual diversity, in favor of a rigid monoculture maintained by empowering political officers in the enforcement of right-think.

[civilitty]

Based on your choice of words and other comments you've made, I believe you fear change and people who are different from you. I doubt there is anything I can say to convince you in the face of your prejudices, whatever they may be.

> If anything, this process (and the efforts from which it stems) seem purposefully designed to eliminate intellectual diversity, in favor of a rigid monoculture maintained by empowering political officers in the enforcement of right-think.

If your idea of a monoculture is a place where people have to be respectful of other people & cultures and not use culturally charged words then I think almost everyone in the Rust community would be happy with that outcome.

If you want to provide evidence that the Rust community is trying to eliminate intellectual diversity in favor of superficial qualities instead of sincerely trying to outreach to underrepresented communities that may have a lot to offer, I'm sure they (and we here on HN) will be happy to have a rigorous, respectful debate with the express goal of improving the experience for as many people in the community as possible, including you.

Until then, you are free to grind your axe elsewhere, perhaps somewhere without multiculturalism to make you so uncomfortable.

[DaiPlusPlus]

I don't think it's "fear of change" or "fear of people who are different" - not even "fear". I feel the sentiment felt is closer to "think poorly-of". Southern US racists certainly aren't "afraid" of black people: I believe they've been conditioned by negative racial stereotypes combined with their own sense of superiority ("blacks are lazy, no-good", "blacks are criminals", et cetera) so the idea of racial equality simply strikes them as silly - take that concept and apply it to today's debates: ("feminists are loud and unruly", "transgender people are freaks", "the other side are all fat women with purple hair who spend too much time complaining on their blogs instead of instigating real change"). I stress these are stereotypes, and certainly not representative, but doubling-down in response seems to reinforce certain negative stereotypes and make it harder to sell the idea of the "new normal".

I believe their concerns about the loss of "intellectual diversity" are genuinely felt - but frame it as someone who genuinely believes themselves and their opinions to be level-headed and that these new voices, who are telling them that their opinion are wrong, will of course put someone on the defensive, it's only natural to feel a creep of thoughtcrime policing.

I hate to use a cop-out cliché but I feel that "both sides" need to apply empathy when engaging in debate with their opposition: those that feel out of place and get defensive, or simply think these are overblown matters, are not deliberately out to actually oppress anyone - and those campaigning for more equitable treatment are not being opportunistic.

[teacup50]

The science is bad and the politics are deleterious. That has nothing to do with prejudices on my part; thinking that the methodology and behavior is naively toxic at best doesn't mean I disagree with the egalitarian aims that are claimed to be the motivating factor behind this political ideology.