3 ms·

"If you are looking for a job, and they tell you that you needn't apply because of your race/gender/..., but there are thousands more equivalent jobs in your ma

by st3v3r 10y ago

"If you are looking for a job, and they tell you that you needn't apply because of your race/gender/..., but there are thousands more equivalent jobs in your market that don't have such restrictions, there's no substantial harm to you" You have lost all credibility with that statement.

int_19h 10y ago
If it's not meant as a rhetorical comment, I'm afraid you'll need to explain it in a bit more detail, pointing out where exactly my reasoning is wrong. In particular, if you object to the statement that there's no substantial harm in being rejected from a job for discriminatory reasons, when the job market has thousands more equivalent (i.e. same pay, same career opportunities etc) jobs that are yours for the taking instead, you'll have to explain what constitutes said harm.
- st3v3r 10y ago
  The action is either harm or it's not. If I have a fence, and you run your car through it, the harm is not judged on whether I can replace the fence quickly. Further, your statement goes a step further and seeks to normalize and legitimize discrimination. You're saying that it's perfectly ok for this to happen, borderline encouraging it by removing any and all penalties for the action. The onus is not on me to show harm. The onus is on you to demonstrate why your statement should be taken seriously, and why there is no harm. And simply being able to find another job before you starve to death is NOT evidence that there is no harm.
  - int_19h 10y ago
    Sure, but refusing to hire you is not an action, it's the lack of one. Hiring you would be an action. That's exactly the problem with such laws - you are not prohibiting people from doing something, you're forcing them to do something. That needs to meet a much higher and/or nuanced bar of social need to override the inherent infringement of individual liberty. Discrimination is already legal in many contexts - private individuals can discriminate in most countries, private membershib clubs can discriminate in many places etc. Furthermore, even in areas where discrimination is illegal (e.g. public accommodation), there's generally a very limited list of traits on which it is illegal - race, religion, gender etc. Anything not on that list is not illegal to discriminate on - for example, it is perfectly legal to refuse to serve someone on the basis of their political view in US. Do you believe that all forms of discrimination should be illegal, including private and personal? Do you realize the implications of that? And yes, the onus is, in fact, on you to show harm. That's how legal system works in most cases. I don't see why it should work any differently here. Do you really want to people to be able to just claim discrimination on the basis of any random thing, and demand that the other party prove the lack of discrimination?
  - int_19h 10y ago
    Also, you still haven't explained what, exactly, the harm is in being refused a job when other equivalent jobs are available. Is it material? If so, what exactly is the nature of the loss? Or are you claiming some sort of psychological harm?
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]

by st3v3r 10y ago

int_19h 10y ago

If it's not meant as a rhetorical comment, I'm afraid you'll need to explain it in a bit more detail, pointing out where exactly my reasoning is wrong. In particular, if you object to the statement that there's no substantial harm in being rejected from a job for discriminatory reasons, when the job market has thousands more equivalent (i.e. same pay, same career opportunities etc) jobs that are yours for the taking instead, you'll have to explain what constitutes said harm.

st3v3r 10y ago
The action is either harm or it's not. If I have a fence, and you run your car through it, the harm is not judged on whether I can replace the fence quickly. Further, your statement goes a step further and seeks to normalize and legitimize discrimination. You're saying that it's perfectly ok for this to happen, borderline encouraging it by removing any and all penalties for the action. The onus is not on me to show harm. The onus is on you to demonstrate why your statement should be taken seriously, and why there is no harm. And simply being able to find another job before you starve to death is NOT evidence that there is no harm.
- int_19h 10y ago
  Sure, but refusing to hire you is not an action, it's the lack of one. Hiring you would be an action. That's exactly the problem with such laws - you are not prohibiting people from doing something, you're forcing them to do something. That needs to meet a much higher and/or nuanced bar of social need to override the inherent infringement of individual liberty. Discrimination is already legal in many contexts - private individuals can discriminate in most countries, private membershib clubs can discriminate in many places etc. Furthermore, even in areas where discrimination is illegal (e.g. public accommodation), there's generally a very limited list of traits on which it is illegal - race, religion, gender etc. Anything not on that list is not illegal to discriminate on - for example, it is perfectly legal to refuse to serve someone on the basis of their political view in US. Do you believe that all forms of discrimination should be illegal, including private and personal? Do you realize the implications of that? And yes, the onus is, in fact, on you to show harm. That's how legal system works in most cases. I don't see why it should work any differently here. Do you really want to people to be able to just claim discrimination on the basis of any random thing, and demand that the other party prove the lack of discrimination?
- int_19h 10y ago
  Also, you still haven't explained what, exactly, the harm is in being refused a job when other equivalent jobs are available. Is it material? If so, what exactly is the nature of the loss? Or are you claiming some sort of psychological harm?
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]