5 ms·

Yes, you did. Those posts make the front page very frequently.

krapp 5y ago
...and they're usually immediately brigaded by commenters claiming that there is no real discrimination against women and POC, only discrimination against white men by woke progressives and feminists and POC blaming them for everything. Outrage is what tends to keep those articles on the front page, not sympathy.
- mdorazio 5y ago
  Again, not the case at all in my experience. I feel like you’re reading different posts and comments than most people here.
  - krapp 5y ago
    Most people, or just you? Clearly we both have differing subjective experiences, why do you assume yours more accurately represents the majority view of the community?
    - mdorazio 5y ago
      Look at the other replies to your post and tell me.
      - krapp 5y ago
        You are literally the only person replying to my post thus far so I don't know what to tell you. edit - ok, one other person. But their comment doesn't prove consensus either way.
- zkldi 5y ago
  Out of genuine interest, what is your opinion on the OP?
  - krapp 5y ago
    I've never found the argument that acknowledging, much less attempting to correct for, systemic biases in hiring is always equally as discriminatory as the biases themselves to be compelling, as the only possible conclusion to reach from that rationale is to maintain the status quo and its biases at all times. If one accepts that unjust bias exists in the system, it is impossible to correct that bias without discriminating to some degree against those whom the bias favors. There also seems to be an unspoken assumption in OP's post that diversity hires are never as qualified as white male hires. It's entirely possible for women, POC or other groups to be hired as qualified candidates.
    - throwaway120398 5y ago
      > There also seems to be an unspoken assumption in OP's post that diversity hires are never as qualified as white male hires. I don't think this way, and I'd be really interested to know where you felt you identified this unspoken assumption in what I wrote.
    - civilized 5y ago
      > If one accepts that unjust bias exists in the system, it is impossible to correct that bias without discriminating to some degree against those whom the bias favors. As Justice Roberts said, the way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race. It's disturbing that so many people cannot see this. It seems to be a capitulation to the inevitability of bigotry, as if we are unable to be fair and always have to discriminate one way or the other. > There also seems to be an unspoken assumption in OP's post that diversity hires are never as qualified as white male hires. I see absolutely no evidence of this and I worry that you are reading your own prejudices into OP's words. OP's ideas are squarely in the tradition of the early US civil rights movement, which was focused on working hard to bring about equal treatment rather than simply discriminating in the opposite direction.
      - krapp 5y ago
        And how exactly did the early US civil rights movement accomplish equality without "discriminating in the opposite direction?" You're just playing rhetorical tricks here, and defining equality as discrimination.

...and they're usually immediately brigaded by commenters claiming that there is no real discrimination against women and POC, only discrimination against white men by woke progressives and feminists and POC blaming them for everything. Outrage is what tends to keep those articles on the front page, not sympathy.

mdorazio 5y ago
Again, not the case at all in my experience. I feel like you’re reading different posts and comments than most people here.
- krapp 5y ago
  Most people, or just you? Clearly we both have differing subjective experiences, why do you assume yours more accurately represents the majority view of the community?
  - mdorazio 5y ago
    Look at the other replies to your post and tell me.
    - krapp 5y ago
      You are literally the only person replying to my post thus far so I don't know what to tell you. edit - ok, one other person. But their comment doesn't prove consensus either way.
zkldi 5y ago
Out of genuine interest, what is your opinion on the OP?
- krapp 5y ago
  I've never found the argument that acknowledging, much less attempting to correct for, systemic biases in hiring is always equally as discriminatory as the biases themselves to be compelling, as the only possible conclusion to reach from that rationale is to maintain the status quo and its biases at all times. If one accepts that unjust bias exists in the system, it is impossible to correct that bias without discriminating to some degree against those whom the bias favors. There also seems to be an unspoken assumption in OP's post that diversity hires are never as qualified as white male hires. It's entirely possible for women, POC or other groups to be hired as qualified candidates.
  - throwaway120398 5y ago
    > There also seems to be an unspoken assumption in OP's post that diversity hires are never as qualified as white male hires. I don't think this way, and I'd be really interested to know where you felt you identified this unspoken assumption in what I wrote.
  - civilized 5y ago
    > If one accepts that unjust bias exists in the system, it is impossible to correct that bias without discriminating to some degree against those whom the bias favors. As Justice Roberts said, the way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race. It's disturbing that so many people cannot see this. It seems to be a capitulation to the inevitability of bigotry, as if we are unable to be fair and always have to discriminate one way or the other. > There also seems to be an unspoken assumption in OP's post that diversity hires are never as qualified as white male hires. I see absolutely no evidence of this and I worry that you are reading your own prejudices into OP's words. OP's ideas are squarely in the tradition of the early US civil rights movement, which was focused on working hard to bring about equal treatment rather than simply discriminating in the opposite direction.
    - krapp 5y ago
      And how exactly did the early US civil rights movement accomplish equality without "discriminating in the opposite direction?" You're just playing rhetorical tricks here, and defining equality as discrimination.