'Old white guy' can move forward with workplace bias suit against AT&T

Post by throwawaylinux » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 3:53 AM UTC

xiphias2 wrote: post #104

throwawaylinux wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

While I agree with you that they are trying to do it, the Johnny Depp case was an example to show that there is a limit that will backfire after 6 years if crossed. There are lots of cases in court where men are discriminated against (domestic violence was an example), but I believe that being white still has enough advantages generally. Agism is a stronger thing though that will get worse, as old people don't get in…

Post by camdat » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 3:58 AM UTC

usrn wrote: post #123

CodeSgt wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I initially read that I honestly didn't think it was all that bad. Inappropriate? Yes. Lawsuit worthy? No. But then, I imagined if the same thing were said to a 58 year old black woman, and immediately realized that it's severity. Is it just me, or has racism towards white people become acceptable/main stream (at least, much more so than racism towards other races)? I feel as if my lack of a visceral reaction to…

It's because the ideas come from early 20th Russian bolshevism. It's an application of Marxism to race so you can't be "racist" towards White people because they're "oppressors." It's why I wish people would use "bigoted" instead of "racist" because it's less ambiguous to the extremists pushing the nonsense and the people listening to them.

Post by codefreeordie » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 4:06 AM UTC

thethimble wrote: post #98

hunter2_ wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps age is just an oddball compared to the other protected classes, because there are legitimate reasons not to employ someone young (e.g., if the position requires x years of professional experience but the candidate has only been of working age for <x years) while there aren't many legitimate reasons not to employ someone old. Gender, race, etc. don't have this natural asymmetry.

Another interesting angle is that everyone eventually will become old and therefore in this protected class. It's not like race, gender, etc. in that way.

Post by striking » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 4:28 AM UTC

__blockcipher__ wrote: post #116

striking wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the whole "diversity and inclusion" thing is explicitly about giving unequal (more favorable) treatment to people who aren't white/male/cis It's too bad you see it that way when in a lot of cases it's explicitly about giving equal consideration to everyone rather than giving anyone more favorable treatment. Not every case, obviously, but that shouldn't invalidate attempting to level the playing field.

> It's too bad you see it that way when in a lot of cases it's explicitly about giving equal consideration to everyone rather than giving anyone more favorable treatment. Not every case, obviously, but that shouldn't invalidate attempting to level the playing field. It's a lot more than just "not every case" though. Every place I've ever worked, we have explicitly hired inferior candidates due to their racial/gender/…

Post by yjftsjthsd-h » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 4:33 AM UTC

8note wrote: post #107

hunter2_ wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps age is just an oddball compared to the other protected classes, because there are legitimate reasons not to employ someone young (e.g., if the position requires x years of professional experience but the candidate has only been of working age for <x years) while there aren't many legitimate reasons not to employ someone old. Gender, race, etc. don't have this natural asymmetry.

There's similarly good reasons to not hire somebody old though - theyve already been trained in some other work method, have/spend time with their families, have retirement sooner, etc