31–40 of 414 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pushing for more women/minorities in STEM/leadership positions = you're fixing the global problem, doing the opposite = you're making the global problem worse.
Both are discriminatory, but one is virtuous and the other is bad?
How does this differ from companies and elected officials openly saying right now that females and minorities are preferred for X position, like vice president of USA or CEO of Reddit?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pushing for more women/minorities in STEM/leadership positions = you're fixing the global problem, doing the opposite = you're making the global problem worse.
People aren't fungible. Discriminating in favor of some women/minorities doesn't help other other women/minorities elsewhere who have been harmed by discrimination. The goal should be to reduce injustice, not to incur more injustice as a mechanism to achieve parity between arbitrary identity groups.
Wow - so Indian companies hires all Indians even in American offices. CEO gets caught on a hot mike saying they don't want to hire stupid Americans which forces said CEO to change hiring policy but they blunder it and tell HR not to hire Indian candidates which back fires.
> and candidates aged 50 or above. Ageism is so bad they didn't even bother include the complete sentence in the headline. My main 'career goal' at the moment is find an exit path out of software development. Nothing else really matters. Its now or never.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Both are discriminatory, but one is virtuous and the other is bad?
It can be a bad thing and still the best option you got, a lesser of two evils. I don't think anybody should lose out on a opportunity because some minority quota needs to be filled, but I also don't think minorities and discriminated groups should live in a perpetual self-reinforcing unhirability loop either.
Moreover, if one woman was discriminated against, you can't make up for it by hiring a different woman in some other job because humans aren't fungible.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pushing for more women/minorities in STEM/leadership positions = you're fixing the global problem, doing the opposite = you're making the global problem worse.
People aren't fungible. Discriminating in favor of some women/minorities doesn't help other other women/minorities elsewhere who have been harmed by discrimination. The goal should be to reduce injustice, not to incur more injustice as a mechanism to achieve parity between arbitrary identity groups.
Just like the first black kids sent to white only schools during integration helped make things less terrible for future minorities.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Both are discriminatory, but one is virtuous and the other is bad?
Yes. Not to mince words, as others frequently do, but that's basically what's happening. The alterntive, so-called "pure meritocracy", is a farce because the implied implicit "merit" is, by the very nature of the systemic inequalities that exist, unequally distributed. And merit is transferred down the generations. Privilege begets privilege. Etc. This is the issue that we are rightfully trying to counter. It is righ…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Both are discriminatory, but one is virtuous and the other is bad?
Yes. Not to mince words, as others frequently do, but that's basically what's happening. The alterntive, so-called "pure meritocracy", is a farce because the implied implicit "merit" is, by the very nature of the systemic inequalities that exist, unequally distributed. And merit is transferred down the generations. Privilege begets privilege. Etc. This is the issue that we are rightfully trying to counter. It is righ…