Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[kaijyuu]

Well the current problem is that people already DO get jobs because of gender or race, except they happen to be the gender and/or race in power (men, caucasians, etc).


Ideally no one would give a shit about it either way, but until then, some balancing of the scales has to happen. It's perfectly valid to say that we're not doing so very effectively, but be sure to include a better alternative since a flawed method is better than no method.

[TD1]

No. You do not fight fire with fire. You do not say that discrimination in a different area will balance out discrimination in the original area. You are still denying a better candidate a job simply because of how they were born. That is wrong. No matter the reasoning.

It also effects work efficiency. And there are laws to combat discrimination. Laws which can be policed. Laws which arepoliced.

[Descan]

The argument I've heard for positive discrimination if the minority-candidate is one who has less credentials/merit (but can still do the job) is in terms of how, as a whole, certain groups have less opportunity growing up because their parents had less opportunity because their parents had less opportunity. So by giving it to a lesser-but-still-able candidate, you short-circuit that endless loop and their children have better opportunities growing up.

[TD1]

But it's still discrimination. Yes, it gives those who wouldn't have had an opportunity a chance...and it stunts the growth of those who could really have gone high. And all because they couldn't get their foot in.


Also, in most cases it isn't usually about performance or qualifications, but for religion or race.

[kaijyuu]

And there are laws to combat discrimination. Laws which can be policed. Laws which arepoliced.

I dunno where you live, but where I do, that's an utterly laughable claim.

Basically, you can be fired for "no reason" around here. Which equates to being fired for any reason, even illegal ones, if you don't write down what the actual reason is. This is colloquially referred to as "right to work" but looking that up I don't think that's an accurate term to use.

[EnigmaticHat]

I just wonder what the political landscape is going to look like in 10-20 years when the baby boomers are mostly out of the picture, and the millenials start seriously clawing their way out of the pits.  We've grown up in such an atmosphere of extreme, inescapable bullshit.

Bad for the republicans?  At the moment baby boomers inflate a certain demographic that largely votes republican.  We all know the one.

Its also possible we might see incumbents voted out of office due to general disgust at the status quo.  Although as I understand it the incumbents are kept in power by gerrymandering and campaign contributions moreso than true popularity.

[kaijyuu]

If the Republican party drops social conservatism and focuses on economic conservatism, that's still probably an improvement. At least the libertarians are logically consistent, if amoral.

[Elephant Parade]

I know of many Canadians on here, and they all pretty much give me this concept that Canada is a pretty chill place to live.

(Pun intended)

Canada is a pretty cool place to live. For one thing, you don't end up in debt forever if you get injured. Yay healthcare.

I have no memories of the United States (I've only been there as a small child) so I can't really compare the two, though.

[SalmonGod]

I know of many Canadians on here, and they all pretty much give me this concept that Canada is a pretty chill place to live.

(Pun intended)

Canada is a pretty cool place to live. For one thing, you don't end up in debt forever if you get injured. Yay healthcare.

I have no memories of the United States (I've only been there as a small child) so I can't really compare the two, though.

Don't think I've ever met anyone who spent time living in another developed country, and then wanted to come back.

[TD1]

I know of many Canadians on here, and they all pretty much give me this concept that Canada is a pretty chill place to live.

(Pun intended)

Canada is a pretty cool place to live. For one thing, you don't end up in debt forever if you get injured. Yay healthcare.

I have no memories of the United States (I've only been there as a small child) so I can't really compare the two, though.

Yay Commonwealth!

[Helgoland]

I know of many Canadians on here, and they all pretty much give me this concept that Canada is a pretty chill place to live.

(Pun intended)

Canada is a pretty cool place to live. For one thing, you don't end up in debt forever if you get injured. Yay healthcare.

I have no memories of the United States (I've only been there as a small child) so I can't really compare the two, though.

Yay Commonwealth!

Yay Europe!

[LeoLeonardoIII]

Yay Earth!

[TD1]

Yay Universe!

[LeoLeonardoIII]

I'm quite partial to Reality. Cue Xantalos posting something indescribable.

[Frumple]

Bit belated, but...

What I really get angry about on the whole equality thing is this idea of positive discrimination. I mean, they really should have figured something was wrong just by looking at the name of the twisted thing they'd created. Jobs should be allocated because of merit, not because of gender or race. Saying you're doing it for the benefit of one side doesn't mean you aren't doing it to the detriment of the other side as well.

So stupid. So very, very stupid. It's still discrimination.

It's also good that it doesn't exist to any meaningful degree, aha! Affirmative action, at its "worst" generally just means if you have two people of equal merit, but one a minority, the minority is favored. It doesn't mean that someone less qualified will get the position strictly because they're a minority. T'be honest, if they were -- at least in the states -- I'm relatively sure that would still be able to push through a discrimination case, if it actually happened (and being a minority didn't meaningfully impact the position requirements -- which it can, rarely).

That doesn't mean they won't get the position, mind. There's quite a number of reasons an employer will prefer to hire someone of less merit. Most reports I've seen of "positive" discrimination is people making an attribution error and assuming it's because the person (they were passed over for) was a minority, instead of, y'know, the employer wanting to hire someone less experienced. Though I wouldn't be terribly surprised if there's some company owners out there using affirmative action as an attempted PR move to hide they're trying to build a more exploitable and/or cheaper workforce.