Reminds me of the idea of positive discrimination. Personally, if I knew someone hired me above an equally qualified candidate just because I belong to a minority group I would feel insecure about my abilities.
It is not common practice to do anything “just because” belonging to a minority group. This is just a lie that conservatives tell each other when they’re giving each other a good circle jerk.
Positive discrimination is a pillar of the neolibs’ post-Hillary wokeness scam worldview. There’s a Kendi quote like “You cannot undo discrimination without discrimination.” They’ve decided to just apply that logic to the wealthiest set of white people on the planet instead of the children of slaves and sharecroppers because these people are sociopathic scum who know where their bread is buttered.
From what I’ve seen when those things were actually practiced, it’s somewhat different and broken into two parts:
One one side, seriously incompetent people from the group which is a recipient of “positive” discrimination get jobs they should never have gotten and the quality of their work is going to be noticed by everybody else as long as they’re around and will reflect on others of the same group because the very act of segregating some people based on highly visible characteristics for the purposes of receiving special treatment strengthens the view of them as a group in other people’s minds, which in turn strengthens views such as “they’re all the same”.
On the other side, the very competent people from the group which is a recipient of “positive” discrimination are seen by default by colleagues and even managers as inept, have to fight even harder for their competence to be recognized and often their ideas are just casually dismissed because everybody sees them as “somebody who only got the job because of the quotas”.
From what I’ve observed first hand neither feels insecure: the former play the influences game even harder than the rest because they know with absolute certainty that they’re only were they are thanks to social and political games, whilst the second just get angry and frustrated because they’re not treated as equals - because they are not equals since they’re part of a group which got privileges others did not - and thus not respected for their competence.
By creating a separate class of people, who don’t go have to pass as high a barrier as the rest, so called “positive” discrimination might land them the job but it also makes sure they’ll always be looked at as less competent, further reinforced in the minds of everybody else by those of that groups who are indeed “too incompetent for the job and wouldn’t have gotten it if it weren’t for quotas”
There are more than enough competent minorities to hire a couple for diversity. And hiring 10 diversity hires, out of a hundred, isn’t going to meaningfully impact opportunities for competent non minorities. This is some conservative bullshit trying to sneak in the idea that minorities are dumber than white people.
Sure mate, it can’t be that your “‘Equality’ But Different For Some Than For Others” is neoliberal cosplay of “left” rather than something genuinely left-wing AND that by preserving the differentiated treatment of people based on characteristics they were born with you’re just maintaining the very same mindset as the Fascists (that people’s gender/etnicity/sexual-orientation determines how they should be treated), no, no, no, it must be that it’s the other person (whose history of posts is there for all to see - so feel free to prove it) is a “conservative”.
By the way, when I described my conclusions of my own experience, I never said that the group who was getting “positive” discrimination was a minority. Funny how you jumped to conclusions.
Funny how you parroted conservative propaganda and continue to do so while acting concerned.
For anyone not familiar, minorities have had generations of poverty and trauma baked into them. You cannot transition directly to a complete meritocracy and magically repair that. They will remain oppressed and poverty stricken because it’s a systemic cycle. Affirmative action breaks that cycle.
That seems to show that many people are discriminated against in job applications, but not the general level of support for that behaviour amongst the general population.
It continues despite general opposition. That’s exactly the problem. Systemic and unconscious biases are really hard to combat, even if there wasn’t a vocal reactionary minority. “just don’t discriminate” has at this point been proven beyond doubt inadequate to equalize opportunities.
But I think the point is, equally qualified people both have equal claim to the job. Adding in centuries of lost opportunities for being part of a minority group means that righting the balance makes sense.
Think about it economically. Reparations are paid because of the massive imbalance in opportunity. Where do you stand on that?
You’re not helping the individuals who were discriminated on in the past, you’re favouring an individual who has no specific connection to other members or the discriminated group besides their shared characteristic, and did not choose to be a part of that group.
…exactly. They did not choose to be a part of a minority group, but that fact means they have almost certainly been discriminated against in the past—their ancestors most definitely have, meaning less generational wealth and a diminished starter point due to centuries of racial oppression. If you’re born middle class, or upper class, there is a greater likelihood for opportunity and upward mobility. That drastically decreases the poorer you are, and minority groups are disproportionately represented in the lower classes…again, due to a long history of racial discrimination.
Trying to right that trend has to start with the current generation, and that generation is made up of individuals, whether you think they deserve to be the first in line to receive the benefits of balancing the scales or not.
In some instances you’re right, and that’s a different matter. In many others though the current individual is not disadvantaged because of their status as belonging to a minority group.
What qualifies being qualified for a job? Should I hire the person who knows a little bit less but is really pleasant to be around and like learning new things or the person who clearly knows more but is a huge pain to be around, thinks he’s better than everyone else, and doesn’t think he has anything more to learn?
I take it you’ve never been a hiring manager or worked in HR. Hires are almost never made on an objective basis, the bias of interviewers/assessors inevitably affect outcomes. In the absence of positive discrimination, on average, this means unfair outcomes for minorities (because some people are bigots and most people have unconscious bias against out-groups).
So what you’re telling me is that being “qualified” isn’t the only criteria… But I thought you said the only thing that mattered was hiring the most qualified person…
Qualified is intentionally a vague metric as it can include anything that makes you suitable for the job. What it does not include are protected characteristics.
I’ll let you in on a secret. In these situations where you have two similarly qualified candidates, if one is actually more qualified in some small way, the employer doesn’t have any way of telling which one that is during the hiring process. It’s not that precise.
Reminds me of the idea of positive discrimination. Personally, if I knew someone hired me above an equally qualified candidate just because I belong to a minority group I would feel insecure about my abilities.
It is not common practice to do anything “just because” belonging to a minority group. This is just a lie that conservatives tell each other when they’re giving each other a good circle jerk.
Positive discrimination is a pillar of the neolibs’ post-Hillary wokeness scam worldview. There’s a Kendi quote like “You cannot undo discrimination without discrimination.” They’ve decided to just apply that logic to the wealthiest set of white people on the planet instead of the children of slaves and sharecroppers because these people are sociopathic scum who know where their bread is buttered.
From what I’ve seen when those things were actually practiced, it’s somewhat different and broken into two parts:
From what I’ve observed first hand neither feels insecure: the former play the influences game even harder than the rest because they know with absolute certainty that they’re only were they are thanks to social and political games, whilst the second just get angry and frustrated because they’re not treated as equals - because they are not equals since they’re part of a group which got privileges others did not - and thus not respected for their competence.
By creating a separate class of people, who don’t go have to pass as high a barrier as the rest, so called “positive” discrimination might land them the job but it also makes sure they’ll always be looked at as less competent, further reinforced in the minds of everybody else by those of that groups who are indeed “too incompetent for the job and wouldn’t have gotten it if it weren’t for quotas”
There are more than enough competent minorities to hire a couple for diversity. And hiring 10 diversity hires, out of a hundred, isn’t going to meaningfully impact opportunities for competent non minorities. This is some conservative bullshit trying to sneak in the idea that minorities are dumber than white people.
Sure mate, it can’t be that your “‘Equality’ But Different For Some Than For Others” is neoliberal cosplay of “left” rather than something genuinely left-wing AND that by preserving the differentiated treatment of people based on characteristics they were born with you’re just maintaining the very same mindset as the Fascists (that people’s gender/etnicity/sexual-orientation determines how they should be treated), no, no, no, it must be that it’s the other person (whose history of posts is there for all to see - so feel free to prove it) is a “conservative”.
By the way, when I described my conclusions of my own experience, I never said that the group who was getting “positive” discrimination was a minority. Funny how you jumped to conclusions.
Funny how you parroted conservative propaganda and continue to do so while acting concerned.
For anyone not familiar, minorities have had generations of poverty and trauma baked into them. You cannot transition directly to a complete meritocracy and magically repair that. They will remain oppressed and poverty stricken because it’s a systemic cycle. Affirmative action breaks that cycle.
What if they hired you only because you are part of a majority group? Or does this only matter if it’s someone in a minority being hired?
Either of course. It just seems the former goes without saying and a large number of people support the latter.
I assure you far more people are hired because they’re not part of a minority group than because they are.
I don’t know statistics on either, but anecdotally I know far more people critical of ‘normal’ discrimination than ‘positive’ discrimination
Well how about, before you form an opinion, you go do some reading.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1053482221000115
That seems to show that many people are discriminated against in job applications, but not the general level of support for that behaviour amongst the general population.
It continues despite general opposition. That’s exactly the problem. Systemic and unconscious biases are really hard to combat, even if there wasn’t a vocal reactionary minority. “just don’t discriminate” has at this point been proven beyond doubt inadequate to equalize opportunities.
But I think the point is, equally qualified people both have equal claim to the job. Adding in centuries of lost opportunities for being part of a minority group means that righting the balance makes sense.
Think about it economically. Reparations are paid because of the massive imbalance in opportunity. Where do you stand on that?
You’re not helping the individuals who were discriminated on in the past, you’re favouring an individual who has no specific connection to other members or the discriminated group besides their shared characteristic, and did not choose to be a part of that group.
…exactly. They did not choose to be a part of a minority group, but that fact means they have almost certainly been discriminated against in the past—their ancestors most definitely have, meaning less generational wealth and a diminished starter point due to centuries of racial oppression. If you’re born middle class, or upper class, there is a greater likelihood for opportunity and upward mobility. That drastically decreases the poorer you are, and minority groups are disproportionately represented in the lower classes…again, due to a long history of racial discrimination.
Trying to right that trend has to start with the current generation, and that generation is made up of individuals, whether you think they deserve to be the first in line to receive the benefits of balancing the scales or not.
It has to start somewhere.
Say you never heard about generational poverty without saying it 🙄
In some instances you’re right, and that’s a different matter. In many others though the current individual is not disadvantaged because of their status as belonging to a minority group.
Clarence Thomas moment
So if you were equally qualified what should the manager think about when deciding between you two?
Flip a coin because I don’t hire unlucky people
They should choose the more qualified, if there’s literally no difference I suppose to be totally fair it should be random.
What qualifies being qualified for a job? Should I hire the person who knows a little bit less but is really pleasant to be around and like learning new things or the person who clearly knows more but is a huge pain to be around, thinks he’s better than everyone else, and doesn’t think he has anything more to learn?
Whatever your criteria are, as long as they aren’t based on protected characteristics such as race, gender, etc
I take it you’ve never been a hiring manager or worked in HR. Hires are almost never made on an objective basis, the bias of interviewers/assessors inevitably affect outcomes. In the absence of positive discrimination, on average, this means unfair outcomes for minorities (because some people are bigots and most people have unconscious bias against out-groups).
So what you’re telling me is that being “qualified” isn’t the only criteria… But I thought you said the only thing that mattered was hiring the most qualified person…
Qualified is intentionally a vague metric as it can include anything that makes you suitable for the job. What it does not include are protected characteristics.
I’ll let you in on a secret. In these situations where you have two similarly qualified candidates, if one is actually more qualified in some small way, the employer doesn’t have any way of telling which one that is during the hiring process. It’s not that precise.