>> there are lots of non-minority male nerds who spend ridiculous amounts of time... to the point that they have no social lives and may never have a family
> An alternative way to parse these same facts is that white men are more likely to be in an economic condition where it is possible to spend time on non-income-generating activities. For that matter I think at least some men believe a social or family life is not something they could have achieved. In any case I think it is harder to disentangle choices from cultural forces than you think.
Are you aware of the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender-equality_paradox , where, as one article puts it, "In countries that empower women, they are less likely to choose math and science professions"? That is a piece of evidence pointing in the opposite direction.
> However, the actual pro-diversity position is something like “I’m annoyed that our society values traits common to X group and not traits common to Y or Z.”
I think that, in the eyes of most regular people, all legitimacy of the "pro-diversity position" has come from its message of "discrimination is bad". When it starts getting into territory of "We should change how jobs and society and everything work, not for the purpose of making them work better, but for the purpose of equalizing demographic representation", then I think most people would jump ship. I think the pro-diversity advocates are generally aware of this, and that this is why they try to hide the differences in public as much as possible.
A good example of this is how some academics have come up with a new definition of "racism" as "institutionalized racism" or "power plus privilege". The word "racist" is conventionally defined to mean "harboring racial prejudice"; everyone understands why that's bad, which is why "racism" is a bad word in the eyes of the public and an effective smear. The academics could have chosen a new term or phrase if they wanted to be clear. But by reusing the word "racism", these academics can say things like "Policies that explicitly discriminate in favor of certain races aren't racist, as long as those races are 'minorities'" and "Policies that select the most qualified people for a job are racist, if being the most qualified happens to be anticorrelated with being a minority", and call their political opponents racist, and win arguments that way because the public understands that racism = racial prejudice and discrimination = bad. It is a sleight of hand, which depends on this confusion of terms; I don't expect them to try to clear up the confusion. It can also be interpreted as a motte and bailey: the motte is "I'm just saying racial discrimination is bad, I don't see how you can disagree with that", while the bailey is things like "If SAT scores are different between different races, then the SAT is racist, and college admissions should give extra weight to racial-minority candidates just because of their race."
> An alternative way to parse these same facts is that white men are more likely to be in an economic condition where it is possible to spend time on non-income-generating activities. For that matter I think at least some men believe a social or family life is not something they could have achieved. In any case I think it is harder to disentangle choices from cultural forces than you think.
Are you aware of the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender-equality_paradox , where, as one article puts it, "In countries that empower women, they are less likely to choose math and science professions"? That is a piece of evidence pointing in the opposite direction.
> However, the actual pro-diversity position is something like “I’m annoyed that our society values traits common to X group and not traits common to Y or Z.”
I think that, in the eyes of most regular people, all legitimacy of the "pro-diversity position" has come from its message of "discrimination is bad". When it starts getting into territory of "We should change how jobs and society and everything work, not for the purpose of making them work better, but for the purpose of equalizing demographic representation", then I think most people would jump ship. I think the pro-diversity advocates are generally aware of this, and that this is why they try to hide the differences in public as much as possible.
A good example of this is how some academics have come up with a new definition of "racism" as "institutionalized racism" or "power plus privilege". The word "racist" is conventionally defined to mean "harboring racial prejudice"; everyone understands why that's bad, which is why "racism" is a bad word in the eyes of the public and an effective smear. The academics could have chosen a new term or phrase if they wanted to be clear. But by reusing the word "racism", these academics can say things like "Policies that explicitly discriminate in favor of certain races aren't racist, as long as those races are 'minorities'" and "Policies that select the most qualified people for a job are racist, if being the most qualified happens to be anticorrelated with being a minority", and call their political opponents racist, and win arguments that way because the public understands that racism = racial prejudice and discrimination = bad. It is a sleight of hand, which depends on this confusion of terms; I don't expect them to try to clear up the confusion. It can also be interpreted as a motte and bailey: the motte is "I'm just saying racial discrimination is bad, I don't see how you can disagree with that", while the bailey is things like "If SAT scores are different between different races, then the SAT is racist, and college admissions should give extra weight to racial-minority candidates just because of their race."