4 ms·

You’re right in principle, but taking this out of the context it should be viewed in. The only reason such policies were created is because there was already bi

You’re right in principle, but taking this out of the context it should be viewed in. The only reason such policies were created is because there was already bias against certain groups. So we can claim that disparate impact policies create another bias, but seems like we’re just addressing one source of bias, not the original offender. What is the solution to that? Politics should not be handled in a stateless manner without understanding root cause. You pick an issue, with 10 imperfect solutions over 50 years and decide to remove only the things you don’t like, you will leave it in a terrible state that will need to be fixed by your replacements.

rahimnathwani 1y ago
"You pick an issue, with 10 imperfect solutions over 50 years" Are you suggesting that disparate impact is part of a delicate system that reduces or eliminates unfair discrimination? And that its elimination would make the situation worse than it is today? If so, why? I've given you many reasons why disparate impact is bad and has bad effects. You have given no reasons why, with the state of the country as it is today, it is helpful. Your argument seems to boil down to (i) well, there must have been some reason for its introduction, and (ii) status quo is a fragile system that must be changed all at once and not piecemeal.
- figassis 1y ago
  Everything can be changed. Previous status quo might not even have been a good thing. And I actually agree with the argument that people should be treated as individuals and not grouped. But I also acknowledge that groups do get discriminated against. This EO attempts to solve the former without addressing the latter.
  - rahimnathwani 1y ago
    Which groups get discriminated against?
    - figassis 1y ago
      No longer feels like you're arguing in good faith. Do your own homework.
      - rahimnathwani 1y ago
        Disparate impact rules (and similar rules that encourage quotas) aren't solving a real problem today. Employers aren't choosing inferior employees because they don't like certain ethnicities or sexes. They want to make money and get the best employees they can. You claim that without disparate impact there are groups who would be discriminated against. I don't believe it, so I asked for an example.

rahimnathwani 1y ago

"You pick an issue, with 10 imperfect solutions over 50 years" Are you suggesting that disparate impact is part of a delicate system that reduces or eliminates unfair discrimination? And that its elimination would make the situation worse than it is today? If so, why? I've given you many reasons why disparate impact is bad and has bad effects. You have given no reasons why, with the state of the country as it is today, it is helpful. Your argument seems to boil down to (i) well, there must have been some reason for its introduction, and (ii) status quo is a fragile system that must be changed all at once and not piecemeal.

figassis 1y ago
Everything can be changed. Previous status quo might not even have been a good thing. And I actually agree with the argument that people should be treated as individuals and not grouped. But I also acknowledge that groups do get discriminated against. This EO attempts to solve the former without addressing the latter.
- rahimnathwani 1y ago
  Which groups get discriminated against?
  - figassis 1y ago
    No longer feels like you're arguing in good faith. Do your own homework.
    - rahimnathwani 1y ago
      Disparate impact rules (and similar rules that encourage quotas) aren't solving a real problem today. Employers aren't choosing inferior employees because they don't like certain ethnicities or sexes. They want to make money and get the best employees they can. You claim that without disparate impact there are groups who would be discriminated against. I don't believe it, so I asked for an example.