|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
And has by the effect of hiring more women, your work environment gone to shit completely, or at the very least become substandard?
|
It's not the company I work for, so I don't know why are asking me that... My friends that work there do complain a lot but I am not sure how much of this is caused by company internal policies and how much by different factors.
Regardless, I guess for You discirimantion is ok if it doesn't ruin work environment?
|
On January 24 2025 19:44 Silvanel wrote:One of the largest IT companies in my city has this "gender quotas" written in their policy. The HR people have this set as their yearly goal. Thus their yearly review and compenasation depends on achieving the proper ratio between genders. I am sure this has no bearing on their hiring practices and the process is fair... + Show Spoiler +
That above is sarcasm. I know for a fact that they do discriminate.
Can you please elaborate more on this? What are their personal "gender quota" goals? Are they trying to have something like 10% (30%? 50%?) of the staff be women, or something?
And when you say that you "know for a fact that they do discriminate", are you claiming that they will take a less qualified candidate over a more qualified candidate, if the less qualified candidate better fits the "gender quota"? Or are you claiming that out of the top tier of candidates - where any of them would be a great asset to the team - they are using a "gender quota" as part of a tiebreaker process?
|
On January 24 2025 20:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2025 19:44 Silvanel wrote:One of the largest IT companies in my city has this "gender quotas" written in their policy. The HR people have this set as their yearly goal. Thus their yearly review and compenasation depends on achieving the proper ratio between genders. I am sure this has no bearing on their hiring practices and the process is fair... + Show Spoiler +
That above is sarcasm. I know for a fact that they do discriminate.
Can you please elaborate more on this? What are their personal "gender quota" goals? Are they trying to have something like 10% (30%? 50%?) of the staff be women, or something? And when you say that you "know for a fact that they do discriminate", are you claiming that they will take a less qualified candidate over a more qualified candidate, if the less qualified candidate better fits the "gender quota"? Or are you claiming that out of the top tier of candidates - where any of them would be a great asset to the team - they are using a "gender quota" as part of a tiebreaker process?
I don't recall exact numbers sorry. This being a large corporation I imagine its more along the line of goals being like "this year we will hire more women than last year or we will reach %X in department Y" . In practice, accroding to friend who works there in managerial position its more along the line of HR saying "we need to hire a women" and only providing resumes from women.
I will also add that this is a very large company and I know a lot people there and also I also work with people who used to work there. They are all saying the same things. I have no reason to daubt them.
|
On January 24 2025 20:38 Silvanel wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2025 20:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On January 24 2025 19:44 Silvanel wrote:One of the largest IT companies in my city has this "gender quotas" written in their policy. The HR people have this set as their yearly goal. Thus their yearly review and compenasation depends on achieving the proper ratio between genders. I am sure this has no bearing on their hiring practices and the process is fair... + Show Spoiler +
That above is sarcasm. I know for a fact that they do discriminate.
Can you please elaborate more on this? What are their personal "gender quota" goals? Are they trying to have something like 10% (30%? 50%?) of the staff be women, or something? And when you say that you "know for a fact that they do discriminate", are you claiming that they will take a less qualified candidate over a more qualified candidate, if the less qualified candidate better fits the "gender quota"? Or are you claiming that out of the top tier of candidates - where any of them would be a great asset to the team - they are using a "gender quota" as part of a tiebreaker process? I don't recall exact numbers sorry. This being a large corporation I imagine its more along the line of goals being like "this year we will hire more women than last year or we will reach %X in department Y" . In practice, accroding to friend who works there in managerial position its more along the line of HR saying "we need to hire a women" and only providing resumes from women.
Okay, thanks for elaborating.
|
On January 24 2025 20:11 Silvanel wrote:
It's not the company I work for, so I don't know why are asking me that... My friends that work there do complain a lot but I am not sure how much of this is caused by company internal policies and how much by different factors.
Regardless, I guess for You discirimantion is ok if it doesn't ruin work environment?
No I don't like discrimination for the sake of it. I'm one of the people easily admitting positive affirmation can be way too skewed to point of becoming detrimental.
The HR just stating they need to hire a woman due to quotas is kind of sad. That's one of the pitfalls of big companies, everything's a quota. Fot every little performance thing they want to reduce it to a single digit thing so they can claim this or that is productive. Then you get counterproductive claims like: we need to hire a woman.
However, if the pool of applicants is talented enough (male and female), then yes, absolutely there has been discrimination against a potentially suitable male candidate, but a suitable woman has been found who is able to do her job adequately. It's not like she'd be a token hire.
It gets fuzzy, I'm just not sure it matters all that much. Don't really know 100% what this implies down the road to be honest.
So no it's not okay, but does it really matter if adequate employees are hired and they bring a stratification of your society's demographic?
|
On January 24 2025 18:37 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2025 16:59 KT_Elwood wrote:On January 24 2025 06:13 BlackJack wrote:On January 24 2025 05:56 KwarK wrote:On January 24 2025 05:38 BlackJack wrote:On January 24 2025 04:44 Magic Powers wrote:On January 24 2025 03:55 BlackJack wrote:On January 23 2025 21:46 Magic Powers wrote:On January 23 2025 16:26 BlackJack wrote:On January 23 2025 15:46 KwarK wrote:
You didn’t. The previous state was you can hire the best candidate, but you can’t hire the second best candidate because the best candidate was African American and you’re a racist. He got rid of that rule. No, the executive order that Trump overturned says that if your company has too many whites but not enough X race then you need to take affirmative action to remedy this "problem" instead of simply hiring the best candidate.It's still illegal for employers to discriminate on the basis of race, color, sex, religion, national origin as set forth in Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act so no, Trump did not "get rid of that rule." In fact the first sentence of his executive order acknowledges it: Section 1. Purpose. Longstanding Federal civil-rights laws protect individual Americans from discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. These civil-rights protections serve as a bedrock supporting equality of opportunity for all Americans. As President, I have a solemn duty to ensure that these laws are enforced for the benefit of all Americans.
It's obvious the target of this executive order was affirmative action / DEI but the propagandists that DPB listens to pretend this was really about overturning civil rights protections so that racists can racist. The bolded/underlined part is not stated, no. They still get the best candidate, just not from the over-represented group. Wtf does that even mean? If your NBA team has an overrepresentation of blacks so you pass over Michael Jordan to select John Stockton then it would be an incredibly ridiculous thing to say "You still get the best candidate, just not from the over-represented group." If the best candidate is in the overrepresented group then the candidate you select in their stead Is. Not. The. Best. Candidate. oBlade made it even more simple for you by using your own analogy. You think Magnus is the best chess player and I agree with you. You're not "still getting the best candidate" if you have to choose Vishy Anand for your chess team because your team already has too many white people. Only the mental gymnastics of wokeism would allow such a contradiction to exist. 20 candidates have a skill that is valued on a scale from 1-10. Ten candidates are in group A, ten are in group B. The two groups have an overal equal value. The individuals in each group are valued at 1, 2, 3... up to 10. You have a bias towards group A. This means that, every time you're presented with a choice between two candidates, you will always pick a candidate from group A. Now you're being asked to pick one of two candidates. Candidate 1 is from group A, candidate 2 is from group B. Your bias makes you pick candidate 1. Now you're being asked again to pick one of two candidates. Again candidate 1 is from group A and candidate 2 is from group B. Your bias makes you pick candidate 1. You will repeat this process until you have picked a total of ten candidates. At the end there will be an evaluation of your picks. As you repeat this process, you will end up picking all ten candidates from group A and none from group B, even though the value of the candidates you've been picking has been declining constantly. The value of your ten picks will be 1+2+3... until 10 divided by 10. The average valuation will be 5.5 If you had instead picked candidates from both groups (i.e. without bias), you would've been able to reach a much better total valuation of 8 (edit: I meant to say average valuation). You've missed out on 2.5 out of 8 points of valuation, which means your valuation is 31% worse than the best possible valuation. The solution to this problem is DEI. Every time you pick a candidate from group A, you must next pick a candidate from group B. That way you prevent ending up with a bad valuation resulting from bias. PS: no matter how small your group bias is, you will always end up with a lower valuation when you have a group bias towards A or B (unless one of the two groups has an inherently higher/lower valuation than the other). Sure if you get to arbitrarily declare in your hypothetical that the underrepresented group is equally skilled as the overrepresented group. Let's draft a 1960s-70s era chess team. I'll pick Russian after Russian and you can pick one from group A and one from group B. My team will kick your team's ass. Let's draft a 1990s basketball team and I will pick Black American after Black American and you can pick one from group A and one from group B and my team will kick your team's ass. Let's draft a Starcraft team and I will pick Korean after Korean and you can pick one from group A and one from group B and my team will kick your team's ass. Koreans aren’t better because they’re Korean, the Koreans who are better are better because they practiced more. Discriminating based on MMR is fine, you’re completely allowed to pick an all Korean team based on picking the highest MMR players. It’d be racial discrimination if you picked a team of low MMR Koreans over higher MMR white guys. The fact that you seem to genuinely be unable to tell the difference between selecting based on competency and racist segregation is troubling. A policy of only selecting ethnic Koreans would be segregation. A policy of only selecting high MMR players with the language skills to engage with Korean language resources would not be. This isn’t very hard for everyone else to understand. I didn't say Koreans were inherently better at Starcraft, did I? I said they are better. They are also "overrepresented." According to Magic Powers They still get the best candidate, just not from the over-represented group. The idea that any candidate outside of the over-represented group, i.e. a non-Korean, could still be considered "the best candidate" demands you spit in the face of common sense. So Serral and 3 korean retired primary school teachers aged 87,65 and 76 who never touched a computer at home are the only applicants for a job with Hyundai/Kia Europe Starcraft III Team.... Ugh. First of all I've never played or followed SC2 so I'm talking only about SC1. I'm not talking in hypotheticals. I'm talking specifically about the top players now. I'm drafting Flash, Soulkey, Light, Hero, Snow or something like that. You can draft some non-Koreans because "representation matters" or whatever. My team would win. It's in response to Magic Powers post where he says "They still get the best candidate, just not from the over-represented group." The point is you can't "still get the best candidate" if you're not picking from the overrepresented group here (Koreans). If you're not picking Flash then you're not getting the best candidate. Period. It's a very simple point to refute a very nonsensical statement but for whatever reason we have to fight tooth and nail to defend every inch of turf because acknowledging that Koreans dominate the top ranks of SC1 is somehow open for debate.
Except vast majority (like, we're talking 99.9....9%) of all 'DEI-influenced' decisions aren't happening for an e-Sports team looking to build the squad of world-beating champions, it's for the equivalent of an amateur silver-leaguers competition with a $5 Amazon gift card as the prize, and you aren't picking between Flash and Idra, you're picking between two random silver league players both of whom are, at the end of the day, perfectly adequate for the silver leaguers tournament. Now, one of them might have slightly higher APM than the other, but if they're both in silver league and applying for your silver leaguers tournament... who the fk cares if one of them is a sweaty teenage Korean dude and the other a Peruvian communist grandma lesbian?
Not to mention that objectively determining the 'best' candidate for most jobs isn't even possible, because engineers don't have MMR and things like SAT test results or whatever are hardly indicative of real world job performance, and that's before we even get into how biases and prejudices consistently skew hiring decisions (like all those experiments where hiring managers were given a set of resumes and simply swapping names from European-sounding male names to Arabic or female names would lead to completely different outcomes).
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/327558032_A_Meta-analysis_of_Employment_Discrimination_Against_Muslims_and_Arabs
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1048984322000583?via=ihub
|
On January 24 2025 20:38 Silvanel wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2025 20:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On January 24 2025 19:44 Silvanel wrote:One of the largest IT companies in my city has this "gender quotas" written in their policy. The HR people have this set as their yearly goal. Thus their yearly review and compenasation depends on achieving the proper ratio between genders. I am sure this has no bearing on their hiring practices and the process is fair... + Show Spoiler +
That above is sarcasm. I know for a fact that they do discriminate.
Can you please elaborate more on this? What are their personal "gender quota" goals? Are they trying to have something like 10% (30%? 50%?) of the staff be women, or something? And when you say that you "know for a fact that they do discriminate", are you claiming that they will take a less qualified candidate over a more qualified candidate, if the less qualified candidate better fits the "gender quota"? Or are you claiming that out of the top tier of candidates - where any of them would be a great asset to the team - they are using a "gender quota" as part of a tiebreaker process? I don't recall exact numbers sorry. This being a large corporation I imagine its more along the line of goals being like "this year we will hire more women than last year or we will reach %X in department Y" . In practice, accroding to friend who works there in managerial position its more along the line of HR saying "we need to hire a women" and only providing resumes from women. I will also add that this is a very large company and I know a lot people there and also I also work with people who used to work there. They are all saying the same things. I have no reason to daubt them.
If a company thinks that a lack of women in their workforce is hurting their bottom line, how would you go about fixing the problem?
|
On January 24 2025 17:24 Salazarz wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2025 14:01 oBlade wrote:
In the US, if you are looking for an engineer, it is more likely that the best candidate would be white, than that they would be black. It is more likely that they would be a man, than a woman. Sure, except it's not this way because white males are inherently better at engineering but because there simply is a higher number of white male engineers than black or female engineers in the United States. And if you make no concessions to DEI, the overwhelming majority of engineering students will continue to be white males, not because white males actually make better engineers, but because of social expectations, parental guidance, etc. You really don't see how this is problematic?
Yes I really don't see how the existence/employment of white people is problematic, or troubling, or as Magic Powers said an "overabundance."
As an experiment look up the demographics of the US, then of Virginia, then of Richmond, then of Virginia State University. Tell me how problematic it seems and why.
By every metric the sexualization of free choices increases the more liberal a country is. I do not care how many engineers of each sex there are. Or any protected characteristic or social construct.
On January 24 2025 21:35 Salazarz wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2025 18:37 BlackJack wrote:On January 24 2025 16:59 KT_Elwood wrote:On January 24 2025 06:13 BlackJack wrote:On January 24 2025 05:56 KwarK wrote:On January 24 2025 05:38 BlackJack wrote:On January 24 2025 04:44 Magic Powers wrote:On January 24 2025 03:55 BlackJack wrote:On January 23 2025 21:46 Magic Powers wrote:On January 23 2025 16:26 BlackJack wrote:
[quote]
No, the executive order that Trump overturned says that if your company has too many whites but not enough X race then you need to take affirmative action to remedy this "problem" instead of simply hiring the best candidate.
It's still illegal for employers to discriminate on the basis of race, color, sex, religion, national origin as set forth in Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act so no, Trump did not "get rid of that rule." In fact the first sentence of his executive order acknowledges it:
[quote]
It's obvious the target of this executive order was affirmative action / DEI but the propagandists that DPB listens to pretend this was really about overturning civil rights protections so that racists can racist. The bolded/underlined part is not stated, no. They still get the best candidate, just not from the over-represented group. Wtf does that even mean? If your NBA team has an overrepresentation of blacks so you pass over Michael Jordan to select John Stockton then it would be an incredibly ridiculous thing to say "You still get the best candidate, just not from the over-represented group." If the best candidate is in the overrepresented group then the candidate you select in their stead Is. Not. The. Best. Candidate. oBlade made it even more simple for you by using your own analogy. You think Magnus is the best chess player and I agree with you. You're not "still getting the best candidate" if you have to choose Vishy Anand for your chess team because your team already has too many white people. Only the mental gymnastics of wokeism would allow such a contradiction to exist. 20 candidates have a skill that is valued on a scale from 1-10. Ten candidates are in group A, ten are in group B. The two groups have an overal equal value. The individuals in each group are valued at 1, 2, 3... up to 10. You have a bias towards group A. This means that, every time you're presented with a choice between two candidates, you will always pick a candidate from group A. Now you're being asked to pick one of two candidates. Candidate 1 is from group A, candidate 2 is from group B. Your bias makes you pick candidate 1. Now you're being asked again to pick one of two candidates. Again candidate 1 is from group A and candidate 2 is from group B. Your bias makes you pick candidate 1. You will repeat this process until you have picked a total of ten candidates. At the end there will be an evaluation of your picks. As you repeat this process, you will end up picking all ten candidates from group A and none from group B, even though the value of the candidates you've been picking has been declining constantly. The value of your ten picks will be 1+2+3... until 10 divided by 10. The average valuation will be 5.5 If you had instead picked candidates from both groups (i.e. without bias), you would've been able to reach a much better total valuation of 8 (edit: I meant to say average valuation). You've missed out on 2.5 out of 8 points of valuation, which means your valuation is 31% worse than the best possible valuation. The solution to this problem is DEI. Every time you pick a candidate from group A, you must next pick a candidate from group B. That way you prevent ending up with a bad valuation resulting from bias. PS: no matter how small your group bias is, you will always end up with a lower valuation when you have a group bias towards A or B (unless one of the two groups has an inherently higher/lower valuation than the other). Sure if you get to arbitrarily declare in your hypothetical that the underrepresented group is equally skilled as the overrepresented group. Let's draft a 1960s-70s era chess team. I'll pick Russian after Russian and you can pick one from group A and one from group B. My team will kick your team's ass. Let's draft a 1990s basketball team and I will pick Black American after Black American and you can pick one from group A and one from group B and my team will kick your team's ass. Let's draft a Starcraft team and I will pick Korean after Korean and you can pick one from group A and one from group B and my team will kick your team's ass. Koreans aren’t better because they’re Korean, the Koreans who are better are better because they practiced more. Discriminating based on MMR is fine, you’re completely allowed to pick an all Korean team based on picking the highest MMR players. It’d be racial discrimination if you picked a team of low MMR Koreans over higher MMR white guys. The fact that you seem to genuinely be unable to tell the difference between selecting based on competency and racist segregation is troubling. A policy of only selecting ethnic Koreans would be segregation. A policy of only selecting high MMR players with the language skills to engage with Korean language resources would not be. This isn’t very hard for everyone else to understand. I didn't say Koreans were inherently better at Starcraft, did I? I said they are better. They are also "overrepresented." According to Magic Powers They still get the best candidate, just not from the over-represented group. The idea that any candidate outside of the over-represented group, i.e. a non-Korean, could still be considered "the best candidate" demands you spit in the face of common sense. So Serral and 3 korean retired primary school teachers aged 87,65 and 76 who never touched a computer at home are the only applicants for a job with Hyundai/Kia Europe Starcraft III Team.... Ugh. First of all I've never played or followed SC2 so I'm talking only about SC1. I'm not talking in hypotheticals. I'm talking specifically about the top players now. I'm drafting Flash, Soulkey, Light, Hero, Snow or something like that. You can draft some non-Koreans because "representation matters" or whatever. My team would win. It's in response to Magic Powers post where he says "They still get the best candidate, just not from the over-represented group." The point is you can't "still get the best candidate" if you're not picking from the overrepresented group here (Koreans). If you're not picking Flash then you're not getting the best candidate. Period. It's a very simple point to refute a very nonsensical statement but for whatever reason we have to fight tooth and nail to defend every inch of turf because acknowledging that Koreans dominate the top ranks of SC1 is somehow open for debate. Except vast majority (like, we're talking 99.9....9%) of all 'DEI-influenced' decisions aren't happening for an e-Sports team looking to build the squad of world-beating champions, it's for the equivalent of an amateur silver-leaguers competition with a $5 Amazon gift card as the prize, and you aren't picking between Flash and Idra, you're picking between two random silver league players both of whom are, at the end of the day, perfectly adequate for the silver leaguers tournament. Now, one of them might have slightly higher APM than the other, but if they're both in silver league and applying for your silver leaguers tournament... who the fk cares if one of them is a sweaty teenage Korean dude and the other a Peruvian communist grandma lesbian?
Does this "who the fuck cares" include the government which had mandated affirmative action and DEI? Because otherwise I don't like this analogy of implying everyone is equally incompetent and meaningless so just discriminate the way the government says and suck it up. This is not a $5 tournament, it's real life.
|
It's very obvious that people don't have an argument against DEI other than that they think it's bad but they can't prove it.
|
Anyone else remember when the Republican boogieman was CRT? Crazy how they switch boogie men so quickly and so thoroughly
|
On January 24 2025 19:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2025 13:16 BlackJack wrote:On January 24 2025 12:14 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On January 24 2025 12:07 BlackJack wrote:On January 24 2025 11:57 Billyboy wrote:On January 24 2025 11:01 BlackJack wrote:
By the way I want to point out the last time a discussion along the lines of this one came up Baal made the argument that East Asians were tested to have a higher IQ than Europeans and someone made the response of "Of course if you say white people are more intelligent than black people it's going get challenged" even though literally nobody had said that.
This time I made an argument that Koreans are better than non-Koreans at Starcraft and Magic Powers responds with "the idea that white people are more skilled than black people..." even though literally nobody said that either. I mean you are the one who keeps making an argument that Kentanji Brown Jackson can't possibly be the best pick for supreme court because Biden announced he was hiring a Black Women. So given that you bring it up at least weekly you need to give some people some grace when you make a fairly parallel argument that you are leading towards your go to. Never said that. It's on brand for you to make things up to win internet arguments. Oh come on. The problem with repeating your own strawmans so frequently is that you forget what the other person has said and remember the other person's position as your strawman. In this case that strawman is that someone that is chosen in part for their race/sex, as Kamala Harris and KJB were, it means I think they are unqualified. On October 29 2024 03:53 BlackJack wrote:On October 28 2024 21:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 28 2024 20:59 oBlade wrote:
Trump was not chosen, he was elected; there's a difference. So if Harris gets elected president next week, she can no longer be considered an unqualified DEI hire by BlackJack and Republicans? 1. I didn’t say she was unqualified2. Yes, obviously. Calling Harris a “DEI hire” for being elected President makes as much sense as calling Trump a “DEI hire.” None. On July 27 2024 05:50 BlackJack wrote:On July 27 2024 05:34 NewSunshine wrote:On July 27 2024 05:21 BlackJack wrote:On July 27 2024 05:09 NewSunshine wrote:On July 27 2024 04:52 BlackJack wrote:On July 27 2024 04:17 NewSunshine wrote:On July 27 2024 04:04 BlackJack wrote:On July 27 2024 03:36 NewSunshine wrote:
[quote]
Not if Republicans keep bringing it up unprovoked anyway, anytime someone isn't a white man. Not that effective a strat in reality.
This ain't complicated. When one group is so outspokenly against diversity, so outspokenly against equity, and so outspokenly against inclusion, they're telling you who they are. Believe them. "I'm only going to consider hiring a black person for this job" "Hey man that's not cool, you shouldn't favor an applicant based on the color of their skin and exclude all other races." "Why are you against hiring a black person you racist fuck" I know you think that makes sense but it doesn't to me. Then I can help. When Biden announced he would be selecting someone of a certain demographic for the Supreme Court if he got the chance, someone with a reasonable amount of skepticism would say "okay, he said X, which makes me worry that Y is going to happen", "Y" being you get an incompetent or under qualified candidate that fits a demographic, and was seemingly chosen only for that trait. At that point in time, I would expect anyone reasonable to hold that position. As surprising as it may be, some people disagree with X and Y. That is, we shouldn't limit a pool of applicants for a job on the basis of skin color, even if the eventual hire of the "chosen skin color" is qualified for the job. And it's the same with Kamala Harris. Knee-jerking with "DEI hire" quips is obviously and obliviously looking past all the real reasons she's a central leader in the Democratic party right now. The real reason she is a central leader in the Democratic party is because she is the VP. A large reason she is the VP is because Biden wanted a running mate that checked certain boxes. Disagree with "X" and "Y" in what way? . That we shouldn't hire/exclude on the basis of skin color. Sorry I can't put it anymore plainly than that. You're just decontextualizing what I said, and repeating what you said at the start. You're being willfully ignorant at this point. A shame. You made the incorrect assumption that I disagreed with hiring on the basis of race because it meant an unqualified person would be hired. When in reality I disagree with hiring on the basis of race, full stop. Period. Do not pass go. Do not collect $200. The fact that Kentaji Brown Jackson is qualified for her position is added context but it's completely irrelevant. You seem to think that people only disagree with hiring people for their skin color because they believe it will lead to less qualified people being hired. I'm letting you know that some people disagree with it because it's discriminatory and racist. Repeatedly calling out this strawman... On September 13 2024 08:29 BlackJack wrote:
I think we've been around this circle a few times already
Biden: I'm going to appoint a black woman to SCOTUS
People: Hey you shouldn't appoint someone based on the color of their skin
You: Why are you objecting to Biden's decision to appoint a black woman to SCOTUS? You must have an issue with black women or think they are unqualified
See the problem is you think the objection to forming policy around skin color is in itself making a judgement on skin color. Apparently you have a habitually faulty memory because previously you had accused me of repeatedly calling Kamala/KBJ DEI Hires. Another TL user took it upon himself to search my post history to see if you were telling the truth On October 30 2024 12:16 Turbovolver wrote:On October 30 2024 10:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Cool gaslighting, bro. You've mentioned that phrase over and over again in the past, and aimed it squarely at Harris and KBJ. Maybe stop bringing up their race and sex. I got curious about this so I searched all BlackJack posts. ... I'm not sure where the arguments about KBJ are, but no, BlackJack has not repeatedly used "this phrase" over and over again in the past. That was oBlade. EDIT: To be clear, I'm not invested in defending BlackJack's apparent opinions about Kamala's credentials, I just wanted to see if any gaslighting was going on. Your memory is not very good. No offense. Don't take my word for it. Take Turbolover's word who checked my search history to determine you are full of shit. I can understand your selective quote mining here, as the sheer quantity of full-context discussions you've had about KBJ and/or about general DEI would be pages upon pages upon pages. And when you bring it all up again in February, and again in March, and again in April, I'm sure that you'll be just as stubborn in insisting that this toooootally hasn't become your modus operandi. Some passion projects are cool, but I'm not sure if this is the hill you want to keep dying on.
Hatred of DEI at the end of the day just brings out people hidden biases, some they might not be aware of themselves. The only reason to be mad at DEI and even the more ham fisted affirmative action at a systemic level is if you believe that it is creating a over representation for the groups it is targeting to help. This means you believe there should be much less black people or women or whatever than there is. Which requires a person to believe that either racism and sexism don't exist, or there is massive numbers unqualified people being hired due to it. More than the isms keep out.
It is clear the ism's still exist, just watch how security reacts when a black person enters a store compared to a white person. Or have a black guy walk down a street and watch how many switch sides compared to a white person walking down the street. Pretending it does not exist in hiring, treatment at school, entrance to schools, and so on. Is pointless because it is clear.
Hating DEI is just what people believe to be an acceptable way, hidden enough, to say that they think the existing social/racial hierarchies are correct and exist simply because of "merit".
Another example is when it gets complained about endlessly that not enough Asian people made it to Harvard or whatever. Why are the black people getting blamed and not the people getting in because their dad went there or daddy/grandpapi made a big donation? It is because they believe that if daddy went there or has a lot of money the kid must be better too.
At the end of the day it is hard for someone with my beliefs to think that DEI did more harm than good. I can't fathom that the US is so fair that it is causing minorities to be over represented. No way more are hired/accepted that are not qualified than are kept out by a ism.
DEI hate is just a justification (way to not feel racist) when you assume Blacks, Women, and so on don't belong and are just there because of the "left.
|
On January 24 2025 22:01 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2025 20:38 Silvanel wrote:On January 24 2025 20:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On January 24 2025 19:44 Silvanel wrote:One of the largest IT companies in my city has this "gender quotas" written in their policy. The HR people have this set as their yearly goal. Thus their yearly review and compenasation depends on achieving the proper ratio between genders. I am sure this has no bearing on their hiring practices and the process is fair... + Show Spoiler +
That above is sarcasm. I know for a fact that they do discriminate.
Can you please elaborate more on this? What are their personal "gender quota" goals? Are they trying to have something like 10% (30%? 50%?) of the staff be women, or something? And when you say that you "know for a fact that they do discriminate", are you claiming that they will take a less qualified candidate over a more qualified candidate, if the less qualified candidate better fits the "gender quota"? Or are you claiming that out of the top tier of candidates - where any of them would be a great asset to the team - they are using a "gender quota" as part of a tiebreaker process? I don't recall exact numbers sorry. This being a large corporation I imagine its more along the line of goals being like "this year we will hire more women than last year or we will reach %X in department Y" . In practice, accroding to friend who works there in managerial position its more along the line of HR saying "we need to hire a women" and only providing resumes from women. I will also add that this is a very large company and I know a lot people there and also I also work with people who used to work there. They are all saying the same things. I have no reason to daubt them. If a company thinks that a lack of women in their workforce is hurting their bottom line, how would you go about fixing the problem?
Why are You making the assumption it is about the bottom line? Maybe they just think it's the right thing to do? Or they're complying with government regulation in the country of origin? How do You know? I don't.
|
I think DEI gets confused with lots of other things too.
There was a phenomenon in the UK in the 2000s, which the comedian Stewart Lee did a brilliant bit about, where people would confuse health and safety legislation with political correctness, and form a kind of 'modern life is bad' soup out of the two completely different concepts.
I was reminded of this when people were talking about the latest Dragon Age game.
They said it was all DEI and wokeness, but upon closer examination, the thing they were really bothered about was the general 'Gen Z' attitude and writing present in the game. DEI wasn't really the cause of any of the problems people had with it.
|
On January 24 2025 23:28 Zambrah wrote:
Anyone else remember when the Republican boogieman was CRT? Crazy how they switch boogie men so quickly and so thoroughly
I had completely forgotten about it, haven't seen the term mentioned in ages. It is crazy that the seemingly most pressing issues for our species are invisible non-factors once they just stop agitating about them.
|
Yes I really don't see how the existence/employment of white people is problematic, or troubling, or as Magic Powers said an "overabundance."
You really don't think that it's a problem when a guy named John is 50% more likely to get a job interview than his clone who has the exact same experiences and skill set but happens to be named Ahmed, or another clone of his with exact same experiences and skill set that just happens to have a vagina instead of a penis? Like, I really hope this is just some kind of a misunderstanding, but you're really going to have to elaborate on this because I don't really see how else to read your comment.
|
On January 24 2025 23:28 Zambrah wrote:
Anyone else remember when the Republican boogieman was CRT? Crazy how they switch boogie men so quickly and so thoroughly
It's exactly the same issue/boogie(black)man for them.
Why would you assume anything else? They treat them exactly the same, they have the same gripes about them, they have no clue what either actually is or in practise means. All they (want to) see is outrage farmers/political pundits scream: "white ppl/men get short end of stick".
What they sadly easily can find and allways will find is some practises/outcomes that backfired/delivered bad results or even "weird" outspoken proponents they can link to these ideas/policies and make them seem like the dumbest stuff ever.... Because sadly (and naturally) some stuff that is/was done in the name of these is plain dumb.
|
On January 24 2025 23:35 Silvanel wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2025 22:01 EnDeR_ wrote:On January 24 2025 20:38 Silvanel wrote:On January 24 2025 20:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On January 24 2025 19:44 Silvanel wrote:One of the largest IT companies in my city has this "gender quotas" written in their policy. The HR people have this set as their yearly goal. Thus their yearly review and compenasation depends on achieving the proper ratio between genders. I am sure this has no bearing on their hiring practices and the process is fair... + Show Spoiler +
That above is sarcasm. I know for a fact that they do discriminate.
Can you please elaborate more on this? What are their personal "gender quota" goals? Are they trying to have something like 10% (30%? 50%?) of the staff be women, or something? And when you say that you "know for a fact that they do discriminate", are you claiming that they will take a less qualified candidate over a more qualified candidate, if the less qualified candidate better fits the "gender quota"? Or are you claiming that out of the top tier of candidates - where any of them would be a great asset to the team - they are using a "gender quota" as part of a tiebreaker process? I don't recall exact numbers sorry. This being a large corporation I imagine its more along the line of goals being like "this year we will hire more women than last year or we will reach %X in department Y" . In practice, accroding to friend who works there in managerial position its more along the line of HR saying "we need to hire a women" and only providing resumes from women. I will also add that this is a very large company and I know a lot people there and also I also work with people who used to work there. They are all saying the same things. I have no reason to daubt them. If a company thinks that a lack of women in their workforce is hurting their bottom line, how would you go about fixing the problem? Why are You making the assumption it is about the bottom line? Maybe they just think it's the right thing to do? Or they're complying with government regulation in the country of origin? How do You know? I don't.
Is it controversial to expect companies to make changes that benefit their bottom line?
The question still stands. If a company does some internal research and finds that a lack of diversity of their workforce is hurting their bottom line, how should they go about fixing it?
|
On January 24 2025 23:49 Salazarz wrote:Show nested quote +Yes I really don't see how the existence/employment of white people is problematic, or troubling, or as Magic Powers said an "overabundance." You really don't think that it's a problem when a guy named John is 50% more likely to get a job interview than his clone who has the exact same experiences and skill set but happens to be named Ahmed, or another clone of his with exact same experiences and skill set that just happens to have a vagina instead of a penis? Like, I really hope this is just some kind of a misunderstanding, but you're really going to have to elaborate on this because I don't really see how else to read your comment.
Okay I notice you avoided the question that was supposed to trap you into admitting that the proportion vs. population per se can't be touted as a problem. Since you did ask politely let me address this new/related issue - apparent blind probability to get called into an interview, with as frank detail as I can:
1) Many things in the world are problems, the government is not always the vehicle to solve them. They may not always even be solvable, or they may actually be presenting as aspects of other problems.
2) You may be underestimating, or have completely overlooked, the fact people named Ahmed may have higher in-group preferences for hiring than Johns as well. Yet there aren't as many of them in the US, so them calling each other back wouldn't show up in the very general statistic brought here.
Due to variance, Ahmed may have cases of way above average callbacks, and way below average callbacks, whether dealing with his in groups or not. Additionally, their probability of landing a job per callback may not be identical. Think about what you're saying. People discriminate against Ahmed because of his name. Imagine how interested in him a firm would have to be to get past that filter and then actually call him back, right? The job is as good as his for all we know.
3) If Ahmed has a base of 50 callbacks and John has 75 and they both get a job anyway, I can't commit to seeing there is much of a problem here, still. Like what are we talking about, did Ahmed and John's resumes both contain their 4 years at St. Christopher's Catholic School under education? This is not pure facetiousness; I really believe the ability for social science researchers to correctly conduct a blind controlled experiment with a middle school level statistic and get any meaningful conclusion about the world should be taken with a grain of salt.
4) People with Jewish names are less likely to get calls back, but make more money than the national average. Is this balanced, a fair penalty that evens out, or do we need affirmative action for them while using 1960s EOs to force companies to lower their pay and redistribute it to coworkers/subordinates? These are all hopefully difficult questions, that happily remain rhetorical - as long as we don't adopt the mantle of social engineering hubris that modern leftism would mandate us to.
5) Forcing Google to raise Ahmed's frontend developer salary by 30% and promote him to team lead does not remedy the fact that there are poor, un(der)educated Ahmeds out there with grim communities and prospects. At all. It helps: Possibly an HR employee, a consultant, a government official, and maybe even a lawyer justify their existence. Oh and it helps the already comfy upper/middle class Ahmed who has a career at a Magnficent 7 company. This is certainly good for employment, but not in the way we want - it does nothing for the real Ahmed we should be worried about or have empathy for. It in fact placates us as we pat ourselves on the back for thinking we achieved something, while not understanding anything about the complications of the world.
6) There are thresholds in the law (something like 5/15/25/50 employees depending on the regulation) where the government presumably realizes it can't bother distinguishing discrimination from basic free association among small groups of people re:employment. Or that it would be just Orwellian/prohibitively difficult to attempt to. Other than that, there are labor laws in place, there are regulators and there are lawyers ready to sue at a moment's notice as it remains illegal to discriminate under protected characteristics. I tend to find those protections acceptable as is, if applied and applied correctly.
|
Northern Ireland23737 Posts
On January 24 2025 19:00 Elroi wrote:
I'm a big fan of classical music and I just watched the National Chopin competition in Miami. Five of the six finalists were East Asians or Asian Americans. And it's the same in all the top competitions now. I have to admit, there is an element of "faceless koreans" here for me (and pianists are so often marketed based on their origin - think of Vikingur Olafsson...). But they were all amazing obviously. Kudos to the jury for not quoting in people, even where there must be very strong subconscious bias to do so.
Interesting you choose this domain, I know some European orchestras now do auditions blindly, only listening to them. The idea being you’re cutting out potential sources of bias.
Lo and behold you start to see more diverse makeups just with that little tweak. You started to see a jump in how many women were making it through auditions for example than previously, and IIRC a reasonably significant one.
It’s interesting in that it shows that bias isn’t always intentional or obvious, but can still be a pertinent factor. Additionally that that being the case, mitigating for bias in a hiring process can fix issues without actively pursuing redress via quotas or other such mechanisms.
Of course the tricky part in extrapolating this out and applying it more broadly is most hiring is more complex than who is the best instrumentalist or what have you. If bias solely from looking at someone as they play influences things, imagine how much it factors into a regular hiring process with all that involves.
The issue with much of the anti-DEI crowd is they either through ignorance or chosen blindness, believe we live in a meritocracy where identity signatures don’t influence such processes. Or they concede those flaws but think the status quo is preferable.
Then yeah you do have folks who concede there’s problems that need redressed, but don’t think things like quotas are a desirous mechanism to do so. Although typically they don’t tend to be folks who even use the DEI acronym all that much.
Happy cake day!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
