3 ms·

So you're saying Investors should be forced to invest money into something because the person pitching them is in a protected class? Clarification: Discrimina

by Tobani 13y ago

So you're saying Investors should be forced to invest money into something because the person pitching them is in a protected class? Clarification: Discrimination based on race, ethnicity, etc is bad. But employers need to be able to hire based on the ability to do one's job. If a large part of one's job is to communicate... things start to get murky.

untog 13y ago
Forced? Of course not, don't be hyperbolic. No-one is "forced" to hire because of the Civil Rights Act, they are simply prevented from using race as a reason to not hire. I was simply pointing out that the OP's reason for being able to disregard the Civil Rights Act is because it's in a legal loophole, not because there are substantial differences that mean it shouldn't be applied.
- Tobani 13y ago
  I think there is a difference though. Any individual could discriminate in buying stocks because they don't like the head of the organization for whatever reason regardless of the moral implication. I don't think anybody would say this would be a violation of the civil rights law. YC is slightly different because the relationship is closer, sure, but it is still an investor/investee relationship. I think its still a case like the former. I'm not sure I'd agree entirely that its a loophole.
- nsmartt 13y ago
  > No-one is "forced" to hire because of the Civil Rights Act, they are simply prevented from using race as a reason to not hire. Investors are in the business of gauging likelihood of success. As an extreme example, consider the following scenario: You are an investor during WWII. The Japanese are discriminated against by the general public, and you're considering investing in a company with Japanese founders. You're aware that the company will face significant difficulties because of their race in this climate. It's not unreasonable to forgo investing. The company's chances of success are significantly lower than they would be if the founders were white (in the climate of WWII). Were you required by law not to discriminate, you would be forced to invest in a company you didn't expect to succeed. Of course, you could argue that this isn't discrimination because the actual reason is based on likelihood of success rather than prejudice, which is the case for YC. PG argues that strong accents, which are difficult to decipher, are indicative of sub-par communication skills, and are therefore relevant to the success of the company.
  - untog 13y ago
    Investors are in the business of gauging likelihood of success. But aren't employers in the business of gauging likelihood of success in prospective employees? In everything you've just written, how is investment substantially different from hiring?

by Tobani 13y ago

untog 13y ago

Forced? Of course not, don't be hyperbolic. No-one is "forced" to hire because of the Civil Rights Act, they are simply prevented from using race as a reason to not hire. I was simply pointing out that the OP's reason for being able to disregard the Civil Rights Act is because it's in a legal loophole, not because there are substantial differences that mean it shouldn't be applied.

Tobani 13y ago
I think there is a difference though. Any individual could discriminate in buying stocks because they don't like the head of the organization for whatever reason regardless of the moral implication. I don't think anybody would say this would be a violation of the civil rights law. YC is slightly different because the relationship is closer, sure, but it is still an investor/investee relationship. I think its still a case like the former. I'm not sure I'd agree entirely that its a loophole.
nsmartt 13y ago
> No-one is "forced" to hire because of the Civil Rights Act, they are simply prevented from using race as a reason to not hire. Investors are in the business of gauging likelihood of success. As an extreme example, consider the following scenario: You are an investor during WWII. The Japanese are discriminated against by the general public, and you're considering investing in a company with Japanese founders. You're aware that the company will face significant difficulties because of their race in this climate. It's not unreasonable to forgo investing. The company's chances of success are significantly lower than they would be if the founders were white (in the climate of WWII). Were you required by law not to discriminate, you would be forced to invest in a company you didn't expect to succeed. Of course, you could argue that this isn't discrimination because the actual reason is based on likelihood of success rather than prejudice, which is the case for YC. PG argues that strong accents, which are difficult to decipher, are indicative of sub-par communication skills, and are therefore relevant to the success of the company.
- untog 13y ago
  Investors are in the business of gauging likelihood of success. But aren't employers in the business of gauging likelihood of success in prospective employees? In everything you've just written, how is investment substantially different from hiring?