> Who is "we"? > As a random citizen walking around the streets I shouldn't decide people are more or less likely to attack me or whatever based on appearance

> Who is "we"? > As a random citizen walking around the streets I shouldn't decide people are more or less likely to attack me or whatever based on appearance. Unless you have a deep knowledge of the neighborhood you are walking in, this fits the dictionary definition of prejudice. > If I'm a casting director for a movie, I should definitely take it in to consideration. If you haven't been paying attention, casting directors have been accused of discriminating against marginalized groups with casting decisions they made based on actors' appearances. > The author though doesn't address their recommendations to random citizens or casting directors though. Rather to the board that are hiring CEO's. > The article doesn't cover whether their appearance findings are causal or not in any way, or the importance of social justice over profit. Just straight "found a thing people seem to care about so they should immediately stop caring about it". I dunno if this is what the original poster meant by "not providing rationale" but I felt like the conclusion to the article sort of came out of nowhere. Well, the root of this thread is accusing the posted article of proselytizing a "political agenda" by using a study's data to surmise that racial minorities are being discriminated against because of how they look. The post you are replying to is using some type of rhetorical device to argue that it is generally ridiculous to discriminate against people based on their looks. Given this context, I doubt you will find the recommendations you are looking for here.