7 ms·
There’s a reason why people make tons of money playing the stock market against companies that artificially force gender, or racial equality. Practices like th
by dreta 10y ago
There’s a reason why people make tons of money playing the stock market against companies that artificially force gender, or racial equality.
Practices like these are going to ruin your business the same way being sexist, or racist will. Either you hire the best person for the job, or you’ll be beaten by companies that do.
- thaumasiotes 10y agoPractices like firing all your men and replacing them with women will ruin your business "the same way" that being sexist will? Perhaps we need to examine the popular conception of what constitutes "sexism". This is right up there with the idea "more blacks = more diverse".
- to3m 10y agoMore black people.
- Klibarchu 10y agoGive it a rest. Trumpeting your PC nonsense won't help you. You understood what he meant. Communication successful, despite your protest!
- yolesaber 10y agoIt's not about successful communication, it's about how you present an entire group of people. Using the term "the blacks" or "Blacks" makes you sound like Archie Bunker, dude. Negative social signal.
- kolbe 10y agoMaybe the goal is to send a specific type of social signal so people like you can self-select themselves out of his life? The term isn't pejorative. So, chill out.
- st3v3r 10y agoIt kinda is.
- umanwizard 10y agoIs "Whites" pejorative? Is "Latinos" pejorative? Why is "<noun>" more pejorative than "<adjective> + people" ?
- gspetr 10y agoBecause we're in that cycle of history now. It's more pejorative for the same reason that "White Pride" has negative connotations in today's society while "Black Pride", "Asian Pride", "Gay Pride" have positive. Hate it or love it, it is what it is.
- st3v3r 10y agoI'm sorry, but only someone with absolutely no appreciation of historical context would ask such a silly question.
- umanwizard 10y agoCan you elaborate?
- mbostleman 10y agoActually it makes you hear Archie Bunker. How and why you make associations is up to you, not others.
- oh_sigh 10y agoMaybe you just have an unconscious bias against blacks, and therefore think that "blacks" sounds bad. If I said "Whites outnumber african americans in the US 5:1", would you be offended?
- gspetr 10y agoYet people spend time leaving comments like your grandparent, deliberately virtue signaling. I can bet dollars to doughnuts that if someone said "Whites" he would not have left a comment "More white people".
- to3m 10y ago1. It was 3 words... trust me, it didn't take long to write 2. The comment would be "More white people" - note the emphasis, it's kind of the key thing 3. I always heard virtue was a good thing. And here I am displaying it, you say. With you... in opposition? But, please, do what you think best.
- gspetr 10y agoThere at least 3 more comments using "whites" in this HN news item, why have you not corrected those? Why did only black people get special treatment?
- yolesaber 10y ago>Why did only black people get special treatment? White people weren't / aren't systemically discriminated against since before the founding of this country. come on son, log off lesswrong and learn some social context.
- to3m 10y agoYes, it's true - sometimes I do go a bit far with my outlandish suggestions :(
- jonknee 10y ago> There’s a reason why people make tons of money playing the stock market against companies that artificially force gender, or racial equality. Do you have any examples of this? Many, if not most, large firms actively seek diversity.
- gspetr 10y agoThe NFL. They started pushing political issues into sport and now they are surprised to see it backfired. http://www.wsj.com/articles/ratings-fumble-for-nfl-surprises-networks-advertisers-1475764108 http://www.wsj.com/articles/ratings-fumble-for-nfl-surprises...
- saiya-jin 10y agothat's a poor strategy these days, because 1) most companies do diversity in one way or other and 2) stocks can remain irrational/affected by gazillion of other things much longer than you can remain solvent
- wfo 10y agoThis sounds great in mythical theoretical free-market land. But businesses have been making bad business decisions to justify nepotism, racism, sexism, any other kind of ism you can imagine since the history of business and I haven't ever heard of competition actually punishing any of them for it. Markets just aren't that efficient. The job that two different people for the same job might do just isn't big enough (or, really, isn't predictable enough) to matter. For every position (yes, even CEO) there are hundreds of thousands of people who would do a roughly indistinguishable (at the time of hiring) job. It's just that culture and regulation change, so the people running businesses and the laws they have to follow change, so business practices improve.
- yuhong 10y agoI suggest a compromise to only include certain kinds of jobs like manual labor under employment anti-discrimination laws, where workers are actually commodities that are measureable and interchangeable.
- st3v3r 10y agoSo tell me, what exact dollar amount do you need to make where discrimination against you is ok?
- yuhong 10y agoIt would not be OK just because it is not illegal.
- st3v3r 10y agoYou're depriving people of a legal remedy, so you are de facto making it ok. So why do you want to make it ok to discriminate depending on the job title? Why are some people not deserving of the same protections as others?
- int_19h 10y agoI think it's more of a question of how much leverage do you have. If everyone is discriminating against you, like Jim Crow South, it doesn't really matter how much you make, because you can't go and find a different job easily. But if discrimination is limited, and the job market for this particular job and in this particular area favors employees, then it's a self-correcting problem - people will just walk. And if an effective boycott is possible and will take care of it, why go through the slower and more resource constrained court system?