3 ms·
> So you're happy to discriminate against "white, middle class, men" then? Erm, no. My points, to avoid confusion: 1) contextual recruitment means you choose
by wastedhours 8y ago
> So you're happy to discriminate against "white, middle class, men" then?
Erm, no.
My points, to avoid confusion:
1) contextual recruitment means you choose the candidate with better potential for success. That's not any more discriminatory than putting a mental weight to a particular university someone studied at, and is the basis for pretty much every "best practice" recruitment process out there.
2) we need white, middle class men, + a load more other people as well. How is that not clear?
- pbhjpbhj 8y ago>contextual recruitment means you choose the candidate with better potential for success // Now you're bullshitting, you've just decided that all people who aren't middle-class white males are inferior, and based it solely on those characteristics. It seems like, in common with many that you hold to an idea of "positive discrimination", that's what your comment attests to at least. That's still discrimination, if you select on race/sex when it's not relevant then that's racism/sexism. Many people, the majority it seems, are fine with that. We don't need white middle class men at all, we need people [who can perform job roles]. Those people have a sex and colour, for sure, but that's (mostly) entirely irrelevant to their worth/suitability.