5 ms·
I think you just rationalized discrimination. Nice work.
by cglee 13y ago
I think you just rationalized discrimination. Nice work.
- tedunangst 13y agoDiscrimination is not irrational. As a society we have determined that we value an individual's desire to get a job more than a business's desire for an efficient filtering mechanism. "Discrimination is rational" and "discrimination is bad" are not mutually exclusive.
- cglee 13y agoThe fact that discrimination seems natural means that we need to fight against it consciously, not rationalize it as acceptable. If you value diversity, equality, etc, then you have to actively monitor your own discriminatory tendencies and lead with respect, compassion, love instead of rationality and pattern matching.
- tedunangst 13y agoPretty sure I didn't say it was acceptable.
- rogerchucker 13y agoWhen you call something is rational, you automatically label it acceptable. So please stop trying to be coy.
- sliverstorm 13y agocglee, I'm curious, what would you do if you were making investments and you knew that a certain cultural background was correlated with a tenfold increase in risk on your investment?
- dud1983 13y agosliverstorm I'm curious what would you do if you were from one of those cultural backgrounds that are seen as bad for investors and were denied the opportunity to do something solely on the ground of your origin, an origin which you had no choice but to accept because you were born into? And it does not matter that you are the next Jobs, because the moment the investors hear you greeting them with a foreign or exotic accent they are not paying any attention about what you have to say, at all. What would you do? would you still support pg? even if that keeps you from ever being able to raise any funding?
- dylangs1030 13y agoI think you just disregarded my entire argument using a cultural taboo. Nice work. See? I can play at that game too. The problem is, doing that doesn't get anywhere, because I'm still convinced of my point, and you're still convinced of yours, and there's no dialectic to compromise our ideas.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- foobarbazqux 13y agoOkay, so given two candidates that are equally skilled, what's the middle ground between discriminating solely on the basis of markers correlating with success, and hiring people strictly according to the demographics of the world?
- saraid216 13y agoWhy would he treat your argument fairly when your argument is that life is unfair?
- dylangs1030 13y agoThe ridiculous logic that statement employs aside, he has no obligation to treat it fairly. But if that's the case then whatever he says will just be disregarded. I won't treat his unfair dismissal as fair either. Okay, so we're where we started, with my point still standing. Again, being snarky like this leads nowhere. If you're going to give a solid rebuttal, good! If you're not, then you're not achieving anything.
- foobarbazqux 13y agoMy guess is that if you're using words like dialectic then secretly you aren't an extremist. (By extremist, I mean someone who adopts a polarized position, which you freely admit.)
- cglee 13y agoI apologize for the snarky tone; I just have no tolerance for people who try to justify discrimination, etc. To me, diversity, equality are ends in themselves. They're not means to a higher profit margin; they're not justifiable when more code is written, etc. Treat everyone equally. Understand that humans are wired to recognize patterns, and are naturally discriminatory. Fight that urge.