3 ms·

Thanks, that was a good summary. If you're someone of a less represented class, and you tend to refer your buddies from the same gender/race, you're going to g

Thanks, that was a good summary. If you're someone of a less represented class, and you tend to refer your buddies from the same gender/race, you're going to get better bonuses than your overly represented peers. Does this constitute reverse discrimination?

cjcenizal 10y ago
No.
zo1 10y ago
>"Does this constitute reverse discrimination?" Depends on who you ask. Some won't acknowledge that such a thing as "reverse racism" even exists. If you ask me, any sort of policy based on race is racist. Whether it's reverse, corrective, affirmative, or otherwise, is irrelevant. And that is a liberating definition without ifs, buts and grey areas.
- rando832 10y ago
  "any sort of policy based on race is racist." So you cannot identify racism without being a racist. And is the no race policy then racist itself, by being about race? No, this does not work as a blanket statement. Btw, this kind of message of "don't talk about it" has a long history of being pushed by racist people. Perhaps we should focus on race less, but that is different.
67726e 10y ago
Discriminating based on race is racist. End of story. This would never make it past your legal department.
- guntars 10y ago
  You say it like it's a bad thing. http://lesswrong.com/lw/e95/the_noncentral_fallacy_the_worst_argument_in_the/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/e95/the_noncentral_fallacy_the_worst...
  - hawkice 10y ago
    Legal risk sounds like a bad thing. That being said, it doesn't put discrimination in the hiring process per se, only the referral process, which may not be protected by federal law. I am not a lawyer.
- cryptarch 10y ago
  Unless you subscribe to recent attempt at redefining the word to "racism|sexism = prejudice + power", which is coming from the... I'm not sure, I guess the identity politics/radfem corner. Whenever I try to really understand that culture or their opponents (MRA, r/KotakuInAcion etc.) I just end up feeling like both their sides are completely worthless endless rabbit holes and time sinks. Perhaps I just need a minor in Gender Studies to understand. I wish both sides could just cease to exist. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prejudice_plus_power https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prejudice_plus_power [1] http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Prejudice_plus_power http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Prejudice_plus_power
- DanBC 10y ago
  Depends where you are. It's possibly legal under English law. If you have two candidates who are equally suitable you're allowed to employ the one with a protected characteristic because of that protected characteristic.
- home_boi 10y ago
  it's already being done at many big companies. I believe that FB is one of the biggest offenders

cjcenizal 10y ago

No.

zo1 10y ago

>"Does this constitute reverse discrimination?" Depends on who you ask. Some won't acknowledge that such a thing as "reverse racism" even exists. If you ask me, any sort of policy based on race is racist. Whether it's reverse, corrective, affirmative, or otherwise, is irrelevant. And that is a liberating definition without ifs, buts and grey areas.

rando832 10y ago
"any sort of policy based on race is racist." So you cannot identify racism without being a racist. And is the no race policy then racist itself, by being about race? No, this does not work as a blanket statement. Btw, this kind of message of "don't talk about it" has a long history of being pushed by racist people. Perhaps we should focus on race less, but that is different.

67726e 10y ago

Discriminating based on race is racist. End of story. This would never make it past your legal department.

guntars 10y ago
You say it like it's a bad thing. http://lesswrong.com/lw/e95/the_noncentral_fallacy_the_worst_argument_in_the/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/e95/the_noncentral_fallacy_the_worst...
- hawkice 10y ago
  Legal risk sounds like a bad thing. That being said, it doesn't put discrimination in the hiring process per se, only the referral process, which may not be protected by federal law. I am not a lawyer.
cryptarch 10y ago
Unless you subscribe to recent attempt at redefining the word to "racism|sexism = prejudice + power", which is coming from the... I'm not sure, I guess the identity politics/radfem corner. Whenever I try to really understand that culture or their opponents (MRA, r/KotakuInAcion etc.) I just end up feeling like both their sides are completely worthless endless rabbit holes and time sinks. Perhaps I just need a minor in Gender Studies to understand. I wish both sides could just cease to exist. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prejudice_plus_power https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prejudice_plus_power [1] http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Prejudice_plus_power http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Prejudice_plus_power
DanBC 10y ago
Depends where you are. It's possibly legal under English law. If you have two candidates who are equally suitable you're allowed to employ the one with a protected characteristic because of that protected characteristic.
home_boi 10y ago
it's already being done at many big companies. I believe that FB is one of the biggest offenders