4 ms·

Just because someone says that they believe in something, does that mean that they're right, and that they get to force others to do anything they want based on

Just because someone says that they believe in something, does that mean that they're right, and that they get to force others to do anything they want based on that belief? Including discriminating against yet others?

kennywinker 4y ago
If you arrived at the snack table early and grabbed 10 juice boxes, and the teacher comes and takes five of them away from you and gives them to the other kids, you're not being discriminated against.
- kepler1 4y ago
  Thank god this kind of lazy and intellectually dishonest thinking (I hesitate to call it logic) gets checked by courts in the end.
- taylorius 4y ago
  Yes, a teacher, and the children that are in their charge. That's exactly the attitude these politicians have. How lucky we are that they know best!
  - kennywinker 4y ago
    I know you really want it to be top down patronizing politicians doing this kind of thing all on their own, but there are actually millions of Californians who agree this is a good idea. In my metaphor, those are the adults in the room.
    - taylorius 4y ago
      I'm sure that's true - I don't disagree with you. Though I would maintain politicians have a distinctly high-handed approach to dealing with such matters, and are often highly dismissive of collateral damage from their grand schemes.
    - humanrebar 4y ago
      So these "adults in the room" are high and mighty about makeup of boardrooms but they refuse to build more housing? If hoarding is the metaphor, seems like that's the more apt interpretation. The average woman in California is much more affected by rent than access to board positions.
      - kennywinker 4y ago
        I never said it’s a perfect system. There’s lots of times when the government isn’t doing what ANYBODY wants, but that wasn’t what we were talking about. I definitely care more about housing than boardrooms, but that wasn’t what we were talking about either.
    - teakettle42 4y ago
      Your analogy is poor. A better one, if we’re going to stick with childish analogies: You achieve straight A’s for a promised juice box reward, but the teacher refuses to give it to you because you’re a boy, and too many other boys got A’s in the past.
      - Swenrekcah 4y ago
        I understand your frustration because there really is the sentiment among some people today that “privileged” [1] people should be punished for the crimes of their ancestors. However a law that says that the board of a large enough company can’t be all male (and then also not all female) is actually not the stupidest idea. It should absolutely be considered a temporary stop-gap and automatically revoked as soon as some threshold of women on boards is achieved, but it actually is sometimes necessary to give people a little kick in the butt to get things going. I don’t live in California so I don’t know the specifics of this law, just saying that the idea in general is not as terrible as some of the bad woke stuff. [1] I say privileged in quotes because usually it’s enough that people look similar to people that are or have been privileged.
        teakettle42 4y ago
        The explicit harm done to individuals by such a law is not a distant hypothetical; some non-zero number of people were discriminated against on the basis of their gender, by the government, in order to fill a mandatory quota. It doesn’t do those individuals any good if you roll the laws back in a few years.
        kennywinker 4y ago
        > some non-zero number of people were discriminated against on the basis of their gender, by the government, in order to fill a mandatory quota. Your assumption is that board seats are being allocated to their rightful owners today, and this law would be a corruption of that. That’s a pretty big assumption. What rooms are you in where the ten most qualified people are _ever_ all male? Even in tech that’s not that common.
    - splistud 4y ago
    - kepler1 4y ago
      When it comes to rights guaranteed in the Constitution, millions of Californians, especially if they want to trample on those rights, are not the adults in the room. Those questions have been removed from the democratic process (by the people, through the Constitution and our fundamental rights) and are not up for grabs just because enough people think that they should. You may want to think hard about when millions of people have been wrong and trampled on rights you would wish for courts to protect. It may not always go your way based on your approach above.
  - HelloNurse 4y ago
    Given the typically antisocial attitude of "entrepreneurs" treating them like children is unusually defensible.
- modo_mario 4y ago
  To what extent do CEO's height compare to the average?

kennywinker 4y ago

If you arrived at the snack table early and grabbed 10 juice boxes, and the teacher comes and takes five of them away from you and gives them to the other kids, you're not being discriminated against.

kepler1 4y ago
Thank god this kind of lazy and intellectually dishonest thinking (I hesitate to call it logic) gets checked by courts in the end.
taylorius 4y ago
Yes, a teacher, and the children that are in their charge. That's exactly the attitude these politicians have. How lucky we are that they know best!
- kennywinker 4y ago
  I know you really want it to be top down patronizing politicians doing this kind of thing all on their own, but there are actually millions of Californians who agree this is a good idea. In my metaphor, those are the adults in the room.
  - taylorius 4y ago
    I'm sure that's true - I don't disagree with you. Though I would maintain politicians have a distinctly high-handed approach to dealing with such matters, and are often highly dismissive of collateral damage from their grand schemes.
  - humanrebar 4y ago
    So these "adults in the room" are high and mighty about makeup of boardrooms but they refuse to build more housing? If hoarding is the metaphor, seems like that's the more apt interpretation. The average woman in California is much more affected by rent than access to board positions.
    - kennywinker 4y ago
      I never said it’s a perfect system. There’s lots of times when the government isn’t doing what ANYBODY wants, but that wasn’t what we were talking about. I definitely care more about housing than boardrooms, but that wasn’t what we were talking about either.
  - teakettle42 4y ago
    Your analogy is poor. A better one, if we’re going to stick with childish analogies: You achieve straight A’s for a promised juice box reward, but the teacher refuses to give it to you because you’re a boy, and too many other boys got A’s in the past.
    - Swenrekcah 4y ago
      I understand your frustration because there really is the sentiment among some people today that “privileged” [1] people should be punished for the crimes of their ancestors. However a law that says that the board of a large enough company can’t be all male (and then also not all female) is actually not the stupidest idea. It should absolutely be considered a temporary stop-gap and automatically revoked as soon as some threshold of women on boards is achieved, but it actually is sometimes necessary to give people a little kick in the butt to get things going. I don’t live in California so I don’t know the specifics of this law, just saying that the idea in general is not as terrible as some of the bad woke stuff. [1] I say privileged in quotes because usually it’s enough that people look similar to people that are or have been privileged.
      - teakettle42 4y ago
        The explicit harm done to individuals by such a law is not a distant hypothetical; some non-zero number of people were discriminated against on the basis of their gender, by the government, in order to fill a mandatory quota. It doesn’t do those individuals any good if you roll the laws back in a few years.
        kennywinker 4y ago
        > some non-zero number of people were discriminated against on the basis of their gender, by the government, in order to fill a mandatory quota. Your assumption is that board seats are being allocated to their rightful owners today, and this law would be a corruption of that. That’s a pretty big assumption. What rooms are you in where the ten most qualified people are _ever_ all male? Even in tech that’s not that common.
  - splistud 4y ago
  - kepler1 4y ago
    When it comes to rights guaranteed in the Constitution, millions of Californians, especially if they want to trample on those rights, are not the adults in the room. Those questions have been removed from the democratic process (by the people, through the Constitution and our fundamental rights) and are not up for grabs just because enough people think that they should. You may want to think hard about when millions of people have been wrong and trampled on rights you would wish for courts to protect. It may not always go your way based on your approach above.
- HelloNurse 4y ago
  Given the typically antisocial attitude of "entrepreneurs" treating them like children is unusually defensible.
modo_mario 4y ago
To what extent do CEO's height compare to the average?