7 ms·

The reason why we have "protected status" is that people were banning people based on their racist/hate views. Those people used their 5 senses to easily target

The reason why we have "protected status" is that people were banning people based on their racist/hate views. Those people used their 5 senses to easily target the people they hated for discrimination. Other variables (such as who you work for) well that's not easily found out...until now. AI is now allowing for new innovating hate and discrimination to drive decisions. What an absolute cluster. I don't envy the courts. It's going to be interesting if everyone starts weaponizing every aspect of political affiliation, employment, residence location and social status.

tantalor 4y ago
> used their 5 senses to easily target the people they hated No. Very easy to disprove: there are many examples of protected status that is not easy to tell just by looking at someone. 1. Race (esp. mixed race) 2. Religion 3. Pregnancy 4. National origin 5. Sexual orientation 6. Disability 7. Genetics
- ceejayoz 4y ago
  You've been downvoted, but I'd agree; most of them are not necessarily "visually obvious" and more "stuff you can't easily change".
- HWR_14 4y ago
  In almost all cases, there were people in the protected group who were able to disguise that status. So in those cases just 5 senses weren't perfect. But it was sufficient for at least some cases, which is where the laws came from.
- moonchrome 4y ago
  Just because you can't tell 100% doesn't mean you can't discriminate - and accuracy doesn't factor much in prejudice.
- michpoch 4y ago
  I assume that is a US thing. How does that exactly work? In what sense are these people protected?
  - freeone3000 4y ago
    You cannot, for instance, fire someone for being black. These characteristics are protected in the sense that discrimination against them in certain areas is illegal.
    - michpoch 4y ago
      Ok, but then the US Air Force would not hire anyone shorter than 64 inches or taller than 77 inches. Your height is a part of your genetics, you can't change it. Why are people outside of this range not protected? Am I oversimplifying something here?
      - ceejayoz 4y ago
        > Why are people outside of this range not protected? Because legislation has been written to target certain characteristics. The experience of short people in American history doesn't quite match that of black, gay, or disabled people, and thus it hasn't been legislated.
        aidenn0 4y ago
        If there weren't a BFOQ then this could be seen as veiled sex discrimination since women are shorter than men on average.
      - oceanplexian 4y ago
        They are called bona fide occupational qualifications. Even a private business can discriminate against say, an actor who can’t play a particular role due to the race or gender of the character. Same goes with certain jobs that involve lifting or an expected level physical fitness.
        michpoch 4y ago
        Could you say that you need a white male bartender for your pub in rural Texas, because your customers are racist and sexist and anyone else would make them feel uncomfortable? Or would that "choice" be limited by the protected status?
2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
- acdha 4y ago
  It's an activist court. They'll block anything which could discriminate against their supporters but as we've seen no level of precedent is going to prevent a decision which those supporters want unless there's an extremely clear direct constitutional prohibition.
  - 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
    After taking a civics course in college and quitting social media none of their decisions have shocked me. I think more people need to learn the purpose and role of the court.
    - acdha 4y ago
      Shocked, no. Disappointed, yes. If you were willing to explore the space intellectually you'd find many legal scholars who could explain how what's happening now represents a significant deviation from the past. The discussion of the court's legitimacy isn't a social media phenomenon.
- rexpop 4y ago
  [flagged]
dragonwriter 4y ago
> The reason why we have "protected status" is that people were banning people based on their racist/hate views. Those people used their 5 senses to easily target the people they hated for discrimination. Easy targeting was not the issue, the combination of pervasiveness and the belief that it was unwarranted and/or resulted in an excess of social strife if tolerated was. (Sometimes, it is misportrayed as being about innate characteristics, but this is very obviously not the case with religion, where freedom of religion as a right waa very clearly the outcome of exhaustion with centuries of strife, largely between different factions within Western Christianity.)
madrox 4y ago
Factor into this the consolidation of so many industries, and if you happen to run afoul of one company you've effecively become a pariah. Getting banned from Google is bad enough. There is certainly a line that needs to be drawn, since I somewhat understand the intent behind the ban. However, this will quickly get out of hand now that we can effectively disciminate on so many new factors scale.
archontes 4y ago
I think this should be protected. A business owner should be able to decline to host someone adversarial to that business.
bmitc 4y ago
That's not what happened here though. > "MSG instituted a straightforward policy that precludes attorneys pursuing active litigation against the Company from attending events at our venues until that litigation has been resolved. While we understand this policy is disappointing to some, we cannot ignore the fact that litigation creates an inherently adverse environment. All impacted attorneys were notified of the policy, including Davis, Saperstein and Salomon, which was notified twice," a spokesperson for MSG Entertainment said in a statement. Seems pretty cut and dry if true. The law firm is litigating against the company, and the company notified the law firm of their policy to not allow employees to attend their venues. If anything, lawyers deserve this treatment.
- hgsgm 4y ago
- makestuff 4y ago
  Why do the lawyers deserve this? I can kind of understand the lawyers actively involved in the case being banned from the arena, but why should a lawyer who is not even licensed in NY, and does not appear to be involved in the case be banned? Should lawyers be banned from going to hospitals they are litigating against?
  - bmitc 4y ago
    That was just a sentiment because lawyers bring this adversarial behavior into society, and I have a general dislike of lawyers because of this behavior I've experienced for no reason. (I was once threatened by a real estate lawyer just because I chose another firm after an initial phone call, for example.) Do they really deserve it? Maybe not, but I'm not a huge fan of the power lawyers wield and their incentives, so them getting a taste of their own medicine seems okay with me. (This is a very generic sentiment though, and not targeted towards particular people.) Regarding the policy, is it really that absurd? They are being sued, presumably, by the law firm. When I was at a company with ongoing IP litigation, there were extremely strict measures put into place while that went on. The law firm was even notified. So the lawyers purely ignored it. Lawyers are pretty apt to point out when you ignore communication, so why did they do it? They could have communicated prior to the trip, but instead they showed up and gave their surprised Pikachu face. > Should lawyers be banned from going to hospitals they are litigating against? Irrelevant hypothetical because that's not what happened here, and there are different rights to medical treatment than there are for seeing an entertainment show.

tantalor 4y ago

> used their 5 senses to easily target the people they hated No. Very easy to disprove: there are many examples of protected status that is not easy to tell just by looking at someone. 1. Race (esp. mixed race) 2. Religion 3. Pregnancy 4. National origin 5. Sexual orientation 6. Disability 7. Genetics

ceejayoz 4y ago
You've been downvoted, but I'd agree; most of them are not necessarily "visually obvious" and more "stuff you can't easily change".
HWR_14 4y ago
In almost all cases, there were people in the protected group who were able to disguise that status. So in those cases just 5 senses weren't perfect. But it was sufficient for at least some cases, which is where the laws came from.
moonchrome 4y ago
Just because you can't tell 100% doesn't mean you can't discriminate - and accuracy doesn't factor much in prejudice.
michpoch 4y ago
I assume that is a US thing. How does that exactly work? In what sense are these people protected?
- freeone3000 4y ago
  You cannot, for instance, fire someone for being black. These characteristics are protected in the sense that discrimination against them in certain areas is illegal.
  - michpoch 4y ago
    Ok, but then the US Air Force would not hire anyone shorter than 64 inches or taller than 77 inches. Your height is a part of your genetics, you can't change it. Why are people outside of this range not protected? Am I oversimplifying something here?
    - ceejayoz 4y ago
      > Why are people outside of this range not protected? Because legislation has been written to target certain characteristics. The experience of short people in American history doesn't quite match that of black, gay, or disabled people, and thus it hasn't been legislated.
      - aidenn0 4y ago
        If there weren't a BFOQ then this could be seen as veiled sex discrimination since women are shorter than men on average.
    - oceanplexian 4y ago
      They are called bona fide occupational qualifications. Even a private business can discriminate against say, an actor who can’t play a particular role due to the race or gender of the character. Same goes with certain jobs that involve lifting or an expected level physical fitness.
      - michpoch 4y ago
        Could you say that you need a white male bartender for your pub in rural Texas, because your customers are racist and sexist and anyone else would make them feel uncomfortable? Or would that "choice" be limited by the protected status?

2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago

acdha 4y ago
It's an activist court. They'll block anything which could discriminate against their supporters but as we've seen no level of precedent is going to prevent a decision which those supporters want unless there's an extremely clear direct constitutional prohibition.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
  After taking a civics course in college and quitting social media none of their decisions have shocked me. I think more people need to learn the purpose and role of the court.
  - acdha 4y ago
    Shocked, no. Disappointed, yes. If you were willing to explore the space intellectually you'd find many legal scholars who could explain how what's happening now represents a significant deviation from the past. The discussion of the court's legitimacy isn't a social media phenomenon.
rexpop 4y ago
[flagged]

dragonwriter 4y ago

> The reason why we have "protected status" is that people were banning people based on their racist/hate views. Those people used their 5 senses to easily target the people they hated for discrimination. Easy targeting was not the issue, the combination of pervasiveness and the belief that it was unwarranted and/or resulted in an excess of social strife if tolerated was. (Sometimes, it is misportrayed as being about innate characteristics, but this is very obviously not the case with religion, where freedom of religion as a right waa very clearly the outcome of exhaustion with centuries of strife, largely between different factions within Western Christianity.)

madrox 4y ago

Factor into this the consolidation of so many industries, and if you happen to run afoul of one company you've effecively become a pariah. Getting banned from Google is bad enough. There is certainly a line that needs to be drawn, since I somewhat understand the intent behind the ban. However, this will quickly get out of hand now that we can effectively disciminate on so many new factors scale.

archontes 4y ago

I think this should be protected. A business owner should be able to decline to host someone adversarial to that business.

bmitc 4y ago

That's not what happened here though. > "MSG instituted a straightforward policy that precludes attorneys pursuing active litigation against the Company from attending events at our venues until that litigation has been resolved. While we understand this policy is disappointing to some, we cannot ignore the fact that litigation creates an inherently adverse environment. All impacted attorneys were notified of the policy, including Davis, Saperstein and Salomon, which was notified twice," a spokesperson for MSG Entertainment said in a statement. Seems pretty cut and dry if true. The law firm is litigating against the company, and the company notified the law firm of their policy to not allow employees to attend their venues. If anything, lawyers deserve this treatment.

hgsgm 4y ago
makestuff 4y ago
Why do the lawyers deserve this? I can kind of understand the lawyers actively involved in the case being banned from the arena, but why should a lawyer who is not even licensed in NY, and does not appear to be involved in the case be banned? Should lawyers be banned from going to hospitals they are litigating against?
- bmitc 4y ago
  That was just a sentiment because lawyers bring this adversarial behavior into society, and I have a general dislike of lawyers because of this behavior I've experienced for no reason. (I was once threatened by a real estate lawyer just because I chose another firm after an initial phone call, for example.) Do they really deserve it? Maybe not, but I'm not a huge fan of the power lawyers wield and their incentives, so them getting a taste of their own medicine seems okay with me. (This is a very generic sentiment though, and not targeted towards particular people.) Regarding the policy, is it really that absurd? They are being sued, presumably, by the law firm. When I was at a company with ongoing IP litigation, there were extremely strict measures put into place while that went on. The law firm was even notified. So the lawyers purely ignored it. Lawyers are pretty apt to point out when you ignore communication, so why did they do it? They could have communicated prior to the trip, but instead they showed up and gave their surprised Pikachu face. > Should lawyers be banned from going to hospitals they are litigating against? Irrelevant hypothetical because that's not what happened here, and there are different rights to medical treatment than there are for seeing an entertainment show.