4 ms·

> Because jobs are just as social as intimate relationships, if not more so. For very small or family companies, maybe. In small communities, maybe, but small

by jokoon 6y ago

> Because jobs are just as social as intimate relationships, if not more so. For very small or family companies, maybe. In small communities, maybe, but small communities could also include people from any horizon. But in other cases, I disagree. Work and production is the blood of human civilization. Generally, the free market ideology says that if you're competent, it's the only relevant parameter. Social filters are arbitrary, unnecessary and backwards. > If someone is repulsive/annoying/toxic The nazis sent people who were not desired to death camps. Today, those same people are being excluded from society through social filters. You cannot have a healthy society if you keep segregating people like this, even if it's not race, but other traits like education, politics or behavior. You're advocating social darwinism through a detour.

the_jeremy 6y ago
If you don't exclude socially toxic people from your company, talented people who don't want to work with that type of person will leave. I know multiple people who have left or transferred because of difficult coworkers, and more who have left because of difficult managers. If one toxic person can't outperform all the talented people who will leave, it is in the company's best interests not to hire that person. Yes, you can technically call this social darwinism. If you are an irritating person that no one wants to be around, you will be socially excluded. I don't know of any movement that is going to champion your cause. There is a difference between preventing profiling / prejudice and avoiding manipulative, mean people.
- jokoon 6y ago
  > There is a difference between preventing profiling / prejudice and avoiding manipulative, mean people. I see your point, and yes, there's a difference. I still believe those people can be worked with, in some way or another. Being too selective at the workplace isn't a healthy way to run society. It's true that there's a difference between discriminating them and avoiding them, but the result and the intention are the same, in my view. Avoiding them is just politically correct and acceptable, but the truth is, it's the same process. The nazis lost the war, but they won the battle of social darwinism. > If you are an irritating person that no one wants to be around, you will be socially excluded. What's not really what I'm talking about. And that's a nature fallacy. The role of civilization has always been to fix the problems of nature. There are many ways to interpret some socials signs as being "irritating". They're often normative or arbitrary. > I don't know of any movement that is going to champion your cause. Socialism, would it be democratic, or any form of progressivism, attempts to aim at that cause. Europe is more progressive about this.

by jokoon 6y ago

the_jeremy 6y ago

If you don't exclude socially toxic people from your company, talented people who don't want to work with that type of person will leave. I know multiple people who have left or transferred because of difficult coworkers, and more who have left because of difficult managers. If one toxic person can't outperform all the talented people who will leave, it is in the company's best interests not to hire that person. Yes, you can technically call this social darwinism. If you are an irritating person that no one wants to be around, you will be socially excluded. I don't know of any movement that is going to champion your cause. There is a difference between preventing profiling / prejudice and avoiding manipulative, mean people.

jokoon 6y ago
> There is a difference between preventing profiling / prejudice and avoiding manipulative, mean people. I see your point, and yes, there's a difference. I still believe those people can be worked with, in some way or another. Being too selective at the workplace isn't a healthy way to run society. It's true that there's a difference between discriminating them and avoiding them, but the result and the intention are the same, in my view. Avoiding them is just politically correct and acceptable, but the truth is, it's the same process. The nazis lost the war, but they won the battle of social darwinism. > If you are an irritating person that no one wants to be around, you will be socially excluded. What's not really what I'm talking about. And that's a nature fallacy. The role of civilization has always been to fix the problems of nature. There are many ways to interpret some socials signs as being "irritating". They're often normative or arbitrary. > I don't know of any movement that is going to champion your cause. Socialism, would it be democratic, or any form of progressivism, attempts to aim at that cause. Europe is more progressive about this.