6 ms·

So we shouldn’t focus on helping a subset of people because doing so is discriminatory to everyone else?

by endemic 11mo ago

AnimalMuppet 11mo ago
Well... if you're getting a grant to help group X (which is in need), and you're not helping group Y (that is also in need), that should be all right (one organization probably can't do everything). But there maybe ought to be someone else getting a grant to help group Y.
endomorphosis 11mo ago
[flagged]
- __loam 11mo ago
  [flagged]
  - endomorphosis 11mo ago
    [flagged]
    - __loam 11mo ago
      You seem to care a lot about it actually.
    - hatf0 11mo ago
      You slipped in "based on sex" for an intentional reason that I'd like you to share with the class. Say, is your opinion of the "sex is an immutable characteristic and fixed at birth and therefore trans people are invalid and should..."? Or maybe I'm just reading into your wording a little too much.
      - hatf0 11mo ago
        You're talking to a trans woman by the way. Just thought I should throw that out there just in case you want to hurl some insults at me while you're at it too :)
        Philpax 11mo ago
        Congratulations on immediately being vindicated :/
      - endomorphosis 11mo ago
        [dead]
      - wertigont 11mo ago
        In humans and other mammals the immutability of sex is a fact, not an opinion. We are not a species of sequential hermaphrodites. The cultural artefact of people identifying themselvee as the opposite gender is a different type of concept to this. It's more of a sociological or psychological phenomenon.
  - wertigont 11mo ago
    The ask for the former is to have competitive spaces that are designated specifically for female athletes. This of course implies that all male athletes must be excluded, regardless of their identity claims. The rationale is the same for both: to provide opportunities for women and girls in an otherwise male-dominated space. Neither should be controversial.
- mrbombastic 11mo ago
  Outreach programs like “girls who code” and encouraging underrepresented groups to get involved are absolutely not against the law. Explicit discriminatory practices in hiring practices would be.
  - endomorphosis 11mo ago
    Yes, they are literally against the law, your knowledge of the law is probably a few years out of date, and I think you should spend more time reading the statutes themselves, this has already been litigated up to the supreme court.
    - saagarjha 11mo ago
      Can you point to the ruling that bans the organization of Girls Who Code?
- bastawhiz 11mo ago
  It's literally not the law. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(j) says: > Nothing contained in this subchapter shall be interpreted to require any employer, employment agency, labor organization, or joint labor-management committee subject to this subchapter to grant preferential treatment to any individual or to any group because of the race, color, religion, sex, or national origin of such individual or group on account of an imbalance which may exist with respect to the total number or percentage of persons of any race, color, religion, sex, or national origin employed by any employer, referred or classified for employment by any employment agency or labor organization, admitted to membership or classified by any labor organization, or admitted to, or employed in, any apprenticeship or other training program, in comparison with the total number or percentage of persons of such race, color, religion, sex, or national origin in any community, State, section, or other area, or in the available work force in any community, State, section, or other area. Which is to say, affirmative action or diversity programs. 29 C.F.R. § 1608.1–1608.1(c) says: > Voluntary affirmative action to improve opportunities for minorities and women must be encouraged and protected in order to carry out the Congressional intent embodied in title VII.[4] Affirmative action under these principles means those actions appropriate to overcome the effects of past or present practices, policies, or other barriers to equal employment opportunity. Such voluntary affirmative action cannot be measured by the standard of whether it would have been required had there been litigation, for this standard would undermine the legislative purpose of first encouraging voluntary action without litigation. 34 C.F.R. § 106.3(b) says: > a recipient may take affirmative action to overcome the effects of conditions which resulted in limited participation therein by persons of a particular sex. The decision in United Steelworkers v. Weber states: > Title VII's prohibition in §§ 703(a) and (d) against racial discrimination does not condemn all private, voluntary, race-conscious affirmative action plans. ... Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U. S. 405, 422 U. S. 418, cannot be interpreted as an absolute prohibition against all private, voluntary, race-conscious affirmative action efforts to hasten the elimination of such vestiges. The decision in Johnson v. Transportation Agency similarly states that Santa Clara County Transportation Agency did not violate Title VII by promoting a less-qualified woman. The decision in Cohen v. Brown University upheld the use of affirmative action to equalize opportunity. The law _literally_ contemplates this. As you said, "you need to literally look it up sometime."
- bparsons 11mo ago
  Which law are you referring to? If you are referring to Presidential statements, they have to be followed by an actual regulation or else they are just a press release.
- endomorphosis 11mo ago
  STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS, INC. v. PRESIDENT AND FELLOWS OF HARVARD COLLEGE 2023 Held: Harvard’s and UNC’s admissions programs violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Pp. 6–40. "(b) Proposed by Congress and ratified by the States in the wake of the Civil War, the Fourteenth Amendment provides that no State shall “deny to any person . . . the equal protection of the laws.” Proponents of the Equal Protection Clause described its “foundation[al] principle” as “not permit[ing] any distinctions of law based on race or color.” Any “law which operates upon one man,” they maintained, should “operate equally upon all.” Accordingly, as this Court’s early decisions interpreting the Equal Protection Clause explained, the Fourteenth Amendment guaranteed “that the law in the States shall be the same for the black as for the white; that all persons, whether colored or white, shall stand equal before the laws of the States.” ... "Respondents suggest that the end of race-based admissions programs will occur once meaningful representation and diversity are achieved on college campuses. Such measures of success amount to little more than comparing the racial breakdown of the incoming class and comparing it to some other metric, such as the racial makeup of the previous incoming class or the population in general, to see whether some proportional goal has been reached. The problem with this approach is well established: “[O]utright racial balancing” is “patently unconstitutional.”
  - mrbombastic 11mo ago
    In regards to race conscious bias in the admissions process this is very different then an outreach program
- endomorphosis 11mo ago
  AMERICAN ALLIANCE FOR EQUAL RIGHTS, versus FEARLESS FUND MANAGEMENT, LLC, 2023 To be sure, the line between “pure speech” that arguably entails discriminatory sentiments, see 303 Creative, 600 U.S. at 587, and the very act of discrimination itself may at times be hard to draw. And to be sure, Fearless characterizes its contest as reflecting its “commitment” to the “[b]lack women-owned” business community. The fact remains, though, that Fearless simply—and flatly— refuses to entertain applications from business owners who aren’t “black females.” Official Rules at 3. If that refusal were deemed sufficiently “expressive” to warrant protection under the Free Speech Clause, then so would be every act of race discrimination, ... "Moreover, and more specifically, each lost opportunity to enter Fearless’s contest works an irreparable injury because it prevents the Alliance’s members from competing at all—not just for the $20,000 cash prize but also for Fearless’s ongoing mentorship and the ensuing business opportunities that a contest victory might provide. "
  - mrbombastic 11mo ago
    The organization refused applications from anyone who wasn’t a black female, again different then an outreach group. I am sure if a male applied to “Girls who code” was denied and was able to establish this did harm to him he could have a case. As far as I know that has not happened so the group and others like it are perfectly legal.
zb3 11mo ago
[flagged]
- __loam 11mo ago
  [flagged]
  - zb3 11mo ago
    [flagged]
    - __loam 11mo ago
      [flagged]
      - endomorphosis 11mo ago
        [flagged]
      - deleted 11mo ago
        [deleted]
    - array_key_first 11mo ago
      > In the US, this also applies to Republican voters. What about them? Nobody cares about them. If you want to make a "coding for republicans", then go for it. Nobody is stopping you. You can't pretend people are stopping you so then you can turn around and act like a victim. That's not normal person behavior. > conservative views? They're also pretty underrepresented in the tech industry First off, not they're not. Second off - nobody is censoring conservative views. They ARE censoring obvious racism, sometimes pedophilia, sometimes misogyny. Because those all suck. And when that happens, some conservatives cry. Which doesn't say what you think it says. That does not reflect well on you or the broader ideology. At the end of the day, if I speak like Hilary Clinton at work, it's perfectly normal. If I speak like Trump and talk about "human garbage" and various brown people eating cats and dogs, I'm probably getting fired and potentially a referral to a psychiatrist. That's the difference. Not the ideology, the words.

So we shouldn’t focus on helping a subset of people because doing so is discriminatory to everyone else?

by endemic 11mo ago

So we shouldn’t focus on helping a subset of people because doing so is discriminatory to everyone else?

Well... if you're getting a grant to help group X (which is in need), and you're not helping group Y (that is also in need), that should be all right (one organization probably can't do everything). But there maybe ought to be someone else getting a grant to help group Y.

endomorphosis 11mo ago

[flagged]

__loam 11mo ago
[flagged]
- endomorphosis 11mo ago
  [flagged]
  - __loam 11mo ago
    You seem to care a lot about it actually.
  - hatf0 11mo ago
    You slipped in "based on sex" for an intentional reason that I'd like you to share with the class. Say, is your opinion of the "sex is an immutable characteristic and fixed at birth and therefore trans people are invalid and should..."? Or maybe I'm just reading into your wording a little too much.
    - hatf0 11mo ago
      You're talking to a trans woman by the way. Just thought I should throw that out there just in case you want to hurl some insults at me while you're at it too :)
      - Philpax 11mo ago
        Congratulations on immediately being vindicated :/
    - endomorphosis 11mo ago
      [dead]
    - wertigont 11mo ago
      In humans and other mammals the immutability of sex is a fact, not an opinion. We are not a species of sequential hermaphrodites. The cultural artefact of people identifying themselvee as the opposite gender is a different type of concept to this. It's more of a sociological or psychological phenomenon.
- wertigont 11mo ago
  The ask for the former is to have competitive spaces that are designated specifically for female athletes. This of course implies that all male athletes must be excluded, regardless of their identity claims. The rationale is the same for both: to provide opportunities for women and girls in an otherwise male-dominated space. Neither should be controversial.
mrbombastic 11mo ago
Outreach programs like “girls who code” and encouraging underrepresented groups to get involved are absolutely not against the law. Explicit discriminatory practices in hiring practices would be.
- endomorphosis 11mo ago
  Yes, they are literally against the law, your knowledge of the law is probably a few years out of date, and I think you should spend more time reading the statutes themselves, this has already been litigated up to the supreme court.
  - saagarjha 11mo ago
    Can you point to the ruling that bans the organization of Girls Who Code?
bastawhiz 11mo ago
It's literally not the law. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(j) says: > Nothing contained in this subchapter shall be interpreted to require any employer, employment agency, labor organization, or joint labor-management committee subject to this subchapter to grant preferential treatment to any individual or to any group because of the race, color, religion, sex, or national origin of such individual or group on account of an imbalance which may exist with respect to the total number or percentage of persons of any race, color, religion, sex, or national origin employed by any employer, referred or classified for employment by any employment agency or labor organization, admitted to membership or classified by any labor organization, or admitted to, or employed in, any apprenticeship or other training program, in comparison with the total number or percentage of persons of such race, color, religion, sex, or national origin in any community, State, section, or other area, or in the available work force in any community, State, section, or other area. Which is to say, affirmative action or diversity programs. 29 C.F.R. § 1608.1–1608.1(c) says: > Voluntary affirmative action to improve opportunities for minorities and women must be encouraged and protected in order to carry out the Congressional intent embodied in title VII.[4] Affirmative action under these principles means those actions appropriate to overcome the effects of past or present practices, policies, or other barriers to equal employment opportunity. Such voluntary affirmative action cannot be measured by the standard of whether it would have been required had there been litigation, for this standard would undermine the legislative purpose of first encouraging voluntary action without litigation. 34 C.F.R. § 106.3(b) says: > a recipient may take affirmative action to overcome the effects of conditions which resulted in limited participation therein by persons of a particular sex. The decision in United Steelworkers v. Weber states: > Title VII's prohibition in §§ 703(a) and (d) against racial discrimination does not condemn all private, voluntary, race-conscious affirmative action plans. ... Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U. S. 405, 422 U. S. 418, cannot be interpreted as an absolute prohibition against all private, voluntary, race-conscious affirmative action efforts to hasten the elimination of such vestiges. The decision in Johnson v. Transportation Agency similarly states that Santa Clara County Transportation Agency did not violate Title VII by promoting a less-qualified woman. The decision in Cohen v. Brown University upheld the use of affirmative action to equalize opportunity. The law _literally_ contemplates this. As you said, "you need to literally look it up sometime."
bparsons 11mo ago
Which law are you referring to? If you are referring to Presidential statements, they have to be followed by an actual regulation or else they are just a press release.
endomorphosis 11mo ago
STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS, INC. v. PRESIDENT AND FELLOWS OF HARVARD COLLEGE 2023 Held: Harvard’s and UNC’s admissions programs violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Pp. 6–40. "(b) Proposed by Congress and ratified by the States in the wake of the Civil War, the Fourteenth Amendment provides that no State shall “deny to any person . . . the equal protection of the laws.” Proponents of the Equal Protection Clause described its “foundation[al] principle” as “not permit[ing] any distinctions of law based on race or color.” Any “law which operates upon one man,” they maintained, should “operate equally upon all.” Accordingly, as this Court’s early decisions interpreting the Equal Protection Clause explained, the Fourteenth Amendment guaranteed “that the law in the States shall be the same for the black as for the white; that all persons, whether colored or white, shall stand equal before the laws of the States.” ... "Respondents suggest that the end of race-based admissions programs will occur once meaningful representation and diversity are achieved on college campuses. Such measures of success amount to little more than comparing the racial breakdown of the incoming class and comparing it to some other metric, such as the racial makeup of the previous incoming class or the population in general, to see whether some proportional goal has been reached. The problem with this approach is well established: “[O]utright racial balancing” is “patently unconstitutional.”
- mrbombastic 11mo ago
  In regards to race conscious bias in the admissions process this is very different then an outreach program
endomorphosis 11mo ago
AMERICAN ALLIANCE FOR EQUAL RIGHTS, versus FEARLESS FUND MANAGEMENT, LLC, 2023 To be sure, the line between “pure speech” that arguably entails discriminatory sentiments, see 303 Creative, 600 U.S. at 587, and the very act of discrimination itself may at times be hard to draw. And to be sure, Fearless characterizes its contest as reflecting its “commitment” to the “[b]lack women-owned” business community. The fact remains, though, that Fearless simply—and flatly— refuses to entertain applications from business owners who aren’t “black females.” Official Rules at 3. If that refusal were deemed sufficiently “expressive” to warrant protection under the Free Speech Clause, then so would be every act of race discrimination, ... "Moreover, and more specifically, each lost opportunity to enter Fearless’s contest works an irreparable injury because it prevents the Alliance’s members from competing at all—not just for the $20,000 cash prize but also for Fearless’s ongoing mentorship and the ensuing business opportunities that a contest victory might provide. "
- mrbombastic 11mo ago
  The organization refused applications from anyone who wasn’t a black female, again different then an outreach group. I am sure if a male applied to “Girls who code” was denied and was able to establish this did harm to him he could have a case. As far as I know that has not happened so the group and others like it are perfectly legal.

zb3 11mo ago

[flagged]

__loam 11mo ago
[flagged]
- zb3 11mo ago
  [flagged]
  - __loam 11mo ago
    [flagged]
    - endomorphosis 11mo ago
      [flagged]
    - deleted 11mo ago
      [deleted]
  - array_key_first 11mo ago
    > In the US, this also applies to Republican voters. What about them? Nobody cares about them. If you want to make a "coding for republicans", then go for it. Nobody is stopping you. You can't pretend people are stopping you so then you can turn around and act like a victim. That's not normal person behavior. > conservative views? They're also pretty underrepresented in the tech industry First off, not they're not. Second off - nobody is censoring conservative views. They ARE censoring obvious racism, sometimes pedophilia, sometimes misogyny. Because those all suck. And when that happens, some conservatives cry. Which doesn't say what you think it says. That does not reflect well on you or the broader ideology. At the end of the day, if I speak like Hilary Clinton at work, it's perfectly normal. If I speak like Trump and talk about "human garbage" and various brown people eating cats and dogs, I'm probably getting fired and potentially a referral to a psychiatrist. That's the difference. Not the ideology, the words.