James Damore Suing Google for "Reverse Discrimination"

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5
 

StatusNil:

So, I guess you're saying taking issue with the classifying of the Damore memo under the same "abuse" category as the crimes committed by Elliot Rodger means "defending Elliot Rodger". Hmm. You know, as far as hills go, I think the one where we still have the ability to distinguish between those two things might be as good a one to die on as any. And since you don't think so, I guess you won't be the one taking it.

The person in the screenshot was arguing (valid or not) that the same attitude expressed by Damore comes from a place of the same entitlement that led Elliot Rodger to murder 6 people as revenge against women rejecting him. You can say whatever you like whether or not that's valid (personally, I think it's a bit of a stretch) but the fact that he considers this to be anti-white racism is pretty damn telling about what he actually thinks.

At least you nailed me with that witty "people who haven't so much as cracked a single textbook in their life" crack. Except that mostly goes for physics textbooks, as it turns out I've cracked a few about things like "Race, Gender and Sexuality in Multidisciplinary Cultural Studies" in my time. See, I know how vapid that stuff is. Via the superior epistemic pathway of "lived experience", no less. The actual sciences, on the other hand, are something I've grown to have a lot of respect for (as opposed to the condescension about STEM eggheads that was endemic in the Humanities, which you appear to be in a process of internalizing), despite never personally having any talent for those fields (so maybe I'm not "male", despite certain anatomic features). But maybe that's my mistake. It's not me, it's the sciences that are lacking talent, the talent to include me!

You kind of missed the point.

What I'm talking about, and what I'm increasingly frustrated with, is people who try to turn "science vs humanities" into a political wedge issue as though they're just another set of positions on the left/right divide. And the reason that I find this so irksome is that it is a complete misrepresentation of what I and my peers actually think, often by people who don't have any working knowledge about the scientific community yet still feel that they're in a position to speak for us or to tell us what does and doesn't concern us and what we should and should not do.

StatusNil:

I take it you're not familiar with the whole massive public discourse regarding "white male culture of entitlement", which the comment referenced, complete with a typical article? Perhaps that's a good starting point towards understanding the operative context. Unfortunately, it is beyond the scope of this forum post to fully explicate, but I'm sure the "Google" brand search engine will be able to find you ample material in this genre.

Yes, I'm aware of it. You already knew that. Some general context doesn't somehow make the specific sentiments in those posts "anti-Caucasian".

Engage with what I'm saying, this time, rather than assuming ignorance is the only reason someone might disagree with you.

renegade7:

The person in the screenshot was arguing (valid or not) that the same attitude expressed by Damore comes from a place of the same entitlement that led Elliot Rodger to murder 6 people as revenge against women rejecting him. You can say whatever you like whether or not that's valid (personally, I think it's a bit of a stretch) but the fact that he considers this to be anti-white racism is pretty damn telling about what he actually thinks.

You mean his lawyers use it as an example of tolerated (and allegedly promoted) prejudicial attitudes against "male/caucasian/perceived 'conservative'" individuals. Not particularly outlandish, considering the difference (obvious to some of us) between a good faith attempt at reformulating approaches to "diversity" and murderous rage.

renegade7:
What I'm talking about, and what I'm increasingly frustrated with, is people who try to turn "science vs humanities" into a political wedge issue as though they're just another set of positions on the left/right divide. And the reason that I find this so irksome is that it is a complete misrepresentation of what I and my peers actually think, often by people who don't have any working knowledge about the scientific community yet still feel that they're in a position to speak for us or to tell us what does and doesn't concern us and what we should and should not do.

Well, what I'm increasingly frustrated with is people trying to turn knowledge and ability into a political wedge issue as though they're just another set of positions on the good/Literal Nazi! divide. And part of the reason I find this so irksome is the complete misrepresentation of what I and many others think, do and aspire to, often by people who assume we have no working knowledge about the activist scholar community, and so think they can simply dismiss us as cartoon simpletons under the sway of evil forces, or ostracize us from polite society altogether if we don't follow their totalitarian imperatives. The other part being that the results of their activities are so obviously disastrous. So we all have our frustrations.

Agema:

I love the way you write things like that as if you haven't spent years filling this forum with obviously absurd conspiracy theories and bunkum.

You say that like half the people here don't believe the Russia conspiracy theory (and boy will they be disappointed when they get around to reading Fire and Fury).

Silvanus:

Yes, I'm aware of it. You already knew that. Some general context doesn't somehow make the specific sentiments in those posts "anti-Caucasian".

Engage with what I'm saying, this time, rather than assuming ignorance is the only reason someone might disagree with you.

To be honest, I'm not trained to "engage with" lawyering. And that's what you're doing here, working hard to introduce deniability into what is clearly a statement predicated on an established and widely recognized set of beliefs by de-emphasizing the readily apparent context. Yes, it's a legal case, but us lay people are still allowed to state the obvious.

As for "Caucasian", I find it to be a silly and inaccurate word. Some people would have you believe I'm "Caucasian", and I've never even been to the Caucasus.

StatusNil:

To be honest, I'm not trained to "engage with" lawyering. And that's what you're doing here, working hard to introduce deniability into what is clearly a statement predicated on an established and widely recognized set of beliefs by de-emphasizing the readily apparent context. Yes, it's a legal case, but us lay people are still allowed to state the obvious.

For somebody unprepared to engage with lawyering, you're certainly willing to string jargon together into a near-meaningless sentence!

The context means very different things to different people. It has led you to a particular conclusion, which you consider self-evident, and which I consider extreme and nonsensical. Your interpretation of context is not some objective thing, and you cannot just appeal to "wide recognition" to make it fly.

If you're making a specific claim about these individual posts, then the truth of it has to be in those posts themselves. They are, after all, the very subject.

StatusNil:

As for "Caucasian", I find it to be a silly and inaccurate word. Some people would have you believe I'm "Caucasian", and I've never even been to the Caucasus.

I'm uncertain whether you're joking or not, but on balance, I'd prefer not to know.

StatusNil:

Well, what I'm increasingly frustrated with is people trying to turn knowledge and ability into a political wedge issue as though they're just another set of positions on the good/Literal Nazi! divide.

What does that mean? Who is turning "knowledge and ability" into a political wedge issue and how exactly are they doing it?

Or, to put it in as simple a phrasing as possible: Which group of people are you claiming to have lower knowledge and ability, and what is being said or done by those trying to turn this knowledge and ability into a wedge issue?

The other part being that the results of their activities are so obviously disastrous.

Every scientist's favorite word: "Obviously". As in "It's obviously true but only I can see it and the only reason it's not obvious to you is that you've been corrupted by gender studies somehow."

Zontar:
You say that like half the people here don't believe the Russia conspiracy theory (and boy will they be disappointed when they get around to reading Fire and Fury).

You mean that Russian officials met with high level Trump staffers and offered information to help him win the election, as is highly supported by the evidence of Trump team people resigning, under investigation for lying to Congress, pleading guilty, or openly stating criticism of others meeting Russians as per revelations in Fire and Fury? That's on top of the hacking allegations and the social media troll army, as argued by numerous law enforcement agencies and independent investigators.

That's not exactly like claiming a pizzeria runs a paedophile ring out on the basis of approximately nothing, is it?

Zontar:

Agema:

I love the way you write things like that as if you haven't spent years filling this forum with obviously absurd conspiracy theories and bunkum.

You say that like half the people here don't believe the Russia conspiracy theory (and boy will they be disappointed when they get around to reading Fire and Fury).

You have no ground to criticize others for believing in 'conspiracy theories'.

StatusNil:
Say what? First of all, everyone and their pet goat is disputing those scientific premises as "iffy" "pseudoscience", including in this thread. Which premises, by the way, very much include the suggestion that there are biological differences between men and women, something that is increasingly disputed by ideologues, despite being probably the single most obvious thing about our species.

Firstly, "biological differences between men and women" is just about the most useless phrase it's possible to imagine. I mean, once we put aside the obvious point that "men" and "women" are not defined by being male or female bodied, respectively, male and female bodies are defined by "biological differences", so what you're effectively saying is that people who are biologically distinct are, in fact, biologically distinct. Wow, high class elite STEM wisdom here.

But no, back in the real world, noone disputes that there are biological differences between human beings which could, if you wished, form the basis on which to define categories called men and women (you know if you somehow forgot that trans people existed). What I think is deeply, deeply questionable is literally any of the other conclusions derived from this realisation, which you seem to assume can simply piggy back onto it without being subject to any scrutiny or intellectual rigour. That is kind of what defines pseudoscience. It's not that it goes against "the ideology", it's that it's vague and uncritical.

StatusNil:
What would a responsible and inclusive alternative look like?

If you don't know what the term inclusive means, don't use it.

StatusNil:
OK, so the "female" students have difficulty with abstract and rational thought, are unmotivated, not independent and cripplingly insecure.

I'm sorry, you seem to have your news source confused with the original text it's referencing.

Here's the text.

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19407882.2017.1392323

So yeah, now we can continue..

According to the professors, these masculine norms include "asking good questions," "capacity for abstract thought and rational thought processes," "motivation," the expectation that students would be "independent" thinkers, and a relatively low fear of failure.

The original source describes only one of these things as a "masculine norm" (and even then I'm reaching, the term is not used directly). Specifically, the "relatively low fear of failure". This sentence is the result of mashing together two sections of the source article with completely different aims. With the exception, again, of the low fear of failure, these are descriptions of the results of a separate set of interviews with faculty with the objective of determining what they considered to be an ideal student. The purpose of this section is to provide context for the findings of the interviews with students.

StatusNil:
And their "encumbered bodies" cannot "work an unlimited number of hours" the way "males" can. That's certainly quite a sociocultural problem. How should we as a woke society address this?

The concept of the "unencumbered body" derives from Joan Acker, and is (of course) referenced as such in the original source article. Your news article does not mention this and uses it without attribution or explanation.

Encumbrance in this sense refers to the level of responsibility which a person has outside of their work life, in particular, domestic and family responsibilities. In essence, a good worker is one who can devote their entire physical existence to work. They can work until they are physically tired or drained, rather than having to worry about the additional physical demands of caring for others. It does not imply that bodies possess different tolerances, and even if you weren't familiar with the term a cursory investigation of the citations would have turned that up.

StatusNil:
Ooookay... So, we just redefine what it means to be good at this scientisting thing, so as to improve the "feelings of inclusion and belonging".

Umm.. no.

See, what you've done is because two statements appeared close together in your news article, you've conflated a misleading sense of authorial intent by ad-hoc merging them together and then ascribing your own faulty reading to the original source. Again though, the two sections have distinct purpose and intent in the original source. You've also repeated the mistake the article made earlier by assuming that the source article was ever actually talking about what qualities denoted being "good", whether at science or simply at being a student, when in fact it merely mentioned some self-reported qualities which professors feel denote a good student.

See, this is a thing called the "critical attitude", the act of maintaining a distance from your own conclusions in order to be able to critically reflect on them. It's very important in most of academia.

StatusNil:
No, they just suggest that "females" find it hard to "embody" "masculine notions", like thinking and working, presumably for the usual arbitrary sociocultural reasons.

The term "embody" does not appear in the original article, neither does the noun form of female (let alone in plural). In short, why are you quoting a news article when you're purporting to describe the article it's (supposedly) based on. What is this, the world's worst game of telephone?

StatusNil:
Damore suggested that women have, on average, somewhat different priorities and interests than men, and that ultimately this statistical difference arises from difference of biological function and the effective life strategies derived from that fact.

Demonstrate this, and I will literally send you money.

As it is, you're defending an argument by.. criticizing another argument.. which you haven't read.

Like, you seem to think you're talented at this. Do better. Complete, accurate and critical thought is literally what we do in the humanities, it's the thing that separates us from.. well.. from James Damore.

StatusNil:
Anyway, keep up the quest to find a rationale for your dislike of "geeks". Everyone needs an occupation.

Hey, it beats questing to find a rationale to dislike women..

As a moderator I'm now asking everyone in this thread to mind their tone. There's a decent discussion going on, but there's also a lot of personal attacks and sniping. One of these are good, the other is not and you all know which is which.

StrayArrow:
This is a vey easy win for Google, seriously.

Damore is a very clueless person and his firing from Google only contributed for him being even more clueless.
He's a guy who spent his entire life shelthered in a bubble of privilege and feels that even the tiniest problem in his life is the equivalent of being gay in the 50's or a jew on the holocaust.
And like your garden variety conservative he uses of a variety of excuses to conserve (lol) his precious staus quo. Trying to hire more womman and people of different ethinicities to your workplace? You're discriminating against white cis straight man and letting people not suited from the job enter in the tech world!

This disgust me in a visceral level.

Okay, I have a quick and should be easy challenge for you.
Let's say you run a company in the US and you have...let's say ten positions that need to be filled.
Given the population demographics of the US, let's say that ten of the twenty people who apply for your jobs are white cis straight men. The other ten of the twenty people who applied are a mix between pretty much every other demographic you can think of.

Since you promote hiring practices like in the quote above, I'd like for you to explain how the white cis straight men are NOT being discriminated against when you decide to push for more Latino's or more women or whatever.
This is a zero sum game. When one person gets a position, every other applicant loses. How is it NOT discrimination when you have guidelines, rules or (even worse) laws that state job positions must be held for applicants of a certain race, ethnicity, sex or gender?

RikuoAmero:

Okay, I have a quick and should be easy challenge for you.
Let's say you run a company in the US and you have...let's say ten positions that need to be filled.
Given the population demographics of the US, let's say that ten of the twenty people who apply for your jobs are white cis straight men. The other ten of the twenty people who applied are a mix between pretty much every other demographic you can think of.

Since you promote hiring practices like in the quote above, I'd like for you to explain how the white cis straight men are NOT being discriminated against when you decide to push for more Latino's or more women or whatever.
This is a zero sum game. When one person gets a position, every other applicant loses. How is it NOT discrimination when you have guidelines, rules or (even worse) laws that state job positions must be held for applicants of a certain race, ethnicity, sex or gender?

Assuming this was the 50s and 60s and a tech firm? Easy. 10 women. Filing and typing is women's work, hence why women dominated software and hardware dev scenes with big employers like the U.S. Army. I mean if you're going to lean in and profess a 'conservative bias', I'm pretty sure that means the grand majority of tech jobs going to women.

Damore should be a real man and enlist.

It's kind of funny how conservatives seem so flexible with their rhetoric. WW2 and the first half of the Cold War? Men shouldn't be in computer programming. It will make them soft. Besides, women are more organized, with better language skills.

Then you had what were totally not racist lobby groups that pushed the narrative computer science requires a white, male, antisocial mindset ... precisely because a whole lot of men in computer programming didn't like women doing most of the programming work and actually organizing software development.

Women had a habit of also telling the engineers working on hardware how things should be networked and the like in the U.S. Army because they were the ones working with the machines all day. Plus the menfolk were worried about cooties...

You have 50s and 60s periodicals and fashion magazines advertising computer programming work for women. With a whole lot of authoritative male figures like soldiers saying things like; "This is the place for aspiring women to find a longlasting career! To do their patriotic duty, supporting their serving husbands and defend the homeland!"

Frankly it seems a joke to compare the Google workplace to women codebreakers and radar operators during WW2. Having to decypher thousands of reports, correlate it to reconnaissance reports and chained radar data, working out the math in relationship to atmospheric qualities in order to provide a deadline as to when and how the civilian on the ground or the pilot in the air should prepare for an enemy attack or organise air intercept operations before it's too late.

You know, barring all that history of women with computers...

------------

Also, to actually address yourconcerns, creating a diverse workplace with multiple particular upbringings and life experience is preferable. Particular in service-heavy exploratory industries looking to cater to future markets and as many people as possible. Diverse people bring with them a diversity of opinions and life experience, which ultimately inform you how one should approach end-user issues and services.

Merit is of course applicable, but then again so is life experience a part of merit and uniquely attached to, say, a tech firm providing services to private end users. After all, you statrt avoiding things like Youtube flagging LGBTQ materials as automatically 'mature' regardless of their content.

It just so happen that kids might need to know how they should come out to their parents ... or look for help ... or realize they're not alone. Maybe if Youtube had a more diverse tech team they might have thought twice about that after actually hearing someone's diverse opinions on the subject matter?

Addendum_Forthcoming:

RikuoAmero:

Okay, I have a quick and should be easy challenge for you.
Let's say you run a company in the US and you have...let's say ten positions that need to be filled.
Given the population demographics of the US, let's say that ten of the twenty people who apply for your jobs are white cis straight men. The other ten of the twenty people who applied are a mix between pretty much every other demographic you can think of.

Since you promote hiring practices like in the quote above, I'd like for you to explain how the white cis straight men are NOT being discriminated against when you decide to push for more Latino's or more women or whatever.
This is a zero sum game. When one person gets a position, every other applicant loses. How is it NOT discrimination when you have guidelines, rules or (even worse) laws that state job positions must be held for applicants of a certain race, ethnicity, sex or gender?

Assuming this was the 50s and 60s and a tech firm? Easy. 10 women. Filing and typing is women's work, hence why women dominated software and hardware dev scenes with big employers like the U.S. Army. I mean if you're going to lean in and profess a 'conservative bias', I'm pretty sure that means the grand majority of tech jobs going to women.

Damore should be a real man and enlist.

It's kind of funny how conservatives seem so flexible with their rhetoric. WW2 and the first half of the Cold War? Men shouldn't be in computer programming. It will make them soft. Besides, women are more organized, with better language skills.

Then you had what were totally not racist lobby groups that pushed the narrative computer science requires a white, male, antisocial mindset ... precisely because a whole lot of men in computer programming didn't like women doing most of the programming work and actually organizing software development.

Women had a habit of also telling the engineers working on hardware how things should be networked and the like in the U.S. Army because they were the ones working with the machines all day. Plus the menfolk were worried about cooties...

Youy have 50s and 60s periodicals and fashion magazines advertising computer programming work for women. With a whole lot of authoritative male figures saying things like; "This is the place for aspiring women to find a longlasting career! To do their patriotic duty!"

...This doesn't really answer my challenge. In the US, the majority population is white, to say nothing of the numbers of cis, and/or straight and/or male. Something like 70% last I heard. So to have a hiring policy like "hire Latinos" or "hire women" would be discriminatory by default.
So let's run with what you replied with. This is literally the first time I've heard this claim, but to be honest, I'm not going to doubt it.
This is still the exact same BS I'm calling out here, with my original challenge. What you seem to forget is that everyone is an individual. So, I'm a white, cis, straight male. Now let's say I apply for a job at StrayArrow's company. I have now been told that because I have the wrong junk downstairs, because I have the wrong skin colour, because I want to sleep with women and not men, because I am comfortable with my sexuality...I immediately lose out on a job.
The scenario you painted just has different demographics being the majority, but the problem still remains.

Now to dismantle your post piece by piece

Assuming this was the 50s and 60s and a tech firm?

Never stipulated that. In fact, I think the implication in my challenge was that StrayArrow be running a company today in 2018.
I will never understand this obsession some people have with pointing out how sexist society was against women decades ago, before most of us were even born, almost as if society is still the same.

Easy. 10 women. Filing and typing is women's work, hence why women dominated software and hardware dev scenes with big employers like the U.S. Army. I mean if you're going to lean in and profess a 'conservative bias', I'm pretty sure that means the grand majority of tech jobs going to women.

So giving a challenge to describe how having hiring policies for specific demographics is not discriminatory...is somehow having a 'conservative bias'? If so, call me a conservative, because clearly the NON-conservatives have lost their minds and now think its okay to discriminate based on superficial factors like race and gender...ya know, the kind of stuff that was protested against and outlawed decades ago and for good reason.

Damore should be a real man and enlist.

However, since his talents lie elsewhere, maybe not? Maybe he should get involved...in the very field he works in?

It's kind of funny how conservatives seem so flexible with their rhetoric. WW2 and the first half of the Cold War? Men shouldn't be in computer programming. It will make them soft. Besides, women are more organized, with better language skills.

It's funny how progressives seem to be okay with discrimination based on race, gender and other superficial factors, when decades ago, they were the types fighting against it.

It also might surprise you that at least some conservative people you see today weren't around during WW2 or the first half of the Cold War. Some Conservatives I know were born in the late 70s or early 80s. So calling out conservatives for having a flexible rhetoric during a period of history doesn't really make any sense. Just like my jab at progressives. How about we both not do them?

Anyway...are you going to attempt my challenge? Attempt to describe how, running a company (today) and having hiring policies like "hire more {Insert Demographic Here}" is somehow not discriminatory?

Also, to actually address yourconcerns, creating a diverse workplace with multiple particular upbringings and life experience is preferable. Particular in service-heavy exploratory industries looking to cater to future markets and as many people as possible. Diverse people bring with them a diversity of opinions and life experience, which ultimately inform you how one should approach end-user issues and services.

Making a new reply since your post was edited. This doesn't answer my challenge.
It's still discriminatory. It still hurts the straight white male cis applicants. In the past, we had women locked out of jobs (here in Ireland, women had to give up their jobs once they got married due to the law, at one point in time). Now we've got attitudes here that would (if they become widespread) lock straight white male cis people out of jobs.
Your thoughts here also are discriminatory against the very demographics you seek to hire. You make it out like the applicant with black skin automatically has a different (and in your view, to be valued) upbringing, opinion and life experience than the applicant(s) with white skin. For all you know, the applicant with black skin comes from a wealthy background, has a PhD while none of the applicants with white skin came from wealthy backgrounds and among them not a single PhD is to be found (perhaps they all have 'only' masters).
Or perhaps every single one of the applicants came from wealthy backgrounds and has a PhD.

At the end of the day, you think you are doing something 'good' by hiring only people from certain demographics, but it's still discriminatory. It's still a zero sum game. Applicants who are not the demographic you want lose out, and that is precisely what was fought against decades ago.

RikuoAmero:

...This doesn't really answer my challenge. In the US, the majority population is white, to say nothing of the numbers of cis, and/or straight and/or male. Something like 70% last I heard. So to have a hiring policy like "hire Latinos" or "hire women" would be discriminatory by default.
So let's run with what you replied with. This is literally the first time I've heard this claim, but to be honest, I'm not going to doubt it.
This is still the exact same BS I'm calling out here, with my original challenge. What you seem to forget is that everyone is an individual. So, I'm a white, cis, straight male. Now let's say I apply for a job at StrayArrow's company. I have now been told that because I have the wrong junk downstairs, because I have the wrong skin colour, because I want to sleep with women and not men, because I am comfortable with my sexuality...I immediately lose out on a job.
The scenario you painted just has different demographics being the majority, but the problem still remains.

Frankly I'm snipping it here because the rest devolves into argumentation I wasn't even making. Also half of this evades the point. I'm saying it shouldn't matter, but I find it odd that the rhetoric people take to it is devoid in history. Google is an end-user services provider. Creating diversity in that workplace is key to understanding the geographical and sub-cultural aspects of their target market. Which is everyone.

I doubt meaningfully that someone is going to fire you for having the 'wrong junk' ... they're going to fire/not hire you because they assume you have less to offer that corporate vision of servicing the digital marketplace of everyone on this planet.

A good example of what happens when you fail to take in this approach is Youtube. Where you had Youtube automatically flag LGBTQ content, regardless of what it was about, as 'mature'. Which essentially could cut off the feed to a whole lot of LGBTQ youth that might rely on that sense of community knowledge or identification to find core specific answers.

And it was a massive PR disaster, and rightly so.

Also, fairly sure you aren't entitled to someone else's money or their time. At least not in economic liberalism.

Let's take a flipside of your argument. Let's say someone equally qualified as you went into a job, but a team thinks you don't have a unique living experience they might benefit from in trying to achieve a greater clientele base... Why should a company logically pass that up?

Let's say you and I had the same qualifications, butI have a background in military service. They're looking for a teamleader/whatever functionary low management position to improve work ethic, discipline and increase general time efficiency of a taskgroup of 15 people. Who are they going to go for? The person that can take orders, is used to being chewed out for not achieving a high degree of personal involvement and duty, and has a history of being exposed to a highly rigid, authoritarian environment of mutual service .... or someone without that life experience?

I know who I would pick. I'd just call it "workplace diversity" because it's PR friendly.

If you want to blame anything, blame global industry.

It's also why employers tend to have a fairly high opinion of people who work in charities that would expose them directly to potential clientele of all sorts of people. It tends to communicate a person has a worldlier knowledge than most other applicants. That is, at least in my experience, such people make better workers. Both in terms of internal workplace culture they might help provide and in terms of their social engagement that a company might capitalise on through their knowledge basis of working with people.

In essence, what you might call 'social justice' or whatever ... I call; "Finding good reps. PR bonus is just a freebie."

The most trans-accepting people I have ever personally com across is what I call 'big-vision entrepreneurs'. Precisely because there is no real 'big-vision entrepreneur' out there that doesn't value unique living experiences in order to capitalise on a diversity of potential marketing solutions to otherwise niche or unserviced groups of people.

Getting to call it 'workplace diversity' is merely a plus.

Addendum_Forthcoming:
I doubt meaningfully that someone is going to fire you for having the 'wrong junk' ... they're going to fire/not hire you because they assume you have less to offer that corporate vision of servicing the digital marketplace of everyone on this planet.

So, just to get this straight. You are saying in essence "No, they won't be doing that because they'll call it something else."

I sure wonder how you'd react if this reasoning were being given to keep out Trans people such as yourself. "No see, it's not that we are bigoted, Transpeople just so happen to all not fit the mold that we have for this Job here entirely independent of their being Trans. See, so we aren't bigots, we just aren't going to hire anyone that is Trans for this position out of sheer principle."

Fischgopf:

So, just to get this straight. You are saying in essence "No, they won't be doing that because they'll call it something else."

I sure wonder how you'd react if this reasoning were being given to keep out Trans people such as yourself. "No see, it's not that we are bigoted, Transpeople just so happen to all not fit the mold that we have for this Job here entirely independent of their being Trans. See, so we aren't bigots, we just aren't going to hire anyone that is Trans for this position out of sheer principle."

A: Not what I wrote, please read the rest of my post. Not just take umbrage at a single line of passage devoid of greater context of the entirety of the surrounding text.

B: Um ... hello. They do.

After all you just had a president recently try to fire all trans military personnel by Twitter feed. Regardless of the fact of capacity to do the work. Out trans military personnel/ex-service personnel by capita heavily outnumber their cisgender counterparts.

Just taking the hard data it seems trans peopleare uniquely gifted for military service (if using Damore's argumentation of essentialism as if explanation)...

Still a president decided he didn't want any of that.

It's still lawful grounds to terminate trans people's contracts not on the basis of breaking that contract, but solely on the basis of being trans in 31 U.S. states. NSW (the state I live in Australia) was the same way until the Sex Discrimination Act of 1984. I find it funny that the same people arguing against Damore's termination seemed to uniquely not give a shit about trans people being fired solely for being trans.

Ethical consistency is at the heart of any valid moral claim.

Addendum_Forthcoming:

Also, to actually address yourconcerns, creating a diverse workplace with multiple particular upbringings and life experience is preferable. Particular in service-heavy exploratory industries looking to cater to future markets and as many people as possible. Diverse people bring with them a diversity of opinions and life experience, which ultimately inform you how one should approach end-user issues and services.

Just to put a twist on this, if a company was operating in an area where they think it would be preferable to have an homogenous workforce (say they were operating in a racist part of the country and they knew hiring people of color would reduce the number of customer that would go to there store) would it be okay for them to only hire white people?

Meiam:

Just to put a twist on this, if a company was operating in an area where they think it would be preferable to have an homogenous workforce (say they were operating in a racist part of the country and they knew hiring people of color would reduce the number of customer that would go to there store) would it be okay for them to only hire white people?

Assuming they want growth potential, no. But then again, in a legitimately racist place that actively fights against basic pluralism and minimizing their focus down to only those white people inthat community ... who's going to complain?

*Cough* Rhodes Scholarships *cough*

Moreover, I don't like the sophistry people seem to be taking with my posts here. Damore wasn't fired because he was white, it's because he was an arsehole and decided to post something during a Department of Labor investigation into pay discrepancies for women (yet no oneseems to be arguing on their behalf, oddly enough).

Sucks I know, something about capitalism.

If it's any consolation, he might be replaced with some trans software developer who will statistically earn less money despite equivalency of qualifications and hours put in ... Just happy that they have steady work while being continually reminded by management just how much better it is at Google megacorporation than it would be working in some other firm where they could actively, and lawfully, be openly discriminated against and if they complain no court would ever bother to hear their case once terminated for speaking out.

Oh yeah Damore has it tough... and I can'timagine how arguing for the continual systemic abuse or distrust of basically everyone not white, male or cis might lead to a corporation saying; "Okay, then you won't mind being replaced by someone cheaper, will work longer, has the same qualifications, and is more likely to be thankful simply for the work, then?!"

Or to put it bluntly...

Addendum_Forthcoming:

A good example of what happens when you fail to take in this approach is Youtube. Where you had Youtube automatically flag LGBTQ content, regardless of what it was about, as 'mature'. Which essentially could cut off the feed to a whole lot of LGBTQ youth that might rely on that sense of community knowledge or identification to find core specific answers.

Which is exactly what happened yesterday with Chelsea Manning's campaign channel on YouTube.

Yet strangely, none of these free speech and ideological diversity warriors have yet found the time to say anything about it.

[quote="Addendum_Forthcoming" post="528.1034605.24190835"]

Frankly I'm snipping it here because the rest devolves into argumentation I wasn't even making.

Fair enough. My challenge was for someone else after all, however it does seem like you share their views.

Creating diversity in that workplace is key to understanding the geographical and sub-cultural aspects of their target market. Which is everyone.

Is this to say an employee who is white can never understand a market that is black? Say...not even by studying it?

they're going to fire/not hire you because they assume you have less to offer that corporate vision of servicing the digital marketplace of everyone on this planet.

Unless my junk or other superficial factors (like race or ethnicity or whatever) somehow do actually impact on the job...why restrict it? About the only job I can understand and be okay with restrictions like this would be acting jobs, such as if you want to cast a Japanese man, then you look for an Asian actor.
Otherwise, all you're doing is being massive racist cunts in assuming that the black applicant will give you 'the' black perspective you think you're so sorely missing, that somehow only a black person can provide.

A good example of what happens when you fail to take in this approach is Youtube. Where you had Youtube automatically flag LGBTQ content, regardless of what it was about, as 'mature'.

There's a ton of problems at Youtube, and their AI algorithms are the least of it.

Also, fairly sure you aren't entitled to someone else's money or their time. At least not in economic liberalism.

Decades ago, progressives made the argument that withholding jobs based on race or sex is and was unfair, and I agree with that. However, today, I see that people like yourself want to bring that discrimination back, with the only difference being exactly which demongraphics take the hit.

Let's say you and I had the same qualifications, butI have a background in military service. They're looking for a teamleader/whatever functionary low management position to improve work ethic, discipline and increase general time efficiency of a taskgroup of 15 people. Who are they going to go for? The person that can take orders, is used to being chewed out for not achieving a high degree of personal involvement and duty, and has a history of being exposed to a highly rigid, authoritarian environment of mutual service .... or someone without that life experience?

I'd hire the person with a background in military, but do you want to know the problem with your quick example?
It has NOTHING to do with superficial factors like race and sex that one has no control over. Your background in military actually tells me something concrete, if I make the assumptions about you that you just did, I actually have a fairly solid leg to stand on.
Whereas choosing between someone who is white? Black? Asian? Trans? Woman? None of that really tells me anything.

It's also why employers tend to have a fairly high opinion of people who work in charities that would expose them directly to potential clientele of all sorts of people.

Again, something that the applicants DO have control over. You had control over the decision to go into the military, and so did I when I chose not to.
What power do we have over what race or ethnicity we are?

That is, at least in my experience, such people make better workers. Both in terms of internal workplace culture they might help provide and in terms of their social engagement that a company might capitalise on through their knowledge basis of working with people.

And again, something solid you can actually point to, whereas again, merely being white or black or whatever doesn't really. Unless you want to argue that whites tend to live a similar life to one another, as compared to blacks who live a similar life.

The most trans-accepting people I have ever personally com across is what I call 'big-vision entrepreneurs'. Precisely because there is no real 'big-vision entrepreneur' out there that doesn't value unique living experiences in order to capitalise on a diversity of potential marketing solutions to otherwise niche or unserviced groups of people.

Is this to say that you think trans people all live similar lives, think similar things? Comes across as, what's the word for bias/prejudice against trans people, don't you think?

He did an interview with David Pakman and the guy seems to be kind of a dink.

RikuoAmero:

Fair enough. My challenge was for someone else after all, however it does seem like you share their views.

Such as? Conservatives are hypocrites?

Is this to say an employee who is white can never understand a market that is black? Say...not even by studying it?

If he did, Damore wouldn't be in trouble would he?

To put it bluntly, the stunt he pulled would have cost the company more than his individual labour wouldhave been worth long-term. If you have a problem with that, blame capitalism.

Unless my junk or other superficial factors (like race or ethnicity or whatever) somehow do actually impact on the job...why restrict it?

That's specifically why I said they wouldn't fire/not hire specifically on your junk. What they will do is consider what life experience you bring to the table is actually worth to them compared to other applicants for the job.

Once again, if you have a problem with that ...

There's a ton of problems at Youtube, and their AI algorithms are the least of it.

And this sort of attitude is precisely why Youtube got a PR hit for it. Things corporations like to avoid.

Maybe, just maybe, if they had a few people speak up and say; "I've been noticing something in our code that is really troubling. This won't look good for us automatically treating such content as 'mature' given it might help other LGBTQ youth..."

Decades ago, progressives made the argument that withholding jobs based on race or sex is and was unfair, and I agree with that. However, today, I see that people like yourself want to bring that discrimination back, with the only difference being exactly which demongraphics take the hit.

I'm a capitalist. If I don't think you have the chops to join my team, I won't hire you. If I think you're not as useful to me as someone else, I won't hire you. If I think you'll land my firm into hot water, I won't hire you. Sucks you think I should think differently ...

The whole reason why often big tech firms want to be LGBTQ friendly, and be proactive, is because of the idea of confronting discrimination ... while at the same time it's useful for them. It's useful for them to aim at a diverse workplace, because it gives them a diversity of opinion and life experience.

Life experience and work ethic seems to be something that people do not consider to be of merit to an employer. Well, sorry to have to tell you this sugar cube, it is.

And yeah, that is discrimination, the practice of hiring someone over someone else is the dictionary definition of discrimination... but no one said running your mouth is consequence free. After all, Google hired him and then let him go for doing just that.

Sorry, not feeling like dealing with ad hominem, strawmen case of manufactured indignation you've got going there ... it's nonsense. Especially when the best you can do is pick apart my argument and pretend like I'm saying anything else other than Google has reasons for wanted to increase their world exposure with their thinktanks ... and yeah, that means employing people with a cultural knowledge basis that you otherwise don't have.

Overwhelmingly liable to hire someone with a comprehensive knowledge of Chinese industrial law and workplace culture, how Chinese businesses operate on different tiers .... than just someone who can speak Mandarin and Cantonese ... if I was seeking to hire a representative to drum up clientele in Beijing. You might have a masters in economics and a trip major with your BA/BEc Economics, Mandarin, Cantonese, they might have a masters in economics but grew up in China, worked in China doing the same job, has a range of contacts in China that can prove lucrative in the future ... both of you are not equal in eligibility.

The only time I'm going to consider you eligible for that job is if you cut your wage back (substantially) to something I think I can reasonably profit off short term while you build up that knowledge basis and range of beneficial contacts.

As for that experienced person, they're going to be able to negotiate for twice or more the paycheque you ever will be able to argue for.

And once again ... if you have a problem with that ... too bad.

Because a trans person knows more about being trans, and overwhelmingly more likely to know their local community, than you ever will. Just like an Indian network engineer will know more than you about the nature of a possible tech expansion subsidiary into Mumbai. And that's the nature of the modern workplace. And if you don't like that, you'll be unhappy to hear people who make their money off the marketplace are downright pleased with this world of increasingly liquid investment boundaries to both labour and greater worldwide consumption.

RikuoAmero:
Is this to say an employee who is white can never understand a market that is black? Say...not even by studying it?

Yeah, go away and read up on Japan in Wikipedia and you'll know just what it's like to be Japanese, I'm sure.

More seriously, I guess you could pack that person off to live and breathe in the local culture for a few years to get a decent hang of it... but perhaps you could also save a lot of time (and, implicitly, money) by just hiring someone au fait with it in the first place.

More complex than that is I think just the idea of perspectives. We are all the sum of our experiences, and what we create is determined by our past experiences. Thus the narrower a range of experiences in a workplace, the narrower the output is likely to be, too.

renegade7:

Addendum_Forthcoming:

A good example of what happens when you fail to take in this approach is Youtube. Where you had Youtube automatically flag LGBTQ content, regardless of what it was about, as 'mature'. Which essentially could cut off the feed to a whole lot of LGBTQ youth that might rely on that sense of community knowledge or identification to find core specific answers.

Which is exactly what happened yesterday with Chelsea Manning's campaign channel on YouTube.

Yet strangely, none of these free speech and ideological diversity warriors have yet found the time to say anything about it.

Something something LGBTQ agenda something SocJus something oppression of white, cis people something.

As I said before, ethical consistency is at the heart of any moral claim. I find it funny all the people that probably quote Reagan verbatim as if a prayer to the Almighty are now then complaining when megacorporations that have sprung into being start to want to look as diverse as the markets they begin entering in a world without true borders.

Gee, I wonder why...?

Can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen. There's money to be made.

RikuoAmero:
Decades ago, progressives made the argument that withholding jobs based on race or sex is and was unfair, and I agree with that. However, today, I see that people like yourself want to bring that discrimination back, with the only difference being exactly which demongraphics take the hit.

Okay, but do you get why "progressives" made those arguments?

Like, when did that discrimination go away? Do you think that the fact that it (slowly) became less acceptable to overly and blatantly discriminate against people on the basis of race or sex actually meant that people weren't doing it any more?

Even if we assume that racism and sexism don't exist any more, even if we assume they did genuinely go away, do you think that would actually translate to everyone having a fair chance, to everyone having the same opportunities? We've had generations of racism and sexism now, race and sex have (whether you like it or not, and trust me, none of us like it) become the basis of distinct classes of people. You cannot treat people differently for generations and not expect them (or those around them) to absorb that they are different.

RikuoAmero:
Again, something that the applicants DO have control over. You had control over the decision to go into the military, and so did I when I chose not to.

Did you though?

I didn't choose not to go into the military. I have a disability which made the choice for me.

People join the military for many reasons. Some are good, some are terrible. Some people join out of a sense of patriotism, others join because their parents kicked them out and they have nowhere to go, or because they're gay and they think the military will "cure" them. When people make assumptions about people based on whether they've done military service, they aren't reacting to the fact that it was a choice, they're reacting to the perceived consequences. It doesn't matter how people enter the military, they will still go through the same things, they will still learn the same things, they will develop differently in that environment.

RikuoAmero:
Is this to say that you think trans people all live similar lives, think similar things? Comes across as, what's the word for bias/prejudice against trans people, don't you think?

We have trans support groups for a reason.

Like, I think the central problem you're having is that you actually think that being a woman, or being trans, or being a POC literally doesn't matter, that because you didn't "choose" it (and yeah, choice is a complex word here) it doesn't affect you and everyone is just totally chill about it because they know you can't help it.

Which is bollocks.

You may feel, subjectively, that race isn't important to you and genuinely doesn't say anything about you, and if that is genuinely sincere then good for you, but people certainly don't act like that is the case. Like, the other day a friend of mine (South Asian man) was at a supermarket checkout. Checkout assistant is chatting away with the white woman in front, despite the fact they clearly didn't know each other. My friend walks up to the checkout and says hi. Fucking silence. Next white woman in line, "hi!" "how was your weekend?" "isn't the weather terrible!" These people did not know each other, but because they were both white they felt comfortable enough with each other that they could speak casually. As soon as a non-white person shows up, that comfort disappears to the point that they can't even be friendly. It sounds trivial, but it is part of the everyday experience of not being white. Stuff like this happens so often that it becomes impossible to believe that it's a coincidence. It isn't a coincidence.

Now imagine thousands and thousands of those kinds of experiences added up over years. Imagine they don't just come from harmless exchanges at the supermarket checkouts but from your teachers, your bosses, your sexual partners. Imagine living in a world where your very presence makes people uncomfortable, or invites misunderstanding. That is why, more often than not, you can put people of colour in a room and even if they have nothing in common, even if they have completely different interests and backgrounds, they will be far, far more likely to be able to talk honestly about their experiences without misunderstanding. They're not the same, just like not all military veterans are the same, but they've lived in the same culture and they've likely experienced similar things.

Also, the word is transphobia.

Worgen:
He did an interview with David Pakman and the guy seems to be kind of a dink.

Yeah, they didn't exactly cut loose a beautiful mind with that one.

renegade7:

Addendum_Forthcoming:

A good example of what happens when you fail to take in this approach is Youtube. Where you had Youtube automatically flag LGBTQ content, regardless of what it was about, as 'mature'. Which essentially could cut off the feed to a whole lot of LGBTQ youth that might rely on that sense of community knowledge or identification to find core specific answers.

Which is exactly what happened yesterday with Chelsea Manning's campaign channel on YouTube.

Yet strangely, none of these free speech and ideological diversity warriors have yet found the time to say anything about it.

Did. Not. See that coming. They must not know about it yet.

All I'm seeing from your posts and the ones that follow is a desire to make racially charged decisions in the hiring of employees. You think you have a completely justified reason but look at yourselves! You're imagining (or probably are in real life, for all I know) seeing a group of applicants and when it comes to you choosing which ones to hire, their race, skin colour, sexuality, gender play big parts in it. "Oooh, I want to hire that one 'cause he's black! Oh! That person over there who's trans!"

That's specifically why I said they wouldn't fire/not hire specifically on your junk. What they will do is consider what life experience you bring to the table is actually worth to them compared to other applicants for the job.

These two statements stand in stark contrast to what you've been saying. You consider what 'life experience' I'll bring to the company based on my junk, or based on other factors like race.

I'm a capitalist. If I don't think you have the chops to join my team, I won't hire you.

I'm a capitalist too, but I don't make hiring decisions based on sexual junk or other unimportant factors. Look at what you're doing, for Pete's sake! You WANT to be able to make hiring decisions by looking at race or gender or sexuality, and thinking you're being all noble and such simply by saying 'life experience' or some other mantras.

If I think you're not as useful to me as someone else, I won't hire you.

Because, in your hiring decision, you bring race, gender, sexuality into consideration, which are illegal and were fought against.

If I think you'll land my firm into hot water, I won't hire you.

Do you think that hiring a person who is white will land your firm in hot water, because that person is white? No you're not the racist, no sir!

The whole reason why often big tech firms want to be LGBTQ friendly, and be proactive, is because of the idea of confronting discrimination

By being discriminatory. I'll say it again. This is a zero sum game. Do you even know what term means? When one applicant lands a job, all the other applicants lose. What I'm trying to pound through your thick skull is that what you are advocating for is racism/sexism. The BBC in the UK has, for some jobs, advertisements like "People from minorities only" and they are getting into some hot water over that blatant discrimination.
When going to apply for a job, why stack the deck against applicants over unimportant factors like race and sex? Why bar them from ever landing the job simply because of those factors?

It's useful for them to aim at a diverse workplace, because it gives them a diversity of opinion and life experience.

So hiring a person who is black somehow gets you 'the black perspective' 'the black opinion' 'the black life experience'? The only way this logic works is if you start out assuming that ALL BLACK PEOPLE have similar lives and thought patterns.
Last I checked, THEY DO NOT and thinking that they do is called racism.

Life experience and work ethic seems to be something that people do not consider to be of merit to an employer. Well, sorry to have to tell you this sugar cube, it is.

Is your measurement of an applicant's level of work ethic based on their race or gender or sexuality e.g. that gay applicant has a lesser/greater work ethic than the straight applicant because of their sexuality?

And yeah, that is discrimination, the practice of hiring someone over someone else is the dictionary definition of discrimination

Glad you see it then. Not only is it discrimination, it's ILLEGAL discrimination, it's immoral and unethical.

Overwhelmingly liable to hire someone with a comprehensive knowledge of Chinese industrial law and workplace culture, how Chinese businesses operate on different tiers .... than just someone who can speak Mandarin and Cantonese ... if I was seeking to hire a representative to drum up clientele in Beijing. You might have a masters in economics and a trip major with your BA/BEc Economics, Mandarin, Cantonese, they might have a masters in economics but grew up in China, worked in China doing the same job, has a range of contacts in China that can prove lucrative in the future ... both of you are not equal in eligibility.

In this example, for all you know the 'lesser' candidate is the one of Asian descent, while the person who has the contacts in Asia is white, but was raised in China. Your massive racism led you to conclude that the person who is of Asian descent is of better worth solely because of his race. You made massive assumptions about the applicants.
You keep coming up with scenarios where you get to choose between applicants and both times, your scenarios ultimately DO NOT HAVE ANYTHING to do with race.

The only time I'm going to consider you eligible for that job is if you cut your wage back (substantially) to something I think I can reasonably profit off short term while you build up that knowledge basis and range of beneficial contacts.

In other words, because I'm white and the other applicant is Asian, you're not going to hire me unless I agree to a pay cut off the bat, all on the assumption that since I'm white, I don't have all these useful contacts and abilities.
Jesus flippin' Christ man, READ WHAT IT IS YOU WRITE! You're a MASSIVE FUCKING RACIST!

As for that experienced person, they're going to be able to negotiate for twice or more the paycheque you ever will be able to argue for.

How do you know they have that experience, if all you're doing is discriminating based on race? If it honestly was as simple as who has the industry contacts and who doesn't, why would their race/gender/whatever ever come to mind in the first place?

Because a trans person knows more about being trans, and overwhelmingly more likely to know their local community, than you ever will.

How do you know you've got the 'right' trans person? The right trans person with the 'right' attitude? Unless, like I've come to learn over the years, there isn't just the one trans community, the one trans market, that you can cater to simply by hiring a few trans people based on their being trans.
How do you know that your applicants are even trans to begin with? Are you going to ask for it at the interview stage? On the job advertisements? "People who haven't transitioned need not apply"?

Just like an Indian network engineer will know more than you about the nature of a possible tech expansion subsidiary into Mumbai.

So in your job advertisement, are you going to put 'must be of Indian ethnic descent'? Or just 'has contacts/knowledge of local industry', which does not automatically exclude those of other races?

Agema:

RikuoAmero:
Is this to say an employee who is white can never understand a market that is black? Say...not even by studying it?

Yeah, go away and read up on Japan in Wikipedia and you'll know just what it's like to be Japanese, I'm sure.

More seriously, I guess you could pack that person off to live and breathe in the local culture for a few years to get a decent hang of it... but perhaps you could also save a lot of time (and, implicitly, money) by just hiring someone au fait with it in the first place.

More complex than that is I think just the idea of perspectives. We are all the sum of our experiences, and what we create is determined by our past experiences. Thus the narrower a range of experiences in a workplace, the narrower the output is likely to be, too.

Is that the only way you honestly think one can study another nation or culture? Simply by going onto Wikipedia?
Oh geez, I guess there's no such thing as oh I dunno...visiting that country? Talking to its inhabitants? Logging what one learns...

RikuoAmero:

Agema:

RikuoAmero:
Is this to say an employee who is white can never understand a market that is black? Say...not even by studying it?

Yeah, go away and read up on Japan in Wikipedia and you'll know just what it's like to be Japanese, I'm sure.

More seriously, I guess you could pack that person off to live and breathe in the local culture for a few years to get a decent hang of it... but perhaps you could also save a lot of time (and, implicitly, money) by just hiring someone au fait with it in the first place.

More complex than that is I think just the idea of perspectives. We are all the sum of our experiences, and what we create is determined by our past experiences. Thus the narrower a range of experiences in a workplace, the narrower the output is likely to be, too.

Is that the only way you honestly think one can study another nation or culture? Simply by going onto Wikipedia?
Oh geez, I guess there's no such thing as oh I dunno...visiting that country? Talking to its inhabitants? Logging what one learns...

It helps to read the second paragraph

RikuoAmero:

All I'm seeing from your posts and the ones that follow is a desire to make racially charged decisions in the hiring of employees. You think you have a completely justified reason but look at yourselves! You're imagining (or probably are in real life, for all I know) seeing a group of applicants and when it comes to you choosing which ones to hire, their race, skin colour, sexuality, gender play big parts in it. "Oooh, I want to hire that one 'cause he's black! Oh! That person over there who's trans!"

You've got it completely backwards. The simple truth is that in the West (Australia included) hiring practices have been slanted in favor of white men for a long time. There's dozens of studies around where the researchers have sent out job applications where they've only changed the name of the applicant, only to find that native male names get much more callbacks then equally qualified women or minorities. This still happens pretty much everywhere in the West.

The call for Affirmative Action in this case is because it is the best way to give these minorities a chance. If you have to employ a woman or a black man or a non-binary gendered person then you'll also see that they can be just as good workers as those white men that you usually hire. It is not a permanent solution, but to break the biases of employers it might just be necessary.

Gethsemani:

RikuoAmero:

All I'm seeing from your posts and the ones that follow is a desire to make racially charged decisions in the hiring of employees. You think you have a completely justified reason but look at yourselves! You're imagining (or probably are in real life, for all I know) seeing a group of applicants and when it comes to you choosing which ones to hire, their race, skin colour, sexuality, gender play big parts in it. "Oooh, I want to hire that one 'cause he's black! Oh! That person over there who's trans!"

You've got it completely backwards. The simple truth is that in the West (Australia included) hiring practices have been slanted in favor of white men for a long time. There's dozens of studies around where the researchers have sent out job applications where they've only changed the name of the applicant, only to find that native male names get much more callbacks then equally qualified women or minorities. This still happens pretty much everywhere in the West.

The call for Affirmative Action in this case is because it is the best way to give these minorities a chance. If you have to employ a woman or a black man or a non-binary gendered person then you'll also see that they can be just as good workers as those white men that you usually hire. It is not a permanent solution, but to break the biases of employers it might just be necessary.

You do understand that whether or not you think it is a viable solution to a problem has absolutely no bearing on whether it is bigoted or not, right? You are excluding people based on factors outside of their control. There is no out, that is bigotry, no matter how well-meaning you may be.

Fischgopf:
You do understand that whether or not you think it is a viable solution to a problem has absolutely no bearing on whether it is bigoted or not, right? You are excluding people based on factors outside of their control. There is no out, that is bigotry, no matter how well-meaning you may be.

You really like the word bigot today. But guess what? This is a problem where someone is going to get burned, no matter what. You and Rikuo just want it to be the already excluded and marginalized minorities, whereas me and Addendum argue that it is better to force employers to hire minorities for a while, so that they can establish themselves. Yes, that means that some potentially awesome white men will get shafted and won't get their dream job, but really, that's something that women and minorities is already used to because hiring practices are stacked in favor of white men.

When employers consistently pass over minorities that's bigoted too. Our solution is arguably the less bigoted one, in that it will contain only a time-limited affirmative action instead of allowing bigoted practices to remain. Because as long as white men can get jobs simply because they are white and men, even when better qualified candidates that are minorities or women apply, that's even more bigoted then what we propose. So tone down the rhetoric a notch, you ain't exactly without sin in this discussion.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here