4 ms·
Your statement of "recruit" is exactly the sort of misconstruction I was hoping to avoid. threatofrain got it right. This is a problem we need to address, but
by existencebox 8y ago
Your statement of "recruit" is exactly the sort of misconstruction I was hoping to avoid.
threatofrain got it right. This is a problem we need to address, but the solutions I've seen thus far don't take unfortunate pathologies of human psychology into account, and when we don't do that, we get very surprised at the lack of results down the line. You're more than willing to try to live in a world where you say "Because we said X this is what's going to happen" but I find that to be far less proactive than trying to ask what actual responses are, as distasteful as they might be, and ways to address them.
My concern is that Rayiner's response, "we prohibit it because we made it a law" is still ignoring the key point. _it's too goddamn easy_ to discriminate and paint it as something else, too many reasons I could turn down ANY applicant, for me to just brush it off as "a law is sufficient." I believe that if this is a problem we _really_ want to fix, it's going to involve delving into some unpleasant trains of thought that aren't really "acceptable conversation" right now. I just worry that by ignoring it, the problem goes unaddressed, and we potentially foment resistance against it.
It feels naive to me to think that just because a law is "full stop necessary" in our moral frame of reference, to think that's sufficient to implement it effectively such that it generates the outcome you want in the long run.
- tptacek 8y agoI'm not interested.
- existencebox 8y agoI can't say anything in response but that I believe you're willfully misreading my posts as to construe me to be fighting against your end. I'm disappointed that we're not able to engage in better faith.
- giantsloth 8y agoUg you're such a logic lord. I bet you're a huge Sam Harris fan. You're simply kowtowing to the normative, a non ideological centrist operating inside the confines of reality as it is prescribed currently in the name of "being realistic". Grow a backbone and operate from the stance of what's moral and what's ideologically correct and work back from there. Obviously companies have all the power, and we need to fight a guerrilla style war against corporate hegemony, and we obviously have to take strategic consideration of these facts. But your idea that, "oooo the companies are going to fight back, and ultimately we're going to lose and be even further punished", is essentially arguing that we should do nothing and "not be so hasty", even if you have plausible deniability in "not exactly saying that" or "you're misrepresenting what I'm saying", but that is ultimately actually what you are suggesting, which makes what you're suggesting worthless, spineless and lacking any morality.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- leetcrew 8y ago> Obviously companies have all the power, and we need to fight a guerrilla style war against corporate hegemony, and we obviously have to take strategic consideration of these facts. virtually no one who posts on this website will be better off after the revolution. why dedicate your life to screwing yourself?
- alasdair_ 8y ago>Obviously companies have all the power Major corporations may have a lot. The random corner shop with two employees certainly doesn't.
- alfredallan1 8y agoSo the only victims of said guerilla style warfare will be the small shops. BiCo will get away with it, and get emboldened at their success. Might not pushing for a policy change be a better altrnative?
- eanzenberg 8y agoI'm super confused at what you recommend needs changing. The law against pregnancy discrimination exists, but because it's easy to circumvent you want something stricter? Or you want the gov't to subsidize it?
- indecisive_user 8y agoI believe what GP is saying is that; 1. Having a child incurs a cost to employers. 2. Regardless of legality, a business will try to minimize this cost. 3. Since it's illegal during an interview to even touch upon the subject of having kids and what a candidate's strategy may be to remain a productive employee while raising a child, employers may be even more discriminatory towards _everyone_ of a child-bearing age, in order to avoid discriminating against recent or soon-to-be parents. So, how can we alter the incentive structure for employers such that they're not tempted to discriminate. Should we shift the cost burden of child rearing to the govt? Or should we allow an employer to ask you about your plans for having children and how it will affect your employment
- mmt 8y agoIf I understand correctly, although the GP may have been suggesting government subsidy as a possible solution, the point wasn't that this is somehow "best" from broad or moral reasons. Rather, it addresses the specific issue of there being an economic incentive to discriminate, intrinsic to all businesses. Addressing that issue is compatible with concurrent solutions that outlaw the discrimination on moral grounds, or do so more strictly, or provide more aggressive enforcement.