4 ms·

> 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 ju

> 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?
        LarryMullins 4y ago
        Race can never be a BFOQ except in the specific case of artistic works, due to the first amendment.
  - donmaq 4y ago
    > You cannot, for instance, fire someone for being black So now companies don't put that as the termination reason, & fire them anyway for 'culture fit'. Or leave the term reason blank, b/c 'At-Will'. "Protected class" isn't very protected, as it leaves burden of proof to the victim, who needs to lawyer up & chase the proof via discovery.
    - davidgay 4y ago
      > So now companies don't put that as the termination reason, & fire them anyway for 'culture fit'. Or leave the term reason blank, b/c 'At-Will'. No, for large companies (those at risk of being sued) it works the other way round: they collect very detailed data to objectively justify any firing, otherwise they are at high risk of losing a discrimination lawsuit. Hence "improvement plans", "needs improvement" ratings, etc, etc. It is likely true that small and medium companies can get away with abuse though.
    - trompetenaccoun 4y ago
      Exactly, but there are even more fundamental problems with all these identity laws. 1. They're inherently unjust and anti-equality. 2. In the case of stuff like race and gender, the law doesn't even clearly define what terms like "black" and "white" are supposed to mean. There is no scientific definition because in physical reality race doesn't exist. It's assumed everyone follows race ideology, but even if we assumed that to be true then the premise of such suits is that someone committed a thought crime. Such cases are bound to lead to wrongful convictions as well as actual discrimination going unpunished because it can't be proven. These discrimination suits are the modern day equivalent of medieval witch trials. 3. They create division and conflict. That may be an intentional feature instead of a bug though.
      - em-bee 4y ago
        i don't quite agree. the law provides that being part of a protected group can not be used as a reason. that's enough. there is no need to prove a thought-crime. there is only need to prove that there is no justifiable reason for the action that lead to the discrimination, eg no justifiable reason to fire someone or to deny service. finding the real reason for the discrimination is not necessary
- ceejayoz 4y ago
  In the legal sense. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group#United_States

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?
      - LarryMullins 4y ago
        Race can never be a BFOQ except in the specific case of artistic works, due to the first amendment.
- donmaq 4y ago
  > You cannot, for instance, fire someone for being black So now companies don't put that as the termination reason, & fire them anyway for 'culture fit'. Or leave the term reason blank, b/c 'At-Will'. "Protected class" isn't very protected, as it leaves burden of proof to the victim, who needs to lawyer up & chase the proof via discovery.
  - davidgay 4y ago
    > So now companies don't put that as the termination reason, & fire them anyway for 'culture fit'. Or leave the term reason blank, b/c 'At-Will'. No, for large companies (those at risk of being sued) it works the other way round: they collect very detailed data to objectively justify any firing, otherwise they are at high risk of losing a discrimination lawsuit. Hence "improvement plans", "needs improvement" ratings, etc, etc. It is likely true that small and medium companies can get away with abuse though.
  - trompetenaccoun 4y ago
    Exactly, but there are even more fundamental problems with all these identity laws. 1. They're inherently unjust and anti-equality. 2. In the case of stuff like race and gender, the law doesn't even clearly define what terms like "black" and "white" are supposed to mean. There is no scientific definition because in physical reality race doesn't exist. It's assumed everyone follows race ideology, but even if we assumed that to be true then the premise of such suits is that someone committed a thought crime. Such cases are bound to lead to wrongful convictions as well as actual discrimination going unpunished because it can't be proven. These discrimination suits are the modern day equivalent of medieval witch trials. 3. They create division and conflict. That may be an intentional feature instead of a bug though.
    - em-bee 4y ago
      i don't quite agree. the law provides that being part of a protected group can not be used as a reason. that's enough. there is no need to prove a thought-crime. there is only need to prove that there is no justifiable reason for the action that lead to the discrimination, eg no justifiable reason to fire someone or to deny service. finding the real reason for the discrimination is not necessary
ceejayoz 4y ago
In the legal sense. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group#United_States