9 ms·

Road the hell is paved with good intentions. As much as I support equality and diversity, I'm even more strongly opposed government over-reach. The state shoul

by kjksf 5y ago

Road the hell is paved with good intentions. As much as I support equality and diversity, I'm even more strongly opposed government over-reach. The state shouldn't have a say in who gets a job at a private (non owned by state) company. As the article state, I hope this will get over-turned by the courts. This would set a bad precedent. If the state can dictate the kind of person gets a highly coveted job, what else can state dictate?

LeoPanthera 5y ago
This is about equity, not equality, and it's increasingly clear that a lot of people don't know the difference.
- GenerocUsername 5y ago
  Literally impossible to provide equitable outcomes to all possible segmentations of humans since those segments can be gerrymandered as easily as our geographic definitions used in the past. For instance, the most hyper-modern views of gender vs sex.
- ctdonath 5y ago
  Punishing someone based on “wrong” color/gender is evil.
  - ramesh31 5y ago
    Yes it is. And that's what we've done as a society for hundreds of years in the US. That we are now attempting to fix that will obviously be seen as an attack, because losing privilege is never easy.
    - ctdonath 5y ago
      “Privilege” is getting a job over a better candidate just because of inclusion in an artificial social construct.
      - ramesh31 5y ago
        >“Privilege” is getting a job over a better candidate just because of inclusion in an artificial social construct. Yes, exactly. Which is what has happened to women and minorities in this country forever.
- kjksf 5y ago
  Educate us? What do stocks have to do with it?
- haswell 5y ago
  Will you expand on how you see this distinction and how the distinction matters here? I understand the difference between equity and equality, but I don’t know what exactly you mean to imply here, and don’t want to draw any hasty conclusions about this comment.
- captainredbeard 5y ago
  The difference is clear and equity is unwanted by many people. It is anathema to those who desire freedom.
- TimTheTinker 5y ago
  Equity by its normal dictionary definition is great. But as the critical race theory worldview defines it, "equity" involves unequal treatment of people and discrimination (decisions made about how to treat people) on the basis of race. The idea is to retroactively create equal outcomes, not equal opportunities in the present. The problem is: a society can't create either equal outcomes or equal opportunities by intentionally discriminating one way or another, since doing so (1) fails to solve problems at their source and (2) creates new problems. In other words, love is the answer, not hate.
  - nsonha 5y ago
    > The problem is: a society can't create equal outcomes or equal opportunities by... Society can't create equal outcomes, period. People don't want the same things in life. Some want to be of service to other people, some want to be rich so they can buy a yacht. You can't just give yachts to everyone and call that equality. We do need safety net and equal opportunities Personally I think the whole idea of equality is stupid because it just makes people compare their life to others instead of thinking about what they want in life. But again if we have to have equality then it's equal opportunities and more importantly, safety net.
kenjackson 5y ago
Federal government already says you can't discriminate. They aren't saying, "you have to hire this person". They're saying you can't hire exclusively this type of person that currently dominates the top of society. Given that these boardrooms don't diversify themselves, what is the actual problem with it?
- radisb 5y ago
  The problem is that someone must be fired because he is a white male
  - kenjackson 5y ago
    It doesn't mean that at all. You can hire a black person and not fire anyone. They may choose to fire someone, but given these are board positions, and it literally takes just one person -- they can easily accommodate simply hiring someone.
    - radisb 5y ago
      Oh, so if, hypothetically, someone did have to be fired to be replaced by a non-white-male, would you be against it?
      - kenjackson 5y ago
        If that was the literal rule (you had to fire a white male) then yes, I would be against it. The intent isn't to be spiteful against white males. It's to give space at the table for other groups that are intentionally excluded due to their race.
  - BrianOnHN 5y ago
    Edit: deleted because original comment has changed.
    - radisb 5y ago
aeturnum 5y ago
The road to hell is good paved with good intentions, but I don't really see hell over the horizon on this one. Demographics are funny because they're really easy to satisfy. People come from many backgrounds. This is just one of many restrictions on individual choice we make for the sake of social cohesion. All of us might choose to work for below minimum wage, but there are real risks there, so we ban it. All of understand how one might end up with a board of all white men, but there are risks there as well, so now it's banned. It does not seem like a meaningful restriction for any serious enterprise.
gentoo 5y ago
I'm not sure whether I agree with the CA policy. But this argument against it is extremely unconvincing. It's almost word-for-word what segregationists argued against the 1964 Civil Rights Act. e.g. https://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2014/06/barry-goldwater-declares-that-the-1964-civil-rights-act-is-a-dire-threat-to-the-liberties-of-african-americans-and-will-creat.html https://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2014/06/barry-goldwater-decla... "The two portion so this bill to which I have constantly and consistently voiced objections, and which are of such overriding significance that they are determinative of my vote on the entire measure, are those which would embark the Federal Government on a regulatory course of action in the area of so-called "public accommodations" and in the area of employment--to be precise, Titles II and VII of the bill. I find no constitutional basis for the exercise of Federal regulatory authority in either of these areas; and I believe the attempted usurpation of such power to be a grave threat to the very essence of our basic system of government..."
- hn_throwaway_99 5y ago
  But this CA law is basically the exact opposite of the 1964 Civil Rights act, which says you can not discriminate based on gender or race in areas like housing and hiring. This law is saying that you must take into account race and gender in your hiring decisions.
  - gentoo 5y ago
    I was responding to > The state shouldn't have a say in who gets a job at a private (non owned by state) company. that's exactly what the Civil Rights Act does. The state has been telling you how you are allowed to make hiring decisions for a while now. edit: And here's Strom Thurmond on the Civil Rights Act: "This bill would take away the rights of individuals and give to government the power to decide who is to be hired, fired and promoted in private businesses." https://teachingamericanhistory.org/document/debate-on-the-civil-rights-act/ https://teachingamericanhistory.org/document/debate-on-the-c...
8ytecoder 5y ago
It’s not just CA though. Nasdaq is doing it. US chamber of commerce has thrown its support as well.
- threatofrain 5y ago
  NASDAQ rule in question, with SEC approval. https://listingcenter.nasdaq.com/assets/Board%20Diversity%20Disclosure%20Five%20Things.pdf https://listingcenter.nasdaq.com/assets/Board%20Diversity%20...
maxerickson 5y ago
The requirement for corporations to have a board of directors at all is imposed by the state. You have to argue that the state shouldn't be able to impose requirements on the situations where it relaxes individual liability, not complain about about the natural rights of corporations (they don't have any).

by kjksf 5y ago

LeoPanthera 5y ago

This is about equity, not equality, and it's increasingly clear that a lot of people don't know the difference.

GenerocUsername 5y ago
Literally impossible to provide equitable outcomes to all possible segmentations of humans since those segments can be gerrymandered as easily as our geographic definitions used in the past. For instance, the most hyper-modern views of gender vs sex.
ctdonath 5y ago
Punishing someone based on “wrong” color/gender is evil.
- ramesh31 5y ago
  Yes it is. And that's what we've done as a society for hundreds of years in the US. That we are now attempting to fix that will obviously be seen as an attack, because losing privilege is never easy.
  - ctdonath 5y ago
    “Privilege” is getting a job over a better candidate just because of inclusion in an artificial social construct.
    - ramesh31 5y ago
      >“Privilege” is getting a job over a better candidate just because of inclusion in an artificial social construct. Yes, exactly. Which is what has happened to women and minorities in this country forever.
kjksf 5y ago
Educate us? What do stocks have to do with it?
haswell 5y ago
Will you expand on how you see this distinction and how the distinction matters here? I understand the difference between equity and equality, but I don’t know what exactly you mean to imply here, and don’t want to draw any hasty conclusions about this comment.
captainredbeard 5y ago
The difference is clear and equity is unwanted by many people. It is anathema to those who desire freedom.
TimTheTinker 5y ago
Equity by its normal dictionary definition is great. But as the critical race theory worldview defines it, "equity" involves unequal treatment of people and discrimination (decisions made about how to treat people) on the basis of race. The idea is to retroactively create equal outcomes, not equal opportunities in the present. The problem is: a society can't create either equal outcomes or equal opportunities by intentionally discriminating one way or another, since doing so (1) fails to solve problems at their source and (2) creates new problems. In other words, love is the answer, not hate.
- nsonha 5y ago
  > The problem is: a society can't create equal outcomes or equal opportunities by... Society can't create equal outcomes, period. People don't want the same things in life. Some want to be of service to other people, some want to be rich so they can buy a yacht. You can't just give yachts to everyone and call that equality. We do need safety net and equal opportunities Personally I think the whole idea of equality is stupid because it just makes people compare their life to others instead of thinking about what they want in life. But again if we have to have equality then it's equal opportunities and more importantly, safety net.

kenjackson 5y ago

Federal government already says you can't discriminate. They aren't saying, "you have to hire this person". They're saying you can't hire exclusively this type of person that currently dominates the top of society. Given that these boardrooms don't diversify themselves, what is the actual problem with it?

radisb 5y ago
The problem is that someone must be fired because he is a white male
- kenjackson 5y ago
  It doesn't mean that at all. You can hire a black person and not fire anyone. They may choose to fire someone, but given these are board positions, and it literally takes just one person -- they can easily accommodate simply hiring someone.
  - radisb 5y ago
    Oh, so if, hypothetically, someone did have to be fired to be replaced by a non-white-male, would you be against it?
    - kenjackson 5y ago
      If that was the literal rule (you had to fire a white male) then yes, I would be against it. The intent isn't to be spiteful against white males. It's to give space at the table for other groups that are intentionally excluded due to their race.
- BrianOnHN 5y ago
  Edit: deleted because original comment has changed.
  - radisb 5y ago

aeturnum 5y ago

The road to hell is good paved with good intentions, but I don't really see hell over the horizon on this one. Demographics are funny because they're really easy to satisfy. People come from many backgrounds. This is just one of many restrictions on individual choice we make for the sake of social cohesion. All of us might choose to work for below minimum wage, but there are real risks there, so we ban it. All of understand how one might end up with a board of all white men, but there are risks there as well, so now it's banned. It does not seem like a meaningful restriction for any serious enterprise.

gentoo 5y ago

I'm not sure whether I agree with the CA policy. But this argument against it is extremely unconvincing. It's almost word-for-word what segregationists argued against the 1964 Civil Rights Act. e.g. https://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2014/06/barry-goldwater-declares-that-the-1964-civil-rights-act-is-a-dire-threat-to-the-liberties-of-african-americans-and-will-creat.html https://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2014/06/barry-goldwater-decla... "The two portion so this bill to which I have constantly and consistently voiced objections, and which are of such overriding significance that they are determinative of my vote on the entire measure, are those which would embark the Federal Government on a regulatory course of action in the area of so-called "public accommodations" and in the area of employment--to be precise, Titles II and VII of the bill. I find no constitutional basis for the exercise of Federal regulatory authority in either of these areas; and I believe the attempted usurpation of such power to be a grave threat to the very essence of our basic system of government..."

hn_throwaway_99 5y ago
But this CA law is basically the exact opposite of the 1964 Civil Rights act, which says you can not discriminate based on gender or race in areas like housing and hiring. This law is saying that you must take into account race and gender in your hiring decisions.
- gentoo 5y ago
  I was responding to > The state shouldn't have a say in who gets a job at a private (non owned by state) company. that's exactly what the Civil Rights Act does. The state has been telling you how you are allowed to make hiring decisions for a while now. edit: And here's Strom Thurmond on the Civil Rights Act: "This bill would take away the rights of individuals and give to government the power to decide who is to be hired, fired and promoted in private businesses." https://teachingamericanhistory.org/document/debate-on-the-civil-rights-act/ https://teachingamericanhistory.org/document/debate-on-the-c...

8ytecoder 5y ago

It’s not just CA though. Nasdaq is doing it. US chamber of commerce has thrown its support as well.

threatofrain 5y ago
NASDAQ rule in question, with SEC approval. https://listingcenter.nasdaq.com/assets/Board%20Diversity%20Disclosure%20Five%20Things.pdf https://listingcenter.nasdaq.com/assets/Board%20Diversity%20...

maxerickson 5y ago

The requirement for corporations to have a board of directors at all is imposed by the state. You have to argue that the state shouldn't be able to impose requirements on the situations where it relaxes individual liability, not complain about about the natural rights of corporations (they don't have any).