Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

L.A. judge rules LGBT corporate diversity law unconstitutional

newsweek.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 231 posts

Re: L.A. judge rules LGBT corporate diversity law unconstitutional

#211

Post by listless »

toast0 wrote: post #122
listless wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anybody up for an argument that the government should have custody of and raise all children? I know that’s a non-starter, but if you want to level the playing field for all kids, this is how you do it. Outside of that, you are leaving children to whatever shitty situation they didn’t ask to be born into. I’m not saying I’m for this. I’m not and you would have to kill me to get to my kids. Just seems like the most lo…

Seemed fine in Logan's Run, so it should be ok? I think you could do a lot of stuff to provide support to all kids without going all the way to universal government custody. Things like (optional) government paid universal day care and after school care, government paid universal health care for minors, food/housing/etc stipends (like the child tax credit, but bigger), and arguably better pay for teachers and smaller…

But here’s what the government can’t fix…

Violence in the home (most goes unreported), Mocking education in the home, Drug abuse in the home, An example of single parent pregnancy everywhere, General neglect - nobody to read to you

These are all cultural things. Culture is the software that gets installed on you and some people are getting a shitty software version that almost guarantees failure. If you don’t believe that, watch any documentary on rural Appalachia.

Re: L.A. judge rules LGBT corporate diversity law unconstitutional

#212

Post by slibhb »

rectang wrote: post #199
slibhb wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Juries are randomly drawn from the population...

Yes, they are now . (As far as I know.) But such was not always the case, for example in the Jim Crow south — where all-white juries routinely convicted innocent black defendants and routinely exonerated guilty white defendants. Proper Jury representation had to be foisted on Southern states, who resisted it mightily.

As far as I know there is no law that says that all juries must have a black/gay/woman/whatever on them.

Is your point that board members should be randomly drawn from the population like jury members?

Re: L.A. judge rules LGBT corporate diversity law unconstitutional

#213

Post by Retric »

avazhi wrote: post #207
Retric wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So after reading that I went to check the literature and it seems to on average be a net benefit. Complications and regret are both possible, but various objective and subjective measurements do improve on average. Ex: https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Coverage/DeterminationProcess/D...

Just because their subjective well-being improves doesn't mean the problem is solved, and you'll see that even after 'treatment' they are still much more likely to commit suicide or suffer from depression compared to the general population. My personal hunch is that, again, these people have a mental illness, but we as a society have framed it in the way that if they just get surgery we can fix their dysphoria - when…

These treatments clearly don’t solve the underlying issue. The question is simply are they the best current alternative for a subset of the population. That is supported by hard data, even if the surgery is rather barbaric we simply don’t have the technology to do a better job while either keeping someone their old gender or swapping to another.

As to having a mental illness, that’s often how we describe issues we don’t understand or have the ability to treat. Stress ulcers are a great example of such classifications. I am not disagreeing that many of these people have significant mental issues, but calling something a mental illness isn’t specific enough to do anything with and tends to be used dismissively. Further once the underlying cause is discovered we stop thinking of say mercury poisoning as a mental health issue.

Re: L.A. judge rules LGBT corporate diversity law unconstitutional

#214

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

slibhb wrote: post #193
PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #69

The difficulty here is the collision between explicit discrimination by the state (prohibited in this case by the CA constitution) and de facto discrimination by private actors (see the significant under-representation of many different demographic groups in positions of power and wealth). CA sought to use the power of the state to legislate some private behavior to reduce the negative impact of de facto discriminati…

> Of course, you may not accept that there is de facto discrimination by private actors, but then you need to explain the underrepresenation of different demographics, and likely in order to appear reasonably sane, your argument needs to be something other than "that's just the way it is". What argument is there to explain the underrepresentation that doesn't ultimately confirm that it is actually discrimination? Why…

> the fact that 20% of Nobel prize winners are Jews is not evidence of a global Jewish cabal

Two points:

1. when there are relatively small numbers of X, I agree that we should not expect the set of all X to proportionally represent the whole population. This leads to the question of what a "relatively small number" is, and while there is a mathematical/statistical way to answer this (sampling/set theory etc.), I think there's room for there to be a political/social dimension to it as well.

2. it is true that the Nobel situation does not indicate a Jewish cabal. However, it is interesting enough to raise questions about the specific histories of those winners, and whether there was anything about their being Jewish that helps to explain their success (I have no idea of the answer). Likewise, I think it is absolutely worth wondering where all the white rappers are, even though their absence doesn't indicate discrimination or a cabal.

I largely agree with your final paragraph.

Re: L.A. judge rules LGBT corporate diversity law unconstitutional

#215

Post by edanm »

Ourgon wrote: post #209
edanm wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a difference between what one wishes the world was like, and what one should do given the world as it actually is. Given the past rampant anti-LGBT feelings and actions around the world, it totally made sense for LGBT people to band together, to enact change on their own behalf. Much of the world is better for LGBT people today, but a) it's still not quite as good as most would want it, and b) in many parts o…

> So given that everyone else treats LGBT as a group, and that everyone else treats them badly Simply put: Nonsense A bit more elaborate: some people have something against people who differ in some way, whether that be in their sexual orientation or handedness or skin colour or the language they speak or the food they eat or the god(s) they worship or the parties they vote for or the places they live or the clothes…

> Can you prove it? Show us how your statement is true, in what way everyone treats gays, lesbians and bisexuals badly. Just saying this does not make it true, not even repeating it ad nauseam,

As I said in the original comment, not literally everyone treats LGBT people badly. But are you seriously suggesting there is zero bad treatment of LGBT people? Do you think historically there was, but now there isn't? Based on the language in your comment, it seems you have a certain point of view about this topic which makes you think there isn't any bias against LGBT people, and you're not just randomly asking for proof.

So as proof, I can easily show historical mistreatment of LGBT groups. Example: having homosexual sex, at least for men, was illegal in some places (including some states in the US). Until fairly recently, getting married to a same-sex partner was illegal in the US. Those are two easy examples, the latter change happening what, less than a decade ago?

For existing mistreatment, homosexuality is still illegal in many countries. There are new laws being passed in the US which some LGBT groups consider to be against their interest. In my own country, it's only within the last year that gay couples could have a baby through surrogacy within the country. Etc.

If you think that none of this counts as mistreatment, I'd urge you to say what * would* count in your opinion.

Re: L.A. judge rules LGBT corporate diversity law unconstitutional

#216

Post by rectang »

slibhb wrote: post #212
rectang wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, they are now . (As far as I know.) But such was not always the case, for example in the Jim Crow south — where all-white juries routinely convicted innocent black defendants and routinely exonerated guilty white defendants. Proper Jury representation had to be foisted on Southern states, who resisted it mightily.

As far as I know there is no law that says that all juries must have a black/gay/woman/whatever on them. Is your point that board members should be randomly drawn from the population like jury members?

I'm not proposing a specific remedy at this time. My point is that representation matters. Which I don't imagine we'll ever agree about.

Re: L.A. judge rules LGBT corporate diversity law unconstitutional

#217

Post by slibhb »

rectang wrote: post #216
slibhb wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As far as I know there is no law that says that all juries must have a black/gay/woman/whatever on them. Is your point that board members should be randomly drawn from the population like jury members?

I'm not proposing a specific remedy at this time. My point is that representation matters . Which I don't imagine we'll ever agree about.

Representation matters when it's the result of discrimination. You're assuming that any deviation from proportional representation is due to discrimination. I see no reason to assume that.

Re: L.A. judge rules LGBT corporate diversity law unconstitutional

#218

Post by [deleted] »

slibhb wrote: post #217
rectang wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not proposing a specific remedy at this time. My point is that representation matters . Which I don't imagine we'll ever agree about.

Representation matters when it's the result of discrimination. You're assuming that any deviation from proportional representation is due to discrimination. I see no reason to assume that.

[deleted]

Re: L.A. judge rules LGBT corporate diversity law unconstitutional

#219

Post by Ourgon »

edanm wrote: post #215
Ourgon wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So given that everyone else treats LGBT as a group, and that everyone else treats them badly Simply put: Nonsense A bit more elaborate: some people have something against people who differ in some way, whether that be in their sexual orientation or handedness or skin colour or the language they speak or the food they eat or the god(s) they worship or the parties they vote for or the places they live or the clothes…

> Can you prove it? Show us how your statement is true, in what way everyone treats gays, lesbians and bisexuals badly. Just saying this does not make it true, not even repeating it ad nauseam, As I said in the original comment, not literally everyone treats LGBT people badly. But are you seriously suggesting there is zero bad treatment of LGBT people? Do you think historically there was, but now there isn't? Based o…

You first state that 'everyone treats gays, lesbians and bisexuals badly', only to walk it back a few words later. Why did you say it in the first place?

Also, I asked for proof of your statement in the here and now, not for historical proof. Not 'was' but 'is'. Furthermore, the fact that some things are illegal in some countries does not mean anything for how those things are treated in liberal western democracies which is what I was asking about.

The fact that 'new laws being passed in the US which some LGBT groups consider to be against their interest' is totally irrelevant unless you can show which laws those are and in what way they actually discriminate against gays, lesbians and bisexual people.

You have not shown proof of your claim that everyone treats gays, lesbians and bisexuals badly. It is not up to me to provide you with examples of what would be mistreatment since I did not make any claims about people being mistreated. You made a claim but you can not prove it, it is up to you to either provide proof or walk back your claim.

Re: L.A. judge rules LGBT corporate diversity law unconstitutional

#220

Post by clairity »

armchairhacker wrote: post #123
Animats wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I anecdotally recall studies that found organizations with greater diversity deliver better financial results Seems to not make much difference in financial results, either way. Wharton study:[1] [1] https://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/will-gender-dive...

I believe those studies but correlation does not equal causation. I think the real reason that more diverse boards do better (if they do) is that the company hires people more based on talent and other metric which don’t discriminate, vs ones like patrimony. Forced diversity just sidesteps the problem because the company can still use bad metrics.

moreover, diversity of viewpoints borne of diversity of life experiences will better represent the search space in any decision-making. that's what makes diversity better, all other things being equal, which potentially then leads to better financial performance. it doesn't mean that any one decision will definitely be better, but that the totality of decision-making will be better on average than a less diverse decision-making group. this is a pretty reliable result in group dynamics/decision-making research.
Post reply on HN