4 ms·

Yes. People are not coins or dice. Judge them by the whole person they are, not the bucket others put them in.

kevingadd 3y ago
So is this an argument against fairness? Are you saying that it's OK for me to discriminate against you based on your race or gender, since those are parts of who you are as a "whole person"? Or do parts of you not count as the whole person? Should I be able to discriminate against you based on any disabilities you have through no fault of your own, since those are parts of your "whole person" and can limit your job performance? If a large pool of people like "we have a thousand employees" has a demographic balance that is wildly different from gen pop you at least need a good explanation for how it got that way. There are plenty of ways to explain it, but it's unreasonable to just assume "it's fine, I'm sure nothing bad happened" on faith.
- kyleee 3y ago
  ‘If a large pool of people like "we have a thousand employees" has a demographic balance that is wildly different from gen pop you at least need a good explanation for how it got that way.‘ This is a control freak / bureaucrat / authoritarian dream. Endless work to keep up with ever moving targets, and since everyone will be out of compliance at various times it means it’s ripe for selective enforcement. Also, do you believe that different cultures/groups of people may have different preferences? Is it crazy to think that may affect their career choices and preferences? Should the state then mandate them to enter a profession at a higher rate?
  - kevingadd 3y ago
    This is something you'd at least do a little research to demonstrate instead of just expecting people to accept, on faith, that "our company is 5% female because of ladies' preferences", or things of that nature. I said "wildly different" on purpose, we're not talking about "your workforce is 45% female instead of 47% female" here. It really is big differences - like if you pull up a MS diversity report they're around 30% female when the US population is ~50% female. This is a big discrepancy. You can come up with lots of plausible explanations but if you want to be believed, shouldn't you have a little data? Or should we just shrug off the potential of massive inequality because it doesn't personally affect us as far as we know? What I see is a lot of people terrified of simply releasing the data because the data will look, in many cases, very bad. I think if people want to advocate against any sort of intervention - perfectly reasonable to not want intervention - they should be able to support their case with data.

So is this an argument against fairness? Are you saying that it's OK for me to discriminate against you based on your race or gender, since those are parts of who you are as a "whole person"? Or do parts of you not count as the whole person? Should I be able to discriminate against you based on any disabilities you have through no fault of your own, since those are parts of your "whole person" and can limit your job performance? If a large pool of people like "we have a thousand employees" has a demographic balance that is wildly different from gen pop you at least need a good explanation for how it got that way. There are plenty of ways to explain it, but it's unreasonable to just assume "it's fine, I'm sure nothing bad happened" on faith.

kyleee 3y ago
‘If a large pool of people like "we have a thousand employees" has a demographic balance that is wildly different from gen pop you at least need a good explanation for how it got that way.‘ This is a control freak / bureaucrat / authoritarian dream. Endless work to keep up with ever moving targets, and since everyone will be out of compliance at various times it means it’s ripe for selective enforcement. Also, do you believe that different cultures/groups of people may have different preferences? Is it crazy to think that may affect their career choices and preferences? Should the state then mandate them to enter a profession at a higher rate?
- kevingadd 3y ago
  This is something you'd at least do a little research to demonstrate instead of just expecting people to accept, on faith, that "our company is 5% female because of ladies' preferences", or things of that nature. I said "wildly different" on purpose, we're not talking about "your workforce is 45% female instead of 47% female" here. It really is big differences - like if you pull up a MS diversity report they're around 30% female when the US population is ~50% female. This is a big discrepancy. You can come up with lots of plausible explanations but if you want to be believed, shouldn't you have a little data? Or should we just shrug off the potential of massive inequality because it doesn't personally affect us as far as we know? What I see is a lot of people terrified of simply releasing the data because the data will look, in many cases, very bad. I think if people want to advocate against any sort of intervention - perfectly reasonable to not want intervention - they should be able to support their case with data.