Among the many morally bankrupt phrases used by the subversive Left is the claim that technology that is used by all should also be created by all. This is the supposed justification for discriminating against white males and Asians in the technology sector. Instead of the most qualified employee, companies are now supposed to pick women and minorities first. I would have no problem with that if women and minorities were indeed the most competent. Of course, if they were, they would make their way regardless because in a competitive environment a plucky upstart would simply sweep up all those Nobel prize caliber blacks, Latinos, and women, and steamroll the competition.
But back to the original claim. That it is nonsensical is obvious if you spend just a moment or two thinking about it. You could start with the structure of the argument: “X that is used by all should be created by all.” Now, substitute something for X that is likewise used by all. How about food? The sentence thus becomes, “Food that is consumed by all should be created [grown] by all.” Does this make sense? Of course not, because the catalyst for human progress has been increasing automation and division of labor. Going back to subsistence farming would roll back thousands of years of progress.
That being said, even for a comparative low-skill role like front-end web development you need to have a modicum of skill. While web browsers go out of their way to display erroneous code, in order to not “break” the Internet, there is a limit with regards to how shoddy your work can be. You sill have to possess a modicum of logical reasoning ability, which excludes easily half the population already. Yet, those are part of the “all” that use technology. You probably don’t want someone who is semi-literate work on front-end web development. It’s bad enough that those people write posts for Buzzfeed or Huffington Post.
Furthermore, who are those “all” that use technology and what do they use? The original claim seems to equate technology with smartphone use. We all have a smartphone in our pocket, hence we should all use it, presumably. That interpretation, yet again, shows the shortsightedness of the original claim. Should we all work on the banking software we interact with? Should we all meddle with the Tinder source code? How about we dick around with encryption standards, too? You know, encryption is used by all, even if 99.999 % aren’t aware of it, so why can’t we get some low-IQ leech who can’t even manage to not spend all her welfare benefit payments before the month is over to come up with a few new algorithms? Isn’t the claim that input from a more diverse crowd would improve the outcome automatically, even if those diversity clowns were utterly useless?
Quite frankly, the more you engage with what “progressives” spout out, the more you wonder how dumb those people are. It also points to a bigger problem: in a democracy, the vote of those people counts as much as yours. The vote of someone not paying any taxes counts as much as the vote of someone whose tax contributions those people feasts on. Arguably, the crisis of democracy is due to “all” meddling in it. If you threw out all the morons and leeches, democracy could work quite well. The Ancient Greeks seemed to have a pretty stable one. Meanwhile, in the West we have societies that are run by clowns. For instance, in Germany there is a whole army of MPs who dropped out of university or who have finished high school with very poor grades. Yet, people wonder why that country has been going to shit. It’s easy to see why. Supposedly, a country that is inhabited by all should be government by all, and not by the intellectual and financial elite.
Did you enjoy this article? Excellent! If you want to support what I am doing, then please consider buying my excellent books, the latest of which is Meditation Without Bullshit or donating to the upkeep of this site. If you want tailored advice, I am available for one-on-one consultation sessions.