4 ms·

And every group that is now protected was once not protected. Were, say, the actions taken against Alan Turing acceptable simply because they were legal at the

And every group that is now protected was once not protected. Were, say, the actions taken against Alan Turing acceptable simply because they were legal at the time? I must say, I'm surprised to see you defending prejudice. From what I've read of your posts here over the years, I thought you were against such things.

dragonwriter 5y ago
> Were, say, the actions taken against Alan Turing acceptable simply because they were legal at the time Kind of an odd example to use to defend that “protected classes make people think other discrimination is acceptable” argument, since protected classes didn't exist then and people thought that discrimination was perfectly acceptable. > I must say, I'm surprised to see you defending prejudice. I must say, I’m surprised you think I am defending prejudice.
- leereeves 5y ago
  > I must say, I’m surprised you think I am defending prejudice. You are literally arguing in favor of the idea that "it's ok to discriminate against anyone who isn't protected". Prejudice is still prejudice even if the particular characteristic on which that prejudice is based isn't protected (yet...). > Kind of an odd example to use to defend ... I'm not using that example to defend my statement, I'm using it to discredit the idea that the law can be used as a basis or guide for morality. Edit to add: Feel free to have the last word. I can't respond at the moment because I'm "posting too fast", even though I'm posting less often than some others here... I will say simply that the point is to oppose discrimination against a marginalized group. I don't understand your confusion about that.
  - et-al 5y ago
    Laws are delayed reflections of our collective morality (or more cynically, the morality of the elites). Here, the concept of protected groups are to keep companies in check. I'm curious about your proposal for curbing discrimination.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > You are literally arguing in favor of the idea that “it’s ok to discriminate against anyone who isn’t protected”. No, I’m literally not. In fact, I’m pointing out that even in law (in the US Constitutional system) it is expressly not unconditionally the case for government, as all government discrimination must pass the rational basis test. For private parties, discrimination is presumptively legal (aside from protected classes applicable to certain private activities), because (at least, this is one way of looking at it) there is no limited set of “proper purposes” private individuals may pursue, therefore the private equivalent of the rational basis test would be a nullity. It can’t all be improper, because pretty much all substantive decision-making involves some form of discrimination. Choosing to buy Coke vs. Pepsi is private discrimination on some basis. As to when particular legal private discrimination is proper, people will have all sorts of opinions. When there is sufficient consensus that a particular kind of discrimination is sufficiently bad in a particular domain to warrant public intervention (ideally, in democratic principal, though of course real government doesn’t necessarily quite follow the ideal), it will become a protected class. Is “lookism”, but for when attractiveness is a bona fide job qualification, something that should be treated as a basis protected against discrimination in hiring? Maybe, maybe not. Should we go farther, and establish that in private industry, as is the case in much government employment, we go beyond the concept of protected classes (without also protecting those) and create a legal requirement that hiring and promotion, etc., is done strictly on bases grounded in documented job requirements and duties, with a legal right to challenge and overturn any such decision for failing that even if no protected class discrimination is involved? Or, perhaps, falling short of a legal mandate, should we expect private employers to adopt that as their own rule, with a private (but suitably independent of management) appeal forum? Or is the point just to grouse about “discrimination”?
    - TedDoesntTalk 5y ago
      I worked with a manager who refused to hire a man who had, as his Facebook profile pic, a photo of himself holding a shotgun and deer. He was a hunter.
drekk 5y ago
Kind of a reach to claim the poster is defending prejudice. Alan Turing was chemically castrated for being gay. Society finding you conventionally unattractive and thus passing you over for a promotion at work isn't exactly the same thing. People are discriminated against for lots of reasons, many subconscious, but protected categories didn't emerge from a vacuum. The reason being queer is protected whereas being short or ugly isn't has nothing to do with queer people having more power in government (lol) but because there was a history of actual violence, much of which was state-sanctioned, against queer people. Then again being in a protected category has never really helped me avoid discrimination; having enough money to afford competent legal representation did. I wonder how many Americans can afford that when the majority can't make a $500 emergency expense. I'd argue the poor are the most clearly discriminated against group in our society and clearly there's a history of direct and indirect violence against them on that basis alone, but capitalism requires their existence and so they're invisible to our judicial system.
- leereeves 5y ago
  Well, competent legal representation wouldn't have been much help if you hadn't had some favorable law to call upon, so I suspect you may be wrong that "being in a protected category has never really helped me avoid discrimination". As for the first part of your comment, I'd just like to ask: what is up with disadvantaged groups fighting one another about who's more disadvantaged? I do agree about poverty; that's a big disadvantage and is often itself the foundation of another prejudice. That's another group that the law fails to protect.
sokoloff 5y ago
I don’t read anything in GP’s text as defending prejudice, but rather as expressing the reality that judgment (not pre-judgment) is both legal and widely practiced (and frequently helpful or essential in interactions). If I’m hiring for a programming opening, the entire (and proper) purpose of interviewing is to discriminate against people who can’t or won’t be effective programmers. Being “not an effective programmer” is not a protected class and discriminating against them is fine when hiring programmers. “But, but, but that’s not discrimination!” Yes, it most certainly is in the “recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another” sense, and is very likely what GP meant when they wrote: > Essentially every non-random decision affecting treatment of people discriminates on some basis.
- leereeves 5y ago
  Did you really think that I was suggesting it wasn't ok "to discriminate against people who can’t or won’t be effective programmers"? I think that's a strawman, but a useful one. It helps to establish the bounds of reasonable judgement in hiring. I think most people will agree that "can't or won't do the job" is reasonable.
  - sokoloff 5y ago
    I’m struggling to find where else in dragonwriter’s words you could be finding support for prejudice. It’s less of a strawman than it was a simple example of where discriminating among multiple candidates is okay.
    - leereeves 5y ago
      > It’s less of a strawman than it was a simple example of where discriminating among multiple candidates is okay. Why add such an example here? No one has claimed that discriminating among multiple candidates is never okay. I'm simply challenging the idea that the law is a useful guide as to whether discrimination is ok. I like a phrase you used. Decisions should be based on "judgment (not pre-judgment)".

dragonwriter 5y ago

> Were, say, the actions taken against Alan Turing acceptable simply because they were legal at the time Kind of an odd example to use to defend that “protected classes make people think other discrimination is acceptable” argument, since protected classes didn't exist then and people thought that discrimination was perfectly acceptable. > I must say, I'm surprised to see you defending prejudice. I must say, I’m surprised you think I am defending prejudice.

leereeves 5y ago
> I must say, I’m surprised you think I am defending prejudice. You are literally arguing in favor of the idea that "it's ok to discriminate against anyone who isn't protected". Prejudice is still prejudice even if the particular characteristic on which that prejudice is based isn't protected (yet...). > Kind of an odd example to use to defend ... I'm not using that example to defend my statement, I'm using it to discredit the idea that the law can be used as a basis or guide for morality. Edit to add: Feel free to have the last word. I can't respond at the moment because I'm "posting too fast", even though I'm posting less often than some others here... I will say simply that the point is to oppose discrimination against a marginalized group. I don't understand your confusion about that.
- et-al 5y ago
  Laws are delayed reflections of our collective morality (or more cynically, the morality of the elites). Here, the concept of protected groups are to keep companies in check. I'm curious about your proposal for curbing discrimination.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > You are literally arguing in favor of the idea that “it’s ok to discriminate against anyone who isn’t protected”. No, I’m literally not. In fact, I’m pointing out that even in law (in the US Constitutional system) it is expressly not unconditionally the case for government, as all government discrimination must pass the rational basis test. For private parties, discrimination is presumptively legal (aside from protected classes applicable to certain private activities), because (at least, this is one way of looking at it) there is no limited set of “proper purposes” private individuals may pursue, therefore the private equivalent of the rational basis test would be a nullity. It can’t all be improper, because pretty much all substantive decision-making involves some form of discrimination. Choosing to buy Coke vs. Pepsi is private discrimination on some basis. As to when particular legal private discrimination is proper, people will have all sorts of opinions. When there is sufficient consensus that a particular kind of discrimination is sufficiently bad in a particular domain to warrant public intervention (ideally, in democratic principal, though of course real government doesn’t necessarily quite follow the ideal), it will become a protected class. Is “lookism”, but for when attractiveness is a bona fide job qualification, something that should be treated as a basis protected against discrimination in hiring? Maybe, maybe not. Should we go farther, and establish that in private industry, as is the case in much government employment, we go beyond the concept of protected classes (without also protecting those) and create a legal requirement that hiring and promotion, etc., is done strictly on bases grounded in documented job requirements and duties, with a legal right to challenge and overturn any such decision for failing that even if no protected class discrimination is involved? Or, perhaps, falling short of a legal mandate, should we expect private employers to adopt that as their own rule, with a private (but suitably independent of management) appeal forum? Or is the point just to grouse about “discrimination”?
  - TedDoesntTalk 5y ago
    I worked with a manager who refused to hire a man who had, as his Facebook profile pic, a photo of himself holding a shotgun and deer. He was a hunter.

drekk 5y ago

Kind of a reach to claim the poster is defending prejudice. Alan Turing was chemically castrated for being gay. Society finding you conventionally unattractive and thus passing you over for a promotion at work isn't exactly the same thing. People are discriminated against for lots of reasons, many subconscious, but protected categories didn't emerge from a vacuum. The reason being queer is protected whereas being short or ugly isn't has nothing to do with queer people having more power in government (lol) but because there was a history of actual violence, much of which was state-sanctioned, against queer people. Then again being in a protected category has never really helped me avoid discrimination; having enough money to afford competent legal representation did. I wonder how many Americans can afford that when the majority can't make a $500 emergency expense. I'd argue the poor are the most clearly discriminated against group in our society and clearly there's a history of direct and indirect violence against them on that basis alone, but capitalism requires their existence and so they're invisible to our judicial system.

leereeves 5y ago
Well, competent legal representation wouldn't have been much help if you hadn't had some favorable law to call upon, so I suspect you may be wrong that "being in a protected category has never really helped me avoid discrimination". As for the first part of your comment, I'd just like to ask: what is up with disadvantaged groups fighting one another about who's more disadvantaged? I do agree about poverty; that's a big disadvantage and is often itself the foundation of another prejudice. That's another group that the law fails to protect.

sokoloff 5y ago

I don’t read anything in GP’s text as defending prejudice, but rather as expressing the reality that judgment (not pre-judgment) is both legal and widely practiced (and frequently helpful or essential in interactions). If I’m hiring for a programming opening, the entire (and proper) purpose of interviewing is to discriminate against people who can’t or won’t be effective programmers. Being “not an effective programmer” is not a protected class and discriminating against them is fine when hiring programmers. “But, but, but that’s not discrimination!” Yes, it most certainly is in the “recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another” sense, and is very likely what GP meant when they wrote: > Essentially every non-random decision affecting treatment of people discriminates on some basis.

leereeves 5y ago
Did you really think that I was suggesting it wasn't ok "to discriminate against people who can’t or won’t be effective programmers"? I think that's a strawman, but a useful one. It helps to establish the bounds of reasonable judgement in hiring. I think most people will agree that "can't or won't do the job" is reasonable.
- sokoloff 5y ago
  I’m struggling to find where else in dragonwriter’s words you could be finding support for prejudice. It’s less of a strawman than it was a simple example of where discriminating among multiple candidates is okay.
  - leereeves 5y ago
    > It’s less of a strawman than it was a simple example of where discriminating among multiple candidates is okay. Why add such an example here? No one has claimed that discriminating among multiple candidates is never okay. I'm simply challenging the idea that the law is a useful guide as to whether discrimination is ok. I like a phrase you used. Decisions should be based on "judgment (not pre-judgment)".