3 ms·
You don't get to say "these people's rights are inconvenient, so until we make it more convenient, I say we ignore their rights." We either care about sex discr
by scoofy 8mo ago
You don't get to say "these people's rights are inconvenient, so until we make it more convenient, I say we ignore their rights." We either care about sex discrimination everywhere, or we don't care about it anywhere.
- kelseyfrog 8mo agoQuick question, are you attracted to one gender?
- scoofy 8mo agoIndeed I am.
- kelseyfrog 8mo ago[flagged]
- scoofy 8mo agoSex discrimination is about equality employment and housing rights. Not about who you have to be friends with.
- kelseyfrog 8mo agoAll I'm hearing is carve-outs and exceptions. "But when I do it, it's ok." If you're excluding people based on sex/gender it's discrimination. We either care about sex discrimination everywhere, or we don't care about it anywhere. Everywhere includes public and private life.
- scoofy 8mo agoAll I’m hearing is bad-faith nonsense built on intentionally ignoring the concept of civil rights. Why go on the internet and do this? Honestly. You know that your line of argumentation doesn’t even remotely care about being serious, yet you make it anyway. Why? To waste my time?
- kelseyfrog 8mo agoBro, your argument is a joke. What should a woman in this position do? Look at the options and think to herself, "I could choose a woman driver, but I won't because that is discriminatory to men and I should accept the risk"? Put yourself in her shoes. I don't mean this metaphorically. Put on women's clothes, makeup, and order an uber. In the time it takes for it to arrive, notice the thoughts that appear in your mind and get back to me.
- scoofy 8mo agoMy argument is an active lawsuit: https://employmentlawweekly.com/uncategorized/uber-lyft-sued-for-passenger-gender-preference-programs/ https://employmentlawweekly.com/uncategorized/uber-lyft-sued... Yes, I realize women face real dangers in car share hiring. The solution isn't just to then just blindly discriminate against random, perfectly nice men.
- kelseyfrog 8mo agoFeel free to share a better solution so we can replace this one. Then we can argue the merits of solution A vs solution B. I'd much rather be having that conversation instead of the solution A vs no solution. Arguing against filtering cannot be separated from the moral hazard of asking someone else to take on risk without themselves having skin in the game.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 8mo ago> Feel free to share a better solution so we can replace this one. > Then we can argue the merits of solution A vs solution B. I'd much rather be having that conversation instead of the solution A vs no solution. You should be aware that these statements come off as extremely obtuse. A solution was shared at the top of the thread; albeit by a different commenter, but it makes sense that the second commenter would have the same suggestion in mind. You've not actually discussed the merits despite ample opportunity, instead agreeing that it's a better solution, but, because it's not been implemented, this solution is still necessary for the time being. What you've not done is argued for why that should be the case, as opposed to the bare assertion that it is. It seems that would be beneficial to your point of view in this discussion, given that others seem to be saying that it should not be.
- cindyllm 8mo ago[dead]