4 ms·
You haven't addressed what I said. You've identified a problem (let's just assume you are correct about the problem for arguments sake). I've pointed out the p
by pipes 2y ago
You haven't addressed what I said. You've identified a problem (let's just assume you are correct about the problem for arguments sake). I've pointed out the problem with current "solution": making decisions about individuals based on their race, sexual orientation or gender seems far from good, but you haven't addressed that.
- intended 2y agoI guess this derives from what you think the most common form of skill assessment error we are meant to deal with. Let me ask you this, what is the principle or goal you want to achieve? is it more fairness, or more effective systems, or maybe even better conditions for white american men (and to me, this is ok. Its just what you want to optimize for)
- pipes 2y agoAgain you haven't addressed the point I've made.
- intended 2y agoOk. Well here’s what you said: > Considering a candidates suitability for a role based on their race, gender, or sexual orientation is the opposite merit based selection. > You haven't addressed what I said. You've identified a problem (let's just assume you are correct about the problem for arguments sake). I've pointed out the problem with current "solution": making decisions about individuals based on their race, sexual orientation or gender seems far from good, but you haven't addressed that. I didn’t think there was anything to address. I think you defined the ideal we are meant to achieve. If this is a question on whether things should be fair - yes we are in agreement on principles. I want a fair system, for everyone.