4 ms·

I'll give an example of what I mean by discrimination: If someone is a 9/11 conspiracy theorist, you probably don't want to hang out with them. You might avoid

by chroma 13y ago

I'll give an example of what I mean by discrimination: If someone is a 9/11 conspiracy theorist, you probably don't want to hang out with them. You might avoid talking to them. If said conspiracy theorist ran a donut shop, maybe you'd go so far as to walk another block to buy donuts. That's the sort of discrimination I'm talking about: simply avoiding interaction with someone.

bzbarsky 13y ago
What if they're a 9/11 conspiracy theorist who doesn't ever mention their conspiracy theory unless you explicitly ask them what they think happened on 9/11? You seem to think that people who have deeply held beliefs spend all their time trying to foist those beliefs on others around them. That's true in some cases, not in others.
- chroma 13y ago
  If a person says they believe something but it never affects their actions, is it really a belief? It would probably be closer to a belief in belief (http://lesswrong.com/lw/i4/belief_in_belief/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/i4/belief_in_belief/). I'd probably buy donuts from your hypothetical closeted 9/11 conspiracy theorist. There's certainly a selection effect, but I think such people are extremely rare. I hardly ever ask people what their beliefs are, but they tell them to me anyway. Of course, I'm no different. People are typically much more passionate about their unusual beliefs. Every young-earth creationist I know of, I've found out about their belief within an hour of meeting them. I've never had a friend, acquaintance, or coworker who I discovered to be a biblical literalist only after several months of interactions. These beliefs are so important to these people that they simply can't avoid expressing them. Likewise, they have a hard time avoiding the secondary beliefs stemming from their conviction. It's eerie how similar their opinions are on gay marriage, women's rights, obscenity laws, circumcision, and teaching evolution in schools. I have no qualms avoiding interactions with these people. A side note: I'm glad this article was buried. The replies to my comments have been quite civil and well-reasoned, but most of the other discussion in this thread has been unproductive to say the least.
  - bzbarsky 13y ago
    I'm more interested in the case of people whose beliefs don't affect their actions in a professional capacity, as opposed to people whose beliefs never affect their actions. I agree people who have strong beliefs but are able to set them aside to some extent in part of their life are rare. They do exist, though. As a case in point, from my personal interactions with Brendan, I can assure you that he is not the sort of person who will tell you all about his thoughts on gay marriage within an hour of meeting him. In fact, I don't know what those thoughts are (short of trying to guess based on the donation thing), and I've known him for years. Mitchell Baker has known him for even longer, and worked with him more closely, but see the next to last paragraph of https://blog.lizardwrangler.com/2014/03/26/building-a-global-diverse-inclusive-mozilla-project-addressing-controversy/ https://blog.lizardwrangler.com/2014/03/26/building-a-global...
azakai 13y ago
Ok, that's not what I think is generally meant by "discrimination". "Discrimination" is usually taken to mean what you earlier said: that you wouldn't hire someone to work for you if they were a biblical literalist. That is illegal, and should be. Employment has some amount of state regulation - you can't not hire someone because of their religion or the color of their skin. It isn't fair for people of a certain religion or ethnic group to not be hire-able, and beyond that it is also just impractical in a country like the US. If no one hired anyone but their own ethnic group and religion, the economy would be completely stagnant, because the US is so diverse.
- chroma 13y ago
  You make it sound like people are born with a religion, which can never be changed. Discriminating based on immutable characteristics such as ethnicity, sexual preference, or gender is wrong and I'm glad many such forms of discrimination are prohibited. But beliefs can and do change. Moreover, beliefs are the reasons why people do what they do. Choosing to avoid interacting with people who express certain beliefs seems totally fine. I doubt the economy would suffer much if religious discrimination were allowed. First, it already happens (especially against atheists). Second, most people (including myself) are willing to overlook the vast majority of differences in beliefs. There's only a fringe who end up with slightly lower wages. I knew my opinion was controversial, but I didn't expect this reaction from people. I guess I stumbled onto something you can't say.[1] 1. http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html
  - azakai 13y ago
    I didn't say a person's religion can't change? Obviously people change religion all the time. But that is not the reason why discriminating based on religion is wrong. Again, the first reason is moral. Imagine if catholic people were the majority in some area, and on average wealthy, and wouldn't hire muslims which in that area were a poorer minority. That's just not fair - why shouldn't all people in that region have the same employment opportunities? The second reason is practicality. There are so many religions and ethnic groups in the US, everyone has to work with everyone else. Otherwise we are losing out on a huge amount of economic potential. Let the best people work at the best jobs, even if their religion doesn't happen to match their employer's. It's a job, not a place of worship. Also, I never said you can't say what you said. Only that I and the law disagree with you, on this topic. But I wouldn't hold what you said against you - not employment-wise (I would still potentially hire you) and not in any other way actually (if we met in person, we'd probably get along just fine). Disagreement doesn't need to be the end of the world.

by chroma 13y ago

bzbarsky 13y ago

What if they're a 9/11 conspiracy theorist who doesn't ever mention their conspiracy theory unless you explicitly ask them what they think happened on 9/11? You seem to think that people who have deeply held beliefs spend all their time trying to foist those beliefs on others around them. That's true in some cases, not in others.

chroma 13y ago
If a person says they believe something but it never affects their actions, is it really a belief? It would probably be closer to a belief in belief (http://lesswrong.com/lw/i4/belief_in_belief/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/i4/belief_in_belief/). I'd probably buy donuts from your hypothetical closeted 9/11 conspiracy theorist. There's certainly a selection effect, but I think such people are extremely rare. I hardly ever ask people what their beliefs are, but they tell them to me anyway. Of course, I'm no different. People are typically much more passionate about their unusual beliefs. Every young-earth creationist I know of, I've found out about their belief within an hour of meeting them. I've never had a friend, acquaintance, or coworker who I discovered to be a biblical literalist only after several months of interactions. These beliefs are so important to these people that they simply can't avoid expressing them. Likewise, they have a hard time avoiding the secondary beliefs stemming from their conviction. It's eerie how similar their opinions are on gay marriage, women's rights, obscenity laws, circumcision, and teaching evolution in schools. I have no qualms avoiding interactions with these people. A side note: I'm glad this article was buried. The replies to my comments have been quite civil and well-reasoned, but most of the other discussion in this thread has been unproductive to say the least.
- bzbarsky 13y ago
  I'm more interested in the case of people whose beliefs don't affect their actions in a professional capacity, as opposed to people whose beliefs never affect their actions. I agree people who have strong beliefs but are able to set them aside to some extent in part of their life are rare. They do exist, though. As a case in point, from my personal interactions with Brendan, I can assure you that he is not the sort of person who will tell you all about his thoughts on gay marriage within an hour of meeting him. In fact, I don't know what those thoughts are (short of trying to guess based on the donation thing), and I've known him for years. Mitchell Baker has known him for even longer, and worked with him more closely, but see the next to last paragraph of https://blog.lizardwrangler.com/2014/03/26/building-a-global-diverse-inclusive-mozilla-project-addressing-controversy/ https://blog.lizardwrangler.com/2014/03/26/building-a-global...

azakai 13y ago

Ok, that's not what I think is generally meant by "discrimination". "Discrimination" is usually taken to mean what you earlier said: that you wouldn't hire someone to work for you if they were a biblical literalist. That is illegal, and should be. Employment has some amount of state regulation - you can't not hire someone because of their religion or the color of their skin. It isn't fair for people of a certain religion or ethnic group to not be hire-able, and beyond that it is also just impractical in a country like the US. If no one hired anyone but their own ethnic group and religion, the economy would be completely stagnant, because the US is so diverse.

chroma 13y ago
You make it sound like people are born with a religion, which can never be changed. Discriminating based on immutable characteristics such as ethnicity, sexual preference, or gender is wrong and I'm glad many such forms of discrimination are prohibited. But beliefs can and do change. Moreover, beliefs are the reasons why people do what they do. Choosing to avoid interacting with people who express certain beliefs seems totally fine. I doubt the economy would suffer much if religious discrimination were allowed. First, it already happens (especially against atheists). Second, most people (including myself) are willing to overlook the vast majority of differences in beliefs. There's only a fringe who end up with slightly lower wages. I knew my opinion was controversial, but I didn't expect this reaction from people. I guess I stumbled onto something you can't say.[1] 1. http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html
- azakai 13y ago
  I didn't say a person's religion can't change? Obviously people change religion all the time. But that is not the reason why discriminating based on religion is wrong. Again, the first reason is moral. Imagine if catholic people were the majority in some area, and on average wealthy, and wouldn't hire muslims which in that area were a poorer minority. That's just not fair - why shouldn't all people in that region have the same employment opportunities? The second reason is practicality. There are so many religions and ethnic groups in the US, everyone has to work with everyone else. Otherwise we are losing out on a huge amount of economic potential. Let the best people work at the best jobs, even if their religion doesn't happen to match their employer's. It's a job, not a place of worship. Also, I never said you can't say what you said. Only that I and the law disagree with you, on this topic. But I wouldn't hold what you said against you - not employment-wise (I would still potentially hire you) and not in any other way actually (if we met in person, we'd probably get along just fine). Disagreement doesn't need to be the end of the world.