• @Zachariah
    link
    English
    1715 hours ago

    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?

    • JackGreenEarth
      link
      fedilink
      English
      -915 hours ago

      Either of course. It just seems the former goes without saying and a large number of people support the latter.

      • @Zachariah
        link
        English
        2015 hours ago

        I assure you far more people are hired because they’re not part of a minority group than because they are.

        • JackGreenEarth
          link
          fedilink
          English
          015 hours ago

          I don’t know statistics on either, but anecdotally I know far more people critical of ‘normal’ discrimination than ‘positive’ discrimination

            • JackGreenEarth
              link
              fedilink
              English
              -311 hours ago

              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.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                210 hours ago

                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.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            714 hours ago

            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?

            • JackGreenEarth
              link
              fedilink
              English
              -1014 hours ago

              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.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                7
                edit-2
                10 hours ago

                …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.

              • @Viking_Hippie
                link
                English
                712 hours ago

                Say you never heard about generational poverty without saying it 🙄

                • JackGreenEarth
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  -411 hours ago

                  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.