4 ms·

"Positive discrimination" is racism. Or sexism. Or whatever group-ism it is being used to disadvantage at the favour of some other group. The idea that whites

"Positive discrimination" is racism. Or sexism. Or whatever group-ism it is being used to disadvantage at the favour of some other group. The idea that whites are privileged is the opposite of reality in many cases now. Non-whites have "entitlements" which whites do not, which favour them in things like hiring. The concept itself, that someone of a certain skin color should be given preference over somebody of another skin color, is racist whatever way you wish to spin it. If you're favoring one group because you dislike the other group, you're the kind of shitty person you mentioned. If you're favoring them because you pity them, and that pity is derived from your subconscious association with a group that you think aught to be pitied because of a certain stereotype (eg, skin color), then you might think that you're a good person for having such feelings - but you're really just a closet racist. I get that it has not always been the case that everyone had equality of opportunity, and that certain groups were disadvantaged in the past. We can't change the past, but we can create the future. Instead of repeating the past, by reversing the group roles, I'm in favour of eliminating all forms of discrimination. I'm astounded by your lack of self-awareness of your racism and sexism. Apparently all white men are privileged, or at least, some of them are, so we can use this to make judgements about all white men. Great. You're not a hypocrite in the slightest.

octernion 8y ago
"positive discrimination" is not racism, sorry. unfortunately, the only way to change the future is to enable the groups that were historically disenfranchised, which we can enable through diversity quotas/affirmative action/etc. it doesn't just magically happen through everyone agreeing that "racism is over." i know that you feel uncomfortable because you do not feel that you were responsible with the current situation, but you continue the status quo (racist society) by not structurally enabling disenfranchised groups. we are no danger of positive discrimination causing structural problems for white people (especially men), besides them feeling (apparently) very uncomfortable with confronting systematic racism and white privilege. thankfully companies are increasingly seeing this and i'm hesitantly positive towards the future (assuming we continue to hold companies accountable).
- sparkie 8y ago
  What do you define as "enabling"? As far as I'm concerned, they have been enabled for years, through legislature which prevents discrimination in hiring. I'm in favor of due process, and if somebody had a real grievance with my hiring decision, then I will see them in court, where I can present my case. Social justice is actively harmful to due process, because it makes social media the jury and throws away any chance of the failed candidate getting a fair trial. The collateral damage is the reputation of the company, who may or may not have done anything wrong - we may never know because the process was not followed. It's a lose-lose process, no winners, just some extra brownie points for the SJWs. This is why it's more of a religious crusade than anything else. I also think social justice is actively harmful for the groups it is intending to "enable", because it makes interactions with members of said group become riskier than ever before. People will just avoid the interactions as much as they possibly can to avoid the risk. See #MeToo and recent statements from WallSt as an example.
  - octernion 8y ago
    i'm not going to keep responding because it's clear you haven't understood any of the above comments around the structural and generational concerns. there is plentiful literature to better educate yourself and be less ignorant about this.
    - sparkie 8y ago
      I understand the concerns, but your "solutions" are deeply flawed and faith based. Your idea that whites won't be discriminated is a joke, because it's already reality. Whites are actively discriminated against. This is what "positive discrimination" is. It means that if you have 9 white candidates and 1 non-white candate apply for 2 jobs, and you have a diversity quota to fill, then the non-white candidate has a 100% chance, and the white candidates have an 11% chance. Remove the racism quota and everyone has a 20% chance, as it should be. The systems in placed are already abused by assholes who try to game it. I've lost count of the number of threats of lawsuits I've had from "unprivileged" people who can barely string together an English sentence, because I refuse to hire or interview them. There are people who will play the system if it favors them. These are a minority of the minorities, but they're significant in that they waste resources (and actively harm people who are legitimately discriminated against). Anyone can have an opinion when they have no skin in the game. Spend a few years recruiting and all of the literature in the world is worth garbage - it's written mostly be people who have never interviewed, probably never had an interview or even a proper job in their lives because they've been sheltered by the academy.

octernion 8y ago

"positive discrimination" is not racism, sorry. unfortunately, the only way to change the future is to enable the groups that were historically disenfranchised, which we can enable through diversity quotas/affirmative action/etc. it doesn't just magically happen through everyone agreeing that "racism is over." i know that you feel uncomfortable because you do not feel that you were responsible with the current situation, but you continue the status quo (racist society) by not structurally enabling disenfranchised groups. we are no danger of positive discrimination causing structural problems for white people (especially men), besides them feeling (apparently) very uncomfortable with confronting systematic racism and white privilege. thankfully companies are increasingly seeing this and i'm hesitantly positive towards the future (assuming we continue to hold companies accountable).

sparkie 8y ago
What do you define as "enabling"? As far as I'm concerned, they have been enabled for years, through legislature which prevents discrimination in hiring. I'm in favor of due process, and if somebody had a real grievance with my hiring decision, then I will see them in court, where I can present my case. Social justice is actively harmful to due process, because it makes social media the jury and throws away any chance of the failed candidate getting a fair trial. The collateral damage is the reputation of the company, who may or may not have done anything wrong - we may never know because the process was not followed. It's a lose-lose process, no winners, just some extra brownie points for the SJWs. This is why it's more of a religious crusade than anything else. I also think social justice is actively harmful for the groups it is intending to "enable", because it makes interactions with members of said group become riskier than ever before. People will just avoid the interactions as much as they possibly can to avoid the risk. See #MeToo and recent statements from WallSt as an example.
- octernion 8y ago
  i'm not going to keep responding because it's clear you haven't understood any of the above comments around the structural and generational concerns. there is plentiful literature to better educate yourself and be less ignorant about this.
  - sparkie 8y ago
    I understand the concerns, but your "solutions" are deeply flawed and faith based. Your idea that whites won't be discriminated is a joke, because it's already reality. Whites are actively discriminated against. This is what "positive discrimination" is. It means that if you have 9 white candidates and 1 non-white candate apply for 2 jobs, and you have a diversity quota to fill, then the non-white candidate has a 100% chance, and the white candidates have an 11% chance. Remove the racism quota and everyone has a 20% chance, as it should be. The systems in placed are already abused by assholes who try to game it. I've lost count of the number of threats of lawsuits I've had from "unprivileged" people who can barely string together an English sentence, because I refuse to hire or interview them. There are people who will play the system if it favors them. These are a minority of the minorities, but they're significant in that they waste resources (and actively harm people who are legitimately discriminated against). Anyone can have an opinion when they have no skin in the game. Spend a few years recruiting and all of the literature in the world is worth garbage - it's written mostly be people who have never interviewed, probably never had an interview or even a proper job in their lives because they've been sheltered by the academy.