4 ms·

Out of genuine interest, what is your opinion on the OP?

by zkldi 5y ago

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.
    - civilized 5y ago
      > And how exactly did the early US civil rights movement accomplish equality without "discriminating in the opposite direction?" I don't know how to answer your rhetorical question that has nothing to do with anything I said, but the principle of liberal civil rights is equal opportunity and was more dominant in the early years. You can read more about it here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_opportunity https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_opportunity Again, if you didn't hear me say it the first time, it involves not discriminating on the basis of race, rather than establishing racial discrimination in the opposite direction. Majorities of Americans of all races, including blacks, support this principle and oppose racial preferences. See for example this poll on considering race in college admissions https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/02/25/most-americans-say-colleges-should-not-consider-race-or-ethnicity-in-admissions/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/02/25/most-americ... > You're just playing rhetorical tricks here, and defining equality as discrimination. I already called you out for making baseless claims that are completely at odds with everything in the OP's message. Now you're doing it to me. You're making stuff up in your head that no one said and projecting it on others. You should spend more time considering the difference between your feelings about what someone said and the words they actually said. You can't point to any words that I actually said that remotely suggest what you claim I said.
      - krapp 5y ago
        >I don't know how to answer your rhetorical question that has nothing to do with anything I said, but the principle of liberal civil rights is equal opportunity and was more dominant in the early years. You can read more about it here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_opportunity https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_opportunity These are your words, verbatim, with emphasis added by myself: >OP's ideas are squarely in the tradition of the early US civil rights movement, which was focused on rather than simply discriminating in the opposite direction. So again, how was the early US civil rights movement successful given its focus rather than "discriminating in the opposite direction?" And it's not a rhetorical question. Or, to put it more specifically, in what ways were unjust power and privilege taken from white people, as they must have been during the days of the civil rights movement in the process of "working hard to bring about equal treatment," that did not also discriminate against white people? >I already called you out for making baseless claims that are completely at odds with everything in the OP's message. Now you're doing it to me. That basis of my claim is the argument that it is impossible to achieve equality in an unequal system without biasing that system against those who benefit from its bias. The simple act of achieving equality itself is discriminatory. Or, put more succinctly, when you’re accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression. >You should spend more time considering the difference between your feelings about what someone said and the words they actually said. No, I should waste less time getting baited into fruitless arguments on this site. Good night. I'm closing this thread and forgetting it ever happened.

Out of genuine interest, what is your opinion on the OP?

by zkldi 5y ago

Out of genuine interest, what is your opinion on the OP?

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.
  - civilized 5y ago
    > And how exactly did the early US civil rights movement accomplish equality without "discriminating in the opposite direction?" I don't know how to answer your rhetorical question that has nothing to do with anything I said, but the principle of liberal civil rights is equal opportunity and was more dominant in the early years. You can read more about it here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_opportunity https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_opportunity Again, if you didn't hear me say it the first time, it involves not discriminating on the basis of race, rather than establishing racial discrimination in the opposite direction. Majorities of Americans of all races, including blacks, support this principle and oppose racial preferences. See for example this poll on considering race in college admissions https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/02/25/most-americans-say-colleges-should-not-consider-race-or-ethnicity-in-admissions/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/02/25/most-americ... > You're just playing rhetorical tricks here, and defining equality as discrimination. I already called you out for making baseless claims that are completely at odds with everything in the OP's message. Now you're doing it to me. You're making stuff up in your head that no one said and projecting it on others. You should spend more time considering the difference between your feelings about what someone said and the words they actually said. You can't point to any words that I actually said that remotely suggest what you claim I said.
    - krapp 5y ago
      >I don't know how to answer your rhetorical question that has nothing to do with anything I said, but the principle of liberal civil rights is equal opportunity and was more dominant in the early years. You can read more about it here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_opportunity https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_opportunity These are your words, verbatim, with emphasis added by myself: >OP's ideas are squarely in the tradition of the early US civil rights movement, which was focused on rather than simply discriminating in the opposite direction. So again, how was the early US civil rights movement successful given its focus rather than "discriminating in the opposite direction?" And it's not a rhetorical question. Or, to put it more specifically, in what ways were unjust power and privilege taken from white people, as they must have been during the days of the civil rights movement in the process of "working hard to bring about equal treatment," that did not also discriminate against white people? >I already called you out for making baseless claims that are completely at odds with everything in the OP's message. Now you're doing it to me. That basis of my claim is the argument that it is impossible to achieve equality in an unequal system without biasing that system against those who benefit from its bias. The simple act of achieving equality itself is discriminatory. Or, put more succinctly, when you’re accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression. >You should spend more time considering the difference between your feelings about what someone said and the words they actually said. No, I should waste less time getting baited into fruitless arguments on this site. Good night. I'm closing this thread and forgetting it ever happened.