3 ms·

Part of the reason for this is that when people hear the word "but" they mentally remove all the words in the sentence preceding it. One way to get around this

Part of the reason for this is that when people hear the word "but" they mentally remove all the words in the sentence preceding it. One way to get around this is by replacing "but" with "and." That's my opinion, but I'm not an expert.

waps 13y ago
The real problem here is that legal protections for certain classes by themselves create a disincentive for hiring those people. Discrimination/racism protections especially suffer from this. I've had some experience with this as well. In Europe (Brussels) it's plain to see that most companies don't hire certain "bad" minorities, then fix their legally mandated "racism stats" (ie. a quota) by demanding the cleaning company provide them with contractor cleaners of the correct ethnicity. Why ? Because if they sue, the damage is 24x their monthly pay, which is next to nothing. This is a horribly bad factor for people like Jewish programmers, black sysadmins, and the like. They're doubly fucked : there's a very good legal reason for companies not to hire them, and they have a good legal incentive to be incompetent assholes, so they get fired and get legal damages from their legal anti-discrimination rights. In addition, the government's education incentives cause and strengthen the racist prejudices. Black sysadmins/programmers are worse than white sysadmins ... well of course ! If the law mandates a passing grade for black sysadmins in university is 40% where whites have to score 60%, this would be exactly the expected result wouldn't it ? In the end there is no substitute to waiting for immigrants to naturally work their way up the food chain like has mostly happened in America. Problem is simple : this takes multiple generations. This is one of the many reasons it's really bad to protect certain classes of people, doubly so when we're talking ethnicities or religious groups (as opposed to say, stem graduates, legal professionals, ...). Plus it generally seems to me to fly in the face of the idea of non-discrimination. You cannot achieve a colorblind society with racist law, in fact you're achieving the opposite. Of course the problem is that discrimination laws are not trying to achieve a colorblind society. Rather they're trying to throw a religious/ethnic group a bone to prevent them from rioting, and making their situation worse in the process. Let's face it, in Western Europe if you're muslim/jewish/black/... (and not self-employed) you want to be an incompetent asshole, because that's what the law rewards. You can effectively get 2 or 3 wages paid out if you do that. Nothing to do with ethnicity or religion, has a LOT to do with people attempting to take shortcuts in fixing observed injustices. There are some that are creating their own companies and avoiding the problem this way. But this is much, much harder than making it as an employee. I have a lot of respect for the few that do this, though.

waps 13y ago

The real problem here is that legal protections for certain classes by themselves create a disincentive for hiring those people. Discrimination/racism protections especially suffer from this. I've had some experience with this as well. In Europe (Brussels) it's plain to see that most companies don't hire certain "bad" minorities, then fix their legally mandated "racism stats" (ie. a quota) by demanding the cleaning company provide them with contractor cleaners of the correct ethnicity. Why ? Because if they sue, the damage is 24x their monthly pay, which is next to nothing. This is a horribly bad factor for people like Jewish programmers, black sysadmins, and the like. They're doubly fucked : there's a very good legal reason for companies not to hire them, and they have a good legal incentive to be incompetent assholes, so they get fired and get legal damages from their legal anti-discrimination rights. In addition, the government's education incentives cause and strengthen the racist prejudices. Black sysadmins/programmers are worse than white sysadmins ... well of course ! If the law mandates a passing grade for black sysadmins in university is 40% where whites have to score 60%, this would be exactly the expected result wouldn't it ? In the end there is no substitute to waiting for immigrants to naturally work their way up the food chain like has mostly happened in America. Problem is simple : this takes multiple generations. This is one of the many reasons it's really bad to protect certain classes of people, doubly so when we're talking ethnicities or religious groups (as opposed to say, stem graduates, legal professionals, ...). Plus it generally seems to me to fly in the face of the idea of non-discrimination. You cannot achieve a colorblind society with racist law, in fact you're achieving the opposite. Of course the problem is that discrimination laws are not trying to achieve a colorblind society. Rather they're trying to throw a religious/ethnic group a bone to prevent them from rioting, and making their situation worse in the process. Let's face it, in Western Europe if you're muslim/jewish/black/... (and not self-employed) you want to be an incompetent asshole, because that's what the law rewards. You can effectively get 2 or 3 wages paid out if you do that. Nothing to do with ethnicity or religion, has a LOT to do with people attempting to take shortcuts in fixing observed injustices. There are some that are creating their own companies and avoiding the problem this way. But this is much, much harder than making it as an employee. I have a lot of respect for the few that do this, though.