3 ms·

Do you think that person (who fires people arbitrarily) doesn't exist for ugly people, but does for sexism/racism? Oe do you think this is a strawman argument

Do you think that person (who fires people arbitrarily) doesn't exist for ugly people, but does for sexism/racism? Oe do you think this is a strawman argument for all 3 (ugly/sex/race)? If it's the latter, then we probably are too far apart to continue the conversation. If it's the former, then I'm really curious to know more about why.

bko 5y ago
"Ugly" is a bit of a broad term. What does it mean? It's basically someone who is unpleasant to be around or look at. So if the person is unkempt, has physical ailments from substance abuse, doesn't practice regular grooming, or is obese, he or she would be considered "ugly". But is that an innate characteristic or manifestations of personal decisions? And where do you draw the line? Do you have a right to show up to work without showering (something Steve Jobs did at Atari and they dealt with it without laws!) It's a lot simpler with gender and race and if someone says I don't hire race X, that's pretty clear that its morally wrong and reprehensible. But if someone expects employees to portray a certain image, then that's different. But again, in a well functioning market, you don't have this luxury. Every company I've worked for, especially the low paying ones, went to great trouble to hire qualified employees. I can't imagine one of my employers ever denying someone a position because they think they'll find someone better looking.
- edmundsauto 5y ago
  There are words for these other things, so while "ugly" is a broad term, there are significant genetic components. Facial symmetry, body shape, skin color and tone. I have been involved in hiring discussions at many companies. At the small/medium sized ones, especially startups before the #metoo world, the execs liked to explicitly talk about a persons attractiveness in the hiring stage. It's less of a "don't hire this person for being ugly" and more of a "hire this person because they are attractive".

bko 5y ago

"Ugly" is a bit of a broad term. What does it mean? It's basically someone who is unpleasant to be around or look at. So if the person is unkempt, has physical ailments from substance abuse, doesn't practice regular grooming, or is obese, he or she would be considered "ugly". But is that an innate characteristic or manifestations of personal decisions? And where do you draw the line? Do you have a right to show up to work without showering (something Steve Jobs did at Atari and they dealt with it without laws!) It's a lot simpler with gender and race and if someone says I don't hire race X, that's pretty clear that its morally wrong and reprehensible. But if someone expects employees to portray a certain image, then that's different. But again, in a well functioning market, you don't have this luxury. Every company I've worked for, especially the low paying ones, went to great trouble to hire qualified employees. I can't imagine one of my employers ever denying someone a position because they think they'll find someone better looking.

edmundsauto 5y ago
There are words for these other things, so while "ugly" is a broad term, there are significant genetic components. Facial symmetry, body shape, skin color and tone. I have been involved in hiring discussions at many companies. At the small/medium sized ones, especially startups before the #metoo world, the execs liked to explicitly talk about a persons attractiveness in the hiring stage. It's less of a "don't hire this person for being ugly" and more of a "hire this person because they are attractive".