Discrimination -- the reality

[ZiprHead]

BTW, "deprioritizing" the hiring of white men suggests that hiring white men was a priority and is not stopped.

Is this something you believe? That these companies had a written or unwritten personnel policy indicating they should hire white men as a priority?

It was the words used in the article. Why shouldn't it be believed?

 

[Metaphor]

BTW, "deprioritizing" the hiring of white men suggests that hiring white men was a priority and is not stopped.

Is this something you believe? That these companies had a written or unwritten personnel policy indicating they should hire white men as a priority?

It was the words used in the article. Why shouldn't it be believed?

I didn't say they shouldn't be believed. I said 'stop hiring white men' was not somehow contradicted by 'deprioritize hiring white men'.

It is laughing dog who has decided that the words 'deprioritize hiring white men' somehow rules out the headline 'stop hiring white men' to be true.

Indeed, laughing dog offered up the possibility that these companies might have been (until recently) prioritizing hiring white men, which has been illegal in the United States for decades, and seems like an astonishing thing for laughing dog--who works in academia--to find plausible.

 

[laughing dog]

BTW, "deprioritizing" the hiring of white men suggests that hiring white men was a priority and is not stopped.

Is this something you believe? That these companies had a written or unwritten personnel policy indicating they should hire white men as a priority?

It was the words used in the article. Why shouldn't it be believed?

I didn't say they shouldn't be believed. I said 'stop hiring white men' was not somehow contradicted by 'deprioritize hiring white men'.

It is laughing dog who has decided that the words 'deprioritize hiring white men' somehow rules out the headline 'stop hiring white men' to be true.

Indeed, laughing dog offered up the possibility that these companies might have been (until recently) prioritizing hiring white men, which has been illegal in the United States for decades, and seems like an astonishing thing for laughing dog--who works in academia--to find plausible.

1st,words have meanings, regardless of your views. 2nd, it may be surprising to you, but people do commit crimes, so having something illegal need not stop the activity.

 

[laughing dog]

Is this something you believe? That these companies had a written or unwritten personnel policy indicating they should hire white men as a priority?

I am pointing out that the actual logical meaning of the term in the triumph of optimism over experience that it will indicate to you that your intrepretation is inconsistent with the term.

 

[laughing dog]

It was the words used in the article. Why shouldn't it be believed?

Because it conflicts with someone's ideological biases.

 

[Metaphor]

Is this something you believe? That these companies had a written or unwritten personnel policy indicating they should hire white men as a priority?

I am pointing out that the actual logical meaning of the term in the triumph of optimism over experience that it will indicate to you that your intrepretation is inconsistent with the term.

No, 'stop hiring white men' and 'deprioritize hiring white men' are not inconsistent with each other, literally or otherwise.

But your interpretation (that it might mean these companies have been prioritising the hiring of white men over others, which has been illegal federally and in every US State for decades), is an intereprtation that you yourself evidently do not actually believe, else you would have answered my question.

So, I shall ask again.

Do you believe that these companies had a written or unwritten personnel policy indicating they should hire white men as a priority?

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Employers have to discriminate -- they have no choice (if they want to maximize profit).

There are at least 2 kinds of discrimination which are worse than race discrimination:

discrimination against ugly persons, and

discrimination against fat people.

These 2 kinds of discrimination are more widespread than race discrimination, and the damage done by them is worse than race discrimination.

Most of the damage is that of employment discrimination. And there's only one solution:

Do away with labor laws which force employers to pay higher wages/compensation to workers. As long as employers have to pay workers more than what they're worth in the market (supply-and-demand), they will engage in more discrimination.

When employers are forced to pay higher than market value, their natural response is to reduce the jobs and to leave jobs vacant longer until they find someone more attractive. As long as they have to pay the workers more than their real value for getting the work done, they will consider other factors than just that of the job. I.e., they will consider amenities beyond just getting the work done. So they'll hold off hiring someone until they get an applicant who has a prettier face, or who has other assets to offer than just getting the job done. So they'll discriminate against someone they would otherwise hire if a lower compensation was permitted, because that unattractive one will be more desperate and would accept a lower wage, to compete against the more attractive ones. But that's not legal, i.e., to compete on wage level. So the unattractive one is unable to compete with the leverage of willingness to accept a lower wage.

When you deprive someone of their competitive leverage, you cause them to lose in the market. It's similar to the game of musical chairs, where there's only so many chairs, and those more attractive have an advantage in grabbing the empty chair while those less attractive are the ones bumped out of the competition.

It's impossible for employers to not discriminate as long as they're forced to pay workers higher than the market wage set by supply-and-demand.

Even if you can make race discrimination illegal, and this works, there will still be the other kinds of discrimination that will continue because nothing is done to prevent them.

 

[laughing dog]

Is this something you believe? That these companies had a written or unwritten personnel policy indicating they should hire white men as a priority?

I am pointing out that the actual logical meaning of the term in the triumph of optimism over experience that it will indicate to you that your intrepretation is inconsistent with the term.

No, 'stop hiring white men' and 'deprioritize hiring white men' are not inconsistent with each other, literally or otherwise.

Didn't say you said that. Please stop misrepresenting reality.

But your interpretation (that it might mean these companies have been prioritising the hiring of white men over others, which has been illegal federally and in every US State for decades), is an intereprtation that you yourself evidently do not actually believe, else you would have answered my question.

I did answer your question. Please stop misrepresenting reality.
"Deprioritization" does not necessarily mean discrimination. Not giving white men a priority does not mean discrimination against white men, no matter how much you wish that to be true. In fact, as I pointed out, it might actually mean stopping discrimination.

 

[Swammerdami]

Some people use language "in the ordinary way." Some people — and many message-boarders find this amusing sometimes — enjoy parsing literally, debating the meaning of "is" or the placement of a comma and so on. (There is a comma that negates the meaning of the Second Amendment in the original text, though some dispute about whether it's a comma or a smudge!)

But pedants need to jump on one bus or the other!

@Metaphor; You spent dozens of posts in one thread insisting that what everyone thought your meaning was, was not the LITERAL meaning of your actual words. Now you're trying to jump on the other bus, with
. . . . . . . . everybody knows that "slavery makes everyone poorer" means "slavery does not make everyone poorer."

Yes, yes, blah, blah; don't bother to repeat your insipid claim about "ordinary use of language." The point is that you've hoisted yourself on your own petard. Jumping back and forth from the "ordinary language" bus to the hyper-literalist bus is just ... inconsistent.

That had Jefferson freed his slaves, Jefferson would suddenly have become richer? Who knows? Who cares? If challenged, Metaphor will make dozens of posts defending his claim based on some comma in his post or some alternative definition of 'everyone' I've overlooked![/sarcasm]

I'm defending it based on ordinary use of language.

I notice your dishonesty in snipping out my war analogy. There are individual profiteers from war. War makes everyone poorer. These are not contradictory statements.

I hold in my hand one of John le Carre's novels. Nothing there rules out either possibility. I hold an image processing textbook in the other hand. Like the novel, and like OP's cited article with its click-bait title, it has nothing to rule out that Sean Hannity has syphilis.

Is this our new standard of evidence? Some random article on the 'Net "has nothing to rule out" that Donald Trump and MTG are stable geniuses?

No, that is not our 'new standard of evidence'.

My standard of evidence is to note that the article title claims 1 in 6 managers were told to stop hiring white men. The article goes on to talk about the 1 in 6 figure as talking about 'deprioritising hiring white men'.

Pro-tip. Intellectuals do not rely on article titles, especially from sources where the title is created by a sub-editor rather than the article's author. Especially when you're of the Ilk that often reads ONLY the article's title. READ the article BODY and look for indicative sentences that make the point you're trying to claim.

 

[Metaphor]

Is this something you believe? That these companies had a written or unwritten personnel policy indicating they should hire white men as a priority?

I am pointing out that the actual logical meaning of the term in the triumph of optimism over experience that it will indicate to you that your intrepretation is inconsistent with the term.

No, 'stop hiring white men' and 'deprioritize hiring white men' are not inconsistent with each other, literally or otherwise.

Didn't say you said that. Please stop misrepresenting reality.

I did not claim you 'accused' me of saying that. What on earth are you talking about?

But your interpretation (that it might mean these companies have been prioritising the hiring of white men over others, which has been illegal federally and in every US State for decades), is an intereprtation that you yourself evidently do not actually believe, else you would have answered my question.

I did answer your question.

You did not. Here is the question:

Do you believe that these companies had a written or unwritten personnel policy indicating they should hire white men as a priority?

Please stop misrepresenting reality.
"Deprioritization" does not necessarily mean discrimination.

I did not claim it necessarily did. What I did claim is that your interpretation of 'deprioritizing hiring white men' to imply that companies in America might have, until recently, prioritized the hiring of white men, is highly implausible.

In fact, there are many reasons why it is highly implausible, including the responses to the other questions in the same survey, the headline of the article, and passing knowledge of the lengths firms in America will go to to protect their favouring of 'diverse' candidates over white men.

In fact, I believe you yourself do not believe your own interpretation.

Do you believe that these companies had a written or unwritten personnel policy indicating they should hire white men as a priority?

 

[Metaphor]

Some people use language "in the ordinary way." Some people — and many message-boarders find this amusing sometimes — enjoy parsing literally, debating the meaning of "is" or the placement of a comma and so on. (There is a comma that negates the meaning of the Second Amendment in the original text, though some dispute about whether it's a comma or a smudge!)

But pedants need to jump on one bus or the other!

@Metaphor; You spent dozens of posts in one thread insisting that what everyone thought your meaning was, was not the LITERAL meaning of your actual words. Now you're trying to jump on the other bus, with
. . . . . . . . everybody knows that "slavery makes everyone poorer" means "slavery does not make everyone poorer."

Yes, yes, blah, blah; don't bother to repeat your insipid claim about "ordinary use of language." The point is that you've hoisted yourself on your own petard. Jumping back and forth from the "ordinary language" bus to the hyper-literalist bus is just ... inconsistent.

The...hyper-literalist bus? What on earth are you talking about?

Pro-tip. Intellectuals do not rely on article titles, especially from sources where the title is created by a sub-editor rather than the article's author. Especially when you're of the Ilk that often reads ONLY the article's title. READ the article BODY and look for indicative sentences that make the point you're trying to claim.

I did read the article body. There is nothing in the article body that contradicts the article headline, and everything in it is consistent with the headline. laughing dog's claim that the OP is bullshit, is bullshit.

 

[laughing dog]

I did not claim you 'accused' me of saying that. What on earth are you talking about?

You are reallly babbling.

You did not. Here is the question:

Of course I did. My belief is not relevant. I am pointing out your interpretation excludes other possibilities. That is important because your entire argument is about possibilities, not actual reality-based evidence.

My limited experience with hiring managers is that some of them do prioritize hiring white men. They simply do not make it an explicit policy. It does not mean that every hire is a white guy, but they will tip the scales whenever they can. So, in my view, it is plausible. Whether it is highly probable, I have no idea.

 

[Metaphor]

I did not claim you 'accused' me of saying that. What on earth are you talking about?

You are reallly babbling.

Thank you for not addressing my question.

You did not. Here is the question:

Of course I did.

You did not.

My belief is not relevant.

It is highly relevant. You claimed that the OP's claim was literally false. For evidence, you said that the text in the article body said white men were being 'deprioritised', and that 'deprioritised' in its most literal interpretation, could mean until recently, hiring white men was a priority, and definitely did not mean 'stop hiring white men', hence you labelling the OP's claim (which was about discrimination against white men), false.

I agree that if, until recently, hiring white men had been a priority and the firms were now asking that white men are not given an unfair priority, that that indeed would be consistent with ending discrimination (against non-white non-men).

But choosing this interpretation requires you to have a good reason to favour it over the other interpretations of 'deprioritize', including the most obvious one implied by the article - that it means stop hiring white men. And it cannot be your own beliefs about company hiring practices that have caused you to favour the 'illegally preferring white men until recently' interpretation as plausible, because I do not believe that you believe that until recently, companies in America have been illegally favouring the hiring of white men above others.

I am pointing out your interpretation excludes other possibilities.

Your statement is a perfect inversion of reality. It was you who claimed the OP was literally false. You could claim that only if you exclude the other possibilities for the interpretation of the word 'deprioritize'. And it was I who allowed some possibilities, by saying the article headline was not contradicted by the article.

That is important because your entire argument is about possibilities, not actual reality-based evidence.

My limited experience with hiring managers is that some of them do prioritize hiring white men. They simply do not make it an explicit policy. It does not mean that every hire is a white guy, but they will tip the scales whenever they can. So, in my view, it is plausible. Whether it is highly probable, I have no idea.

My experience with recruitment is the exact opposite. Implicitly, usually. Indeed, when anything is explicit, it is explicitly anti-white and anti-male (in my most recent experience, more anti-male rather than anti-white, as there is a wide diversity of ethnicities in my team).

 

[laughing dog]

I did not claim you 'accused' me of saying that. What on earth are you talking about?

You are reallly babbling.

Thank you for not addressing my question.

I cannot address babble,

It is highly relevant. <snipped pointless, biased “recap> and pointless justifications

Your believes about what is true or false are not relevant as to what is true or false. Your experiences in Australia are not relevant to hiring practices in a different country.

A literal interpretation ( your MO) of ‘deprioritization” does not mean to stop hiring white men. Neither does reverse discrimination. The fact you conveniently eschew your MO indicates to me that you realize you cannot support your bias through rational honest discussion.

 

[ZiprHead]

BTW, "deprioritizing" the hiring of white men suggests that hiring white men was a priority and is not stopped.

Is this something you believe? That these companies had a written or unwritten personnel policy indicating they should hire white men as a priority?

It was the words used in the article. Why shouldn't it be believed?

I didn't say they shouldn't be believed. I said 'stop hiring white men' was not somehow contradicted by 'deprioritize hiring white men'.

Then why did you ask the question? And what you said was "Is this something you believe? That these companies had a written or unwritten personnel policy indicating they should hire white men as a priority?" Your back-peddle is noted.

 

[Elixir]

One thing about this forum as a collective… we certainly suffer fools gladly.
I suppose that’s as it should be, lest we risk suppressing some vacuous speech and let it be held up as an example of fascism.

 

[thebeave]

People on this forum and elsewhere often seem puzzled when, say, blacks or women vote Republican, they are voting against their self interests. Or as Sunny Hostin on The View* so eloquently puts it, "White women voting Republican is like roaches voting for Raid". Based on this survey in the OP, couldn't the same be said of white men (and white women)? Why would whites want to be voting Democrat when discriminating against white people seems to be embraced and normalized by the party? Or at least not outright condemned. Seems to me to be a losing strategy if the Democrat party wants to maintain power going forward. White people are still a substantial share of the US population, and want/need a fair chance at getting employment.

*Can anyone explain why three hosts of The View are named Joy, Sunny and Whoopi when those three are constantly bitter, argumentative and sour? Talk about being misnamed...

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

People on this forum and elsewhere often seem puzzled when, say, blacks or women vote Republican, they are voting against their self interests. Or as Sunny Hostin on The View* so eloquently puts it, "White women voting Republican is like roaches voting for Raid". Based on this survey in the OP, couldn't the same be said of white men (and white women)? Why would whites want to be voting Democrat when discriminating against white people seems to be embraced and normalized by the party? Or at least not outright condemned. Seems to me to be a losing strategy if the Democrat party wants to maintain power going forward. White people are still a substantial share of the US population, and want/need a fair chance at getting employment.

Simple, the discrimination is near non-existent and has such a negligible impact on our lives that your consistent insistence on how bad it is seems delusional.

I have never been refused a job, a loan, entrance into a college because I was white. I'm surrounded by lots of people who also white, that managed to become career professionals despite this alleged discrimination. They applied to colleges, got into the colleges, allowed to graduate. Got internships, applied for and received employment. All despite this alleged handicap... as if that discriminations is nearly non-existent and its impact on the opportunities available to white people is virtually nil.

Your talking about a Plessy v Ferguson world... I'm living in the actual one.

 

[atrib]

1 in 6 Hiring Managers Have Been Told to Stop Hiring White Men - ResumeBuilder.com

More than half of hiring managers whose companies have DEI initiatives in place believe their company practices “reverse discrimination”.

www.resumebuilder.com

We keep hearing the justice warriors saying that it's about ending discrimination. Why are the people doing the hiring being told to discriminate?

Yet our office is full of white people, and new employees, who are also white, keeping showing up on a regular basis. They must not have got the memo. Or maybe the author of the article is simply making up shit.

Facts. At my job of roughly 50 people. 3 are black, 4 are latino and the rest is white. Management is all white.

At my office of about 90 people, most doing technical work in engineering and architecture, we have one black person, two brown people (of whom I am one), and eight women, two of whom work in non-technical roles. We have two Assoc. Vice Presidents in the office, both of whom are white, and one Senior Vice President (me) who is brown. While my employer does have a strong commitment to DEI that they sincerely believe in, they certainly don't go around telling the people making hiring decisions (group managers and technical principals) that we should disqualify candidates simply because they are white. Most of our new hires are white, since most qualified applicants who are looking for jobs in engineering and architecture in South Carolina are white. I wish it were different, but that is the reality.

 

[Gospel]

I'd bet a whole packet of chicken flavored Ramen noodles that if the same people complaining about Affirmative action looks around their place of business it's majority white. I think that's more due to the population than anything else. They ought to stop being mad about the push for diversity and instead implement China's one child policy to increase their odds of getting hired.