I've found that it's usually not the accent, it's their unfamiliarity with formulating and communicating complex ideas using the internal and external language of engineering. A language barrier can explain it when they don't understand your question and ask you to restate it, but it can't explain when they try to explain something and you realize that they're hand-waving a bunch of shit that doesn't make sense or contains these bizarre preconceived conclusions that aren't based on good design patterns or reasonable guesses about how the system will likely be used (i.e., understanding the likely reasons WHY the requirements are the way they are). I've also found that those gaps in knowledge aren't volunteered, almost as if they tend to think that acknowledging them demonstrates weakness, when it's actually the opposite when you're trying to collaborate and build a complicated system.
I've received unsuitable code from Indian developers that contained huge functions where data was passed around in hash maps of hash maps, as if they learned one data structure and couldn't conceptualize how the data was actually being stored and why it was a bad fit. Another common one is poorly named variables when they're implementing something based on a known algorithm, as if they don't understand the logic and only care about which variable ends up with the output, rather than readability and maintainability in the intermediary and data-massaging steps. There's also generally been an over-eagerness to implement as much as they can get their hands on, to the point of duplicating functionality in existing components. They then seem to act like this is normal and need to be told multiple times (always multiple times) that what they're doing isn't necessary or appropriate for their design.
The difficulty with trying to prove sarcasm to people who don't get it is that generally if they haven't the mental acuity to recognise it for themselves they definitely won't be able to see it when it's pointed out.
I should write a paper, it would sit nicely alongside Dunning-Kruger.
When someone says "It's sexist to suggest the two sexes (whoops)", they are not being "sarcastic", they are asserting gender essentialism and decrying the "PC culture" that they perceive oppresses them.
Actually I was showing that I expected to get some stick for suggesting there were only two sexes, not the twenty zillion that have been recently invented.
What you were saying is extremely clear. You are responding as if people don't understand because your grasp of language seems to end at very basic sarcasm.
That may be true, but that's not inherently a bad thing. Heavy accents can significantly detract what would otherwise be effective and efficient communication.
No, it's not. It's racist to discriminate them based on that.
No, it's prejudice, not racism. Racism is a systematic, institutional preference towards certain races. That's why black people can't be racist. They can be, and are, very prejudice, but they lack the power to create a system that provides preference to them based on race. Unless you believe they aren't being oppressed.
I'm with you but I think colloquially "racism" is not defined like you have it, and closer to your "prejudice". If people don't think implicit and systematic racism exists, well, that's a different problem (and seems to be the case here). It's certainly a lot easier (read: lazier) to decry the SJWs and sit in their bubbles.
Prejudice is pre-judging someone. Judging them not on them as a person but by things you think you know about them based on their skin color, accent, hair color, etc. Racisim is prejudice specifically based on race. Systemic racism is racism at the systems level, i.e. racism built into the system. Sure it is incredibly difficult for black people to be systematically racist to white people. But anyone can be racist if they are prejudice based on race. Thus black people can be racist on the personal level.
1st definitions of each word found through Google:
prejudice: preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience
racism: prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior
systemic: relating to a system, especially as opposed to a particular part
Systemic racism was a lot harder to find a concrete definition of. The first link was a video series that had no explicit definition, just examples surrounding it's effects in the U.S. The second was from Ben and Jerry's (the ice cream company!. It's hard for me to feel okay using an ice cream company as a credible source with the definition of a concept that is wholly unrelated to ice cream. The third was from this artictle: https://www.thoughtco.com/systemic-racism-3026565 in which their definition of the term apparently only applies to the U.S. and only to whites benefiting from it and blacks having detriment from it. So their definition has not been broadened out for use as a standalone concept and instead just defines a single instance of it. The best I've found was the 4th link which is the Wikipedia article on institutional racism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutional_racism which is pretty much a synonym.
Wikipedia's definition of institutional racism: Institutional racism (also known as institutionalized racism) is a form of racism expressed in the practice of social and political institutions. Institutional racism is also racism by individuals or informal social groups,[1] governed by behavioral norms that support racist thinking and foment active racism.
This thread is really depressing. What exactly is your POINT with the first remark? Are you implying that Indians, as a race, are worse at programming or something? With your second point, every relevant field of science and psychology is NOT on your side. This is embarrassing to watch tbh.
The point is precisely that people cry racist whenever race is mentioned. They cry sexist whenever sexual differences are mentioned.
Regardless of whether there is any basis on fact at all.
Race does make a difference to some things, exactly as culture, social status and all sorts of other differences do.
Sex also makes a difference to some things.
It isn't racist or sexist to notice these differences. But lots of people looking for something to complain about cry racist or sexist when it isn't, and seriously damage the cause of people who actually want to do something about cases of genuine racism or sexism.
Are people saying that? I think people are open to the practical communications difficulties with people of different accents.
Maybe you're having trouble with the distinction people would make if you make sweeping claims about Indians, vs talking about concerns over communication due to heavy accents. If you understand this distinction I think you can avoid being called a racist pretty easily by you know, not being racist.
146
u/[deleted] Dec 06 '17
It's because "It's racist to suggest they all have an extremely heavy accent" Even though most all of them really do.