11 ms·
How does this differ from companies and elected officials openly saying right now that females and minorities are preferred for X position, like vice president
by aliqot 4y ago
How does this differ from companies and elected officials openly saying right now that females and minorities are preferred for X position, like vice president of USA or CEO of Reddit?
- seper8 4y agoIt doesn't, but you can't discriminate against white men. /s
- dendriti 4y agoFolks, this is not difficult to understand unless you're deliberately being obtuse. There's legal and illegal discrimination. Some forms of legal discrimination do amount to discrimination against White people. When we say "Discrimination is wrong" we are almost always talking about illegal discrimination. Just crying out that "But.... but you said discrimination is wrong!" really isn't the 'argument' you think it is.
- Swenrekcah 4y agoMany don’t even acknowledge that their policies are discriminatory. But it’s still a good argument to point out that discriminatory diversity policies are discriminatory. Because that forces those that advocate for them to lay out their justifications and also at what point the policy is no longer needed. I’m not against affirmative action where it makes sense, but it’s a heavy handed policy and as such needs very good justification and constant re-evaluation.
- aliqot 4y agoAffirmative action is bigotry of low expectations by another name. Imagine if I were a minority doctor who benefited from this, my patients will always wonder if I'm less-than. Nobody wants to go to a cardiologist that was bottom of their class, so why instill that doubt and call it a leg up?
- Swenrekcah 4y agoSure, but it’s usually not like that though. All the people who get into med-school are talented even though the selection process was unfair in this regard. Like I said, this can be an overall good. For example, let’s say I run a small software shop where everybody is male. Now, it’s not likely that a woman would accept a job offer because of the environment. So if I were the boss I’d hold off on hiring until I can get three people at the same time and work hard to make all of them women, to the point I wouldn’t look at male applicants. After that the workplace would hopefully be more balanced and for the next hire gender wouldn’t matter. Is this unfair towards the men applying? It absolutely is, and that’s why I would only consider this as a one-time thing for a clear and specific goal. This is in the context of a small private company, I believe nationwide policies need specific goals and targets infinitely more.
- aliqot 4y ago> All the people who get into med-school are talented even though the selection process was unfair in this regard Be that as it may, a reasonable person given the choice will not want the least of the smart people working on their heart. This is a scenario where someone can be the smartest person in all racial categories but the stigma will still exist because race X is known to be favored over race Y for reasons not pertaining to skill, merit, or knowledge.
- Jcowell 4y agoNha I would look at the doctor and think , word for word, “good shit nigga” [Note I am black :)]
- starkd 4y agoAffirmative action is heavy handed when it involves hard quotas. There's nothing wrong with an affirmative action policy that sets a goal to be more inclusive by reaching out to other groups yet does not require limits strictly on the basis of skin color.
- ajsnigrutin 4y agoHow about just taking the best candidate, and be done with it? I live in a former socialist state, and a combination of grades and standardized testing is calculated into a score in that score determines if you get accepted to a college or not. Colleges have no idea who you are, until you get an e-mail that you're accepted and come to sign in.
- starkd 4y agoGood idea! It's just so crazy, it might work!
- lizardking 4y ago“Don’t you know we moved the goal posts?” Isn’t the argument you think it is
- marcusverus 4y agoYou seem to be confused. There is zero doubt that the two parents understand that one is legal and the other illegal, hence they are quite clearly discussing the topic from a moral standpoint. Anyway, surely you don't think legal discrimination necessarily moral discrimination? After all, Jim Crow was perfectly legal.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- jwond 4y agoJust because something is legal does not mean it is morally acceptable. Slavery was once perfectly legal, but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t wrong.
- P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago> When we say "Discrimination is wrong" we are almost always talking about illegal discrimination. What I'm hearing from you, dendriti, is that slavery wasn't wrong when it was legal. That definitely seems a hot take in 2022.
- germandiago 4y agoyou can discrimnate against anyone and you do it every day. When you choose your gf you discriminated another girl that liked you. When you choose another coffee brand also. When you hire someone also. Ppl who pay the cost should be able to choose. Any solution forcing the party paying to choose what you would like them to choose without you paying the cost is, IMHO , plain wrong.
- lvass 4y agoDiscrimination at least in this case means attributing value to a person (seemingly) belonging to a certain group. The word you're describing is called choice.
- germandiago 4y agoWhen you choose something or someone you are assessing a value to it... that is the whole point. You do not date X bc you prefer Y (higher value). You do it with everything... we do it. It is just how things are... that you choose one over the other makes the other the not chosen side of the thing. So yes, in some way you can see that as discrimination (even if we do not give it political meaning, it is still)
- thrown_22 4y ago> How does this differ from companies and elected officials openly saying right now that females and minorities are preferred for X position, like vice president of USA or CEO of Reddit? Companies like reddit haven't been sued enough for it to sink in that this is discrimination yet.
- azangru 4y ago> Companies like reddit haven't been sued enough for it to sink in that this is discrimination yet. Assuming that courts would uphold that it is discrimination. Which, in today's climate, I am not even sure would happen.
- NaughtyShiba 4y agoDoesn’t. Gender/minority preference is radical liberalism, which in long run causes more damage than it helps. Germany requires company boards to include females too (could be executive positions, can’t recall exactly) yet market just doesn’t have enough supply for these positions. Quit telling women that math or toy cars ain’t for them, instead of enforcing stupid rules
- oblak 4y agoMy niece told my wife dinosaurs are for boys. She likes her pink disney junk very much. It's not the kid's fault.
- NaughtyShiba 4y agoOf course it’s not, that was my exact point - let kids decide.
- Huh1337 4y agoPushing for more women/minorities in STEM/leadership positions = you're fixing the global problem, doing the opposite = you're making the global problem worse.
- newsclues 4y agoBoth are discriminatory, but one is virtuous and the other is bad?
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- Drakim 4y agoIt can be a bad thing and still the best option you got, a lesser of two evils. I don't think anybody should lose out on a opportunity because some minority quota needs to be filled, but I also don't think minorities and discriminated groups should live in a perpetual self-reinforcing unhirability loop either.
- peteradio 4y agoWhat is the assumption here? Marginalized groups will be hired even if they aren't the better candidate? Doesn't that Peter-Principle them right out of the gate? Are we sure that this leads to better long term outcomes?
- azangru 4y ago> What is the assumption here? Marginalized groups will be hired even if they aren't the better candidate? If a person making hiring decisions says that the next candidate for such-and-such role should be a person from such-and-such group (a woman, a person of color, etc.), then the criterion of being the better candidate doesn't apply. Or, rather, it gets adjusted such that belonging in the desired group is included in the list of what makes a candidate better.
- nerdponx 4y agoEmphasizing hiring of groups that have been traditionally discriminated against absolutely has a different moral character from discriminating against those people. There are a variety of ways to argue against the former practice, but to draw equivalence with the latter practice is dishonest and/or willfully ignorant.
- NeverFade 4y agoI'm sure that will be a great comfort to the Asian kid who was born in poverty, got bullied in school, struggled all his life to achieve the grades and stats to qualify for a top school, then got rejected in favor of a rich black American kid, since he was born with the wrong skin color.
- nerdponx 4y agoLike I said, there are plenty of valid arguments against it. But they aren't equivalent, which is what I was specifically responding to.
- NeverFade 4y agoIt's racism with better excuses.
- NoraCodes 4y agoHmm, this is not a good criticism of affirmative action programs. A child from a rich family, of whatever race, is far more likely to be able to attend the college of their (or their parents') choice, based on a wide array of factors. This is mitigated somewhat by federal and institutional need-based and merit-based aid, but I don't think it's really supportable to say that it's exacerbated by affirmative action. If your concern really is that poor students aren't able to access as many opportunities as wealthy students, you should be some flavor of socialist, as under capitalism, wealth inherently comes with more opportunity. In clearer words: I think you made this situation up without considering other factors because you have an ideological agenda.
- DisjointedHunt 4y agoAs someone who's spent time in countries where discrimination is rampant, i can tell you my personal opinion that it is not different at all. In fact, that is a dangerous trend in liberal America that needs to be debated on its merits (or lack thereof). You can't FORCE these things by doing the exact thing you stand against.
- steve_taylor 4y agoYou naively believe that quotas come from a desire to end discrimination, when in fact it comes from the “it’s our turn” mentality. It’s not liberal at all.
- germandiago 4y agoCorrect. It is shifting the discrimination somewhere else.
- andsoitis 4y agoThe University of South Florida has this to say about affirmative action and how it isn’t the same as discrimination rooted in prejudice: https://www.usf.edu/compliance-ethics/equal-opportunity/ten-myths-about-affirmative-action.aspx https://www.usf.edu/compliance-ethics/equal-opportunity/ten-...
- svnpenn 4y ago
- yrgulation 4y ago
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- gilbetron 4y agoSome people are running a marathon, half way through it is discovered half of them had been given weighted shoes that made them run significantly slower. The organizers and racers agree this is wrong and unfair, and so they make sure everyone has correct shoes for the rest of the race. Yet those half of the racers that had weighted shoes are several miles behind the rest. What would you suggest be done?
- chrischattin 4y agoBad analogy. That’s like suggesting we give racers in the next race an advantage because of what happened in the current race, which creates obvious unfair outcomes.
- gilbetron 4y agoThe marathon is infinitely long and we rank people on their positions every 5 miles.
- Morgawr 4y agoThat's not what they are suggesting. That's what you came up with as a solution for the problem which they presented. You're arguing against your own conclusion.
- chrischattin 4y agoThe implication is obvious from the context of the discussion. Don’t be disingenuous.
- Morgawr 4y agoThe implication might be obvious because that might be the most immediate solution to an evident problem. Just because the analogy works and you don't like the (obvious) solution it doesn't mean we should throw out the baby with the bathwater in the process.
- antiterra 4y ago
- lifeformed 4y agoBecause some societal imbalances are stuck in a local minimum, and it requires some artificial pressures to get out of it. The goal is to improve opportunities for groups that historically had less of them. Manually adjusting the workforce demographics is one of the tools to nudge things towards the goal, to help shift attitudes and education. It's not perfect, but it's not like market forces are going to do it.
- chrischattin 4y agoYou can’t fix racism/sexism by being racist/sexist.
- aaomidi 4y agoDo you have sources for this? Because from what I’ve read affirmative action has been huge in giving that initial boost for creation of more generational wealth. I mean affirmative action for white people is effectively why white people are so ahead in this country (red lining)
- chrischattin 4y agoThat’s not how citations work. Can’t prove a negative. It’s on YOU to provide proof because you’re the one making the assertion that future racial discrimination fixes past injustice (which I wholeheartedly disagree with).
- unethical_ban 4y agoMake a powerful assertion against the tide of conversation then demand academic level sources without trying to convince anyone of your own position. There is a term for people like you and out rhymes with "scroll". No one is obliged to engage in your attempted argument nor to do more work than you're willing to put into the conversation.
- chrischattin 4y ago
- makeitdouble 4y agoIs this a question you will bring up every time discrimination is discussed ? And does any answer to your question bring anything to what's described in the article or are you really expecting that we condone the discrimination against indian origin and women because of affirmative action also exists ?
- acegopher 4y agoWhile 'reverse discrimination' can end up being a concern, the societal reason for it's use is to correct for past legal or defacto discrimination that may have become structural. Discrimination can have long-lasting or multi-generational effects that can persist. Men may consciously or subconsciously prefer other men, calling it "culture fit". Today's minorities may not have the same wealth distribution, which allows for greater risk taking, due to historical redlining and discrimination for jobs. So 'reverse discrimination', when applied correctly, can help to break those structural inequities.
- ajsnigrutin 4y ago> So 'reverse discrimination', when applied correctly, can help to break those structural inequities. Can the irish apply to get priviliges? Or is the only factor here the persons skin color?
- aliqot 4y agoAlso the Jewish and Italians, because they were discriminated against similarly at the time.
- NoraCodes 4y agoSome major US schools did have affirmative action for Jews for a time to offset their prior policies that banned Jews from attending. Jewish students are now not statistically at any disadvantage compared to the average, so such programs aren't necessary.
- secondcoming 4y agoI'm Irish and am pretty sure I'm 'BAME'. The Poles definitely are. I don't know if Italians / Spanish are 'LatinX' or not.
- aliqot 4y agoWe Latinos don't say LatinX
- alistairSH 4y agoYou’re assuming there is only one qualified person for a given position. And that the woman/minority is not that person. In most cases there are multiple qualified people.
- Handytinge 4y agoAgreed. And if you make that decision between multiple qualified people based on sex or race, that's a problem.
- sumeno 4y agoFew things make me feel as gross about reading this website than all the whining about discrimination against white men.
- jwond 4y agoCould you explain why? Do you think white men aren’t being discriminated against? Do you think white men are being discriminated against and just don’t like seeing people talk about it? Or maybe some other reason?
- sumeno 4y agoBecause we work in an industry and are posting on a website that is predominantly male and white. Any time even the smallest measures are taken to improve the balance there's just a bunch of whining about being discriminated against. It's as silly and unfounded as complaining how "foreigners are coming to take our jobs" It's the same attitude that makes it hard to recruit women and people of color into the industry, they can just look at one of the most well known platforms for discussing the industry and see the rampant sexism and racism
- jwond 4y agoWhen people are victims of discrimination based on their race or sex they are likely to complain about it. The fact that some people believe the discrimination is justified is little solace to someone who is actually subject to said discrimination. If that makes you feel gross then you’ll just have to deal with it I guess.
- sumeno 4y agoYes, when a privileged group begins to face a more equitable situation they often feel discriminated against, it doesn't make it true. White men still have incredible advantages in this industry and the half hearted diversity initiatives in the industry haven't changed that at all.
- chatterhead 4y ago