31–40 of 52 posts
Fact-light, moral panicky, vaguely anti-white / anti-male filler. That's 30 seconds of my life I won't get back. Hope to save a few readers the effort.
When the boomers in HR bend over backwards to get more "women in X" and more "minorities in X", then "young white dudes" are going to take the hint and make their own arrangements. That, and these kids (regardless of race or gender) are getting f-ed in general. I see so many places paying them less than what I was making in their position 20 years ago, and life didn't get any less expensive since then.
> When the boomers in HR bend over backwards to get more "women in X" and more "minorities in X", then "young white dudes" are going to take the hint and make their own arrangements. I, for one, am glad this isn't the 50s anymore. I have a feeling I wouldn't very much enjoy working with "young white dudes" who have contempt for diversity in the workplace.
When I see a company that makes a point of flaunting how diverse they are, I assume that place is full of the social justice crowd and is probably being run on emotion instead of sound business practice. In my experience, those people and places suck to work with. At best I'm going to end up hearing a bunch of ideological bullshit on a day-to-day, which I don't at all care for at work, and now I have to worry that I'm going to experience discrimination because folks have come up with some weird notion that my pale skin and scrotum means my life is just all kinds of easy and that other folks should have access to programs or a "leg up" that I am not eligible for.
“Those who traditionally face diminished labor market opportunities are more entrepreneurial and start their own business, or work alternative arrangements at significantly higher rates. The median small business owner is an immigrant who opened a nail salon because they couldn’t seem to get employed with anyone and start with their level of skill.”
Which is exactly what is happening to young white men now - discrimination due to affirmative action and diversity quotas. Which is senseless, because white (and Asian) men have achieved their greater representation in professional roles due to hard work and intelligence (partly hereditary). SAT scores bear that out:
https://i1.wp.com/www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/...
Professional employment often doesn't make sense because you cannot optimise your taxes. If I run my own business I can charge my home/office expenses, phone, overseas business travel, car, computer, broadband, etc. to the company.
"“The scourge of having men with flexible jobs may turn into a real opportunity of fathers with flexible jobs,” he adds."
A father cannot get pregnant, give birth, or breastfeed. Women are naturally more nurturing and fundamentally better suited to taking care of infants. If we want more women in the workforce, we need free childcare, including childcare very close to workplaces.
There are also many studies showing that women find men who are less successful than them less attractive. So I think instead of seeing more woman-dominated families, we will simply see fewer families, and more resentful old men and lonely old women.
The workplace and families have worked successfully for thousands of years and this social experiment, which seems to be enforced by the radical left without public input or widespread agreement, is undertaken at our peril.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And for the downvoters: sorry, but discrimination is discrimination. Avocado toast boy never kept a woman under his thumb or made people use a different water fountain. Why should he be penalized for what someone else's grandparents did?
You’re being downvoted because your claim that white men are victims of discrimination is ridiculous and not worth debating.
When the boomers in HR bend over backwards to get more "women in X" and more "minorities in X", then "young white dudes" are going to take the hint and make their own arrangements. That, and these kids (regardless of race or gender) are getting f-ed in general. I see so many places paying them less than what I was making in their position 20 years ago, and life didn't get any less expensive since then.
> When the boomers in HR bend over backwards to get more "women in X" and more "minorities in X", then "young white dudes" are going to take the hint and make their own arrangements. I, for one, am glad this isn't the 50s anymore. I have a feeling I wouldn't very much enjoy working with "young white dudes" who have contempt for diversity in the workplace.
There is nothing noble in pushing for equality of outcome.
No problem of lack of diversity will be solved without dragging down or discriminating against some demographic of society without a full commitment to equality of opportunity.
The myopia involved with being suckered into accepting discrimination against one group to the benefit of another being an acceptable approach demonstrates a lack of commitment to understanding the forces actually at work in the world.
Diversity or lack thereof isn't the problem. Equivalent access to the foundational necessities that facilitate successful integration into, and the ability to further develop and meaningfully contribute to the ends of, society's perpetuation and advancement with minimal accidental systemic compulsion is the problem.
Diversity is just the "bread and circuses" perversion that slows down any meaningful attempt at the former due to some mistaken impression that undoing an injustice must involve a new injustice being committed.
Two wrongs a right does not make.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Still has a higher chance of being hired, overall" is not being penalized.
Most state hiring boards (schools, colleges, administrators, etc) and federal contractors add points to minority, female, and veteran candidates--essentially a deduct from white male non-veterans. That they are still winning with a handicap doesn't change the fact that they are being penalized.
Fighting bias with bias is not as good as fixing root causes, but it works in more places.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most state hiring boards (schools, colleges, administrators, etc) and federal contractors add points to minority, female, and veteran candidates--essentially a deduct from white male non-veterans. That they are still winning with a handicap doesn't change the fact that they are being penalized.
The veteran one is the only one deliberately biasing things away from neutral. And shouldn't neutral total bias be the goal? Fighting bias with bias is not as good as fixing root causes, but it works in more places.
Far less subjective compared to adding points when you have no idea what a person's back-story is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You’re being downvoted because your claim that white men are victims of discrimination is ridiculous and not worth debating.
It is not a claim. It is fact. I know guys at so many federal contractors (all very good at what they do). Every last one reports to a woman who is still working on her degree and can't do the work. Middle management is the obvious place for diversity hires.
In situations where this is the case, these guys are more or less slaves, I would expect to see this exact same dynamic in ancient Rome
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The veteran one is the only one deliberately biasing things away from neutral. And shouldn't neutral total bias be the goal? Fighting bias with bias is not as good as fixing root causes, but it works in more places.
Why not just do "blind auditions" like some of the orchestras? Far less subjective compared to adding points when you have no idea what a person's back-story is.
Lots of subjective hiring practices are terrible.
When the boomers in HR bend over backwards to get more "women in X" and more "minorities in X", then "young white dudes" are going to take the hint and make their own arrangements. That, and these kids (regardless of race or gender) are getting f-ed in general. I see so many places paying them less than what I was making in their position 20 years ago, and life didn't get any less expensive since then.
And for the downvoters: sorry, but discrimination is discrimination. Avocado toast boy never kept a woman under his thumb or made people use a different water fountain. Why should he be penalized for what someone else's grandparents did?
I'm not convinced that you're asking in good faith, but I'm going to try to be optimistic and answer anyway.
Most of us can agree that there are demographics who have been systematically disadvantaged and that we live in an economy where advantages are often passed from one generation to another. This cascading injustice is similar to a relay race, where cheating in the first leg of the race affects the outcome in the last leg of the race.
In a race you'd be able to disqualify the team that cheated regardless of whether all of the members were complicit, but we can't disqualify white people from the economy. It's also unacceptable to ignore the injustice, as it continues to perpetuate those disadvantages into the future.
Instead, the idea is to try to counter those disadvantages by focusing on inclusivity rather than optimizing for people who want to keep the advantages that they've inherited through injustice.
To answer your question: the things that you feel are being taken away from you were never yours to begin with.
