5 ms·
The implication that race or gender is involved in the firings is pretty silly.
by lawnchair_larry 6y ago
The implication that race or gender is involved in the firings is pretty silly.
- goldenkey 6y agoYeah, money is always the bottom denominator. A thief doesn't care if you're black or white, as long as you got the green.
- astroalex 6y agoGenuine question: do you believe it's purely coincidence, then? I'm open to the possibility, but it seems kind of unlikely.
- missedthecue 6y agoWhat reason do they have to selectively fire based on gender?
- free_rms 6y agoIt's very obviously about class and material condition. We live in a society, and that society has correlations of these things with race and gender.. but from Amazon's perspective, they hire the people who don't have a better option for that job, and the demographics are effectively a coincidence as far as they're concerned.
- throwaway55554 6y agoWhy?
- whoisjuan 6y ago“In a world that operates largely at random, coincidences are to be expected, but any one of them must always be mistrusted.” ― Rex Stout
- Pfhreak 6y agoIf the firings disproportionately or systemically impact races or genders, the firings can be racist/sexist -- even if race or gender is not involved in the firing decision. Racism and discrimination are related but separate concepts.
- Udik 6y ago> the firings can be racist/sexist -- even if race or gender is not involved in the firing decision Uh? Can you elaborate?
- itsdrewmiller 6y agoThis link might help explain things: https://www.scarsdaleschools.k12.ny.us/cms/lib5/NY01001205/Centricity/Domain/379/De%20Facto%20vs.%20De%20Jure%20Discrimination.pdf https://www.scarsdaleschools.k12.ny.us/cms/lib5/NY01001205/C... I think "racist/sexist" may be muddying the waters a little bit since they are not narrowly defined and probably have more implication of motive, but de facto discrimination is a well recognized concept and it is illegal.
- Udik 6y ago"De facto" as opposed to "de jure" means something happening without being mandated by law. This doesn't seem to have much to do with the GP's statement: >> If the firings disproportionately or systemically impact races or genders, the firings can be racist/sexist -- even if race or gender is not involved in the firing decision. If race or gender are not involved in the firing decisions, it means that the decision is based on other factors. If some male workers declare an illegal strike because they think they're discriminated, and they are fired as a consequence, this has nothing to do with their gender, but with the illegal strike. If people imprisoned for religious terrorism are all religious, this doesn't mean religious people are discriminated, but that terrorists are imprisoned. Etc.
- Pfhreak 6y ago> If race or gender are not involved in the firing decisions, it means that the decision is based on other factors. Or it means that race/gender were involved due to implicit biases or systems beyond what the firing party believed they were evaluating. One can unintentionally have discriminatory behavior. It might not have been a factor in the discussions of the firings, but it still could be a root cause.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- mthoms 6y agoIf the implication was coming from an outsider, then maybe. But, the implication is coming from someone with an intimate understanding of the company culture and the people who run it.
- AtlasLion 6y agoIs it though? Just look at the justice system, for the safe infraction, people of colour get thougher sentences. The same could apply here.