Discrimination -- the reality

[Metaphor]

Slavery in America made all of America poorer.

I can only imagine what a great place this would have been if the owner had been a little richer due to lack of slavery.

View attachment 41126

As usual, you are determined to not get the point, or perhaps you are simply economically ignorant.

Here is a parallel: war makes everyone poorer, even if certain actors may be temporarily better off. There is a net loss overall.

 

[Metaphor]

You will have to explain what you mean by that.

Here we go...

This fish ignored that bait. I got an answer so I'm cool.

It wasn't "bait", it was a question.

 

[Metaphor]

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.

Maybe. Or it is also possible that these managers are reporting what their interpretation of what they were told (e.g. promote diversity in hiring gets translated in their brain as stop hiring white men).

EDIT: I have been told directly that we can't have another male on our team.

 

[TomC]

I find it vulgar to discriminate by race.

I'm with you on that. I have a question for you, are you a slavery in America & its effects on African American's denier? If so, thanks for being honest. If not, what do you propose should have been done to level the playing field for African Americans in an environment where the majority didn't want them to succeed?

Do you think that the answers to big social issues of the 1970s are still the best in the 2020s?

I don't.

What should have been done 50 years ago, and was, has little to do with what should be done now. Institutional Racism, aka Affirmative Action, served a very different purpose half a century ago.
Tom

 

[BH]

I am a white male, my niece is hispanic, and have cousins half white half black. I've date white, hispanic and black women in the past.

All discussion about this is futile. it case of a crooked stick cant be made straight. you have a bunch of white men who know they can do a job but dont get it. You have every racial minority who can say with honest truth they at one point in life have felt discriminated against with certainty and will always wonder if something at work didnt work out for them if racism had something to do with it.

To me it doesnt matter and I dont worry about it. If everyone had been treated right in the past and the black and hispanic people had been educated and employed fairly in the past I might still have lost out them just by luck of the draw or they may have been more qualified.

 

[laughing dog]

I read the article. It reports that 16% of managers report they have been told to “deprioritise” hiring white men. Literally interpreted, the OP claim to “stop hiring” is false.

 

[Metaphor]

I read the article. It reports that 16% of managers report they have been told to “deprioritise” hiring white men. Literally interpreted, the OP claim to “stop hiring” is false.

The OP put in a direct link to a webpage. That is the title of the webpage. Also, you do not know that the 'stop hiring' claim is false. The article does not reveal the question wording and the answer options.

The OP claimed only that the people doing the hiring are being told to discriminate, which is true, whether that is a blatant 'stop hiring', or a euphemistic 'deprioritize' (which means either stop hiring, which is discrimination, or favour candidates of other races, which is discrimination).

 

[TomC]

I read the article. It reports that 16% of managers report they have been told to “deprioritise” hiring white men. Literally interpreted, the OP claim to “stop hiring” is false.

You have a great deal more Faith in modern media than I have.
Tom

 

[laughing dog]

I read the article. It reports that 16% of managers report they have been told to “deprioritise” hiring white men. Literally interpreted, the OP claim to “stop hiring” is false.

The OP put in a direct link to a webpage. That is the title of the webpage. Also, you do not know that the 'stop hiring' claim is false. The article does not reveal the question wording and the answer options.

There is nothing in the article that says anyone was told to stop hiring.

The OP claimed only that the people doing the hiring are being told to discriminate, which is true, whether that is a blatant 'stop hiring', or a euphemistic 'deprioritize' (which means either stop hiring, which is discrimination, or favour candidates of other races, which is discrimination).

“Deprioritise” could also mean to stop automatically ranking white men first. Which would mean they are not being told to discriminate.

 

[Metaphor]

I read the article. It reports that 16% of managers report they have been told to “deprioritise” hiring white men. Literally interpreted, the OP claim to “stop hiring” is false.

The OP put in a direct link to a webpage. That is the title of the webpage. Also, you do not know that the 'stop hiring' claim is false. The article does not reveal the question wording and the answer options.

There is nothing in the article that says anyone was told to stop hiring.

There is also nothing in the article that rules it out. You don't know the question wording and you don't know what the authors meant by 'deprioritize'. There is no evidence that the claim is false.

The OP claimed only that the people doing the hiring are being told to discriminate, which is true, whether that is a blatant 'stop hiring', or a euphemistic 'deprioritize' (which means either stop hiring, which is discrimination, or favour candidates of other races, which is discrimination).

“Deprioritise” could also mean to stop automatically ranking white men first. Which would mean they are not being told to discriminate

I suppose it could mean that, though I would find that a strange way to put it. Discriminating against white people (and white men in particular) is also consistent with the other findings in the survey, like 52% saying their own company practises "reverse" discrimination and 48% say that often or very often they "pass on qualified candidates because they are not "diverse enough"

​

 

[Gospel]

I find it vulgar to discriminate by race.

I'm with you on that. I have a question for you, are you a slavery in America & its effects on African American's denier? If so, thanks for being honest. If not, what do you propose should have been done to level the playing field for African Americans in an environment where the majority didn't want them to succeed?

Do you think that the answers to big social issues of the 1970s are still the best in the 2020s?

I don't.

What should have been done 50 years ago, and was, has little to do with what should be done now. Institutional Racism, aka Affirmative Action, served a very different purpose half a century ago.
Tom

TomC. I'm not sure what conversation you're reading. Metaphor finds discrimination by race vulgar. I also find it vulgar. I then asked Metaphors' opinion on what should have been done instead of affirmative action (which I did not get an answer for), then you chime in with "Do you think herp derp, answers to social issues of the 70's is best in the 20s herp derp?". you should know the answer to that already. I said Affirmative action is vulgar. My question was, other than affirmative action, what could have been done to help African Americans have the same opportunities as everyone else? You have any ideas? I have one, they could have enforced the laws by punishing people who discriminated against Americans by race. In my opinion the affirmative action was chosen to avoid punishing people for being racist but instead force them to appear less racist.

 

[Gospel]

A whole lot of white people should have been thrown in Jail and the legal slavery in our jail system should have been loaded with the white racist pricks who supported the war against America anyway. And if you say, man there was just too many of them. Deputise the former slaves and give them all the support they need to jail (or kill if they resist) those clowns. Black folks would have built cities put up monuments for leaders of the Union rather than the dumb ass confederacy.

 

[Gospel]

The war shouldn't have ended until we lay the smack down on every last remnant of the confederacy sympathizers.

 

[laughing dog]

There is also nothing in the article that rules it out. You don't know the question wording and you don't know what the authors meant by 'deprioritize'. There is no evidence that the claim is false.

I know what is actually reported in the article. You have provided no evidence except pedantic reasoning to support the OP claim.At a minimum, the OP claim is bullshit.

“Deprioritise” could also mean to stop automatically ranking white men first. Which would mean they are not being told to discriminate

I suppose it could mean that, though I would find that a strange way to put it.

So ?

Discriminating against white people (and white men in particular) is also consistent with the other findings in the survey, like 52% saying their own company practises "reverse" discrimination and 48% say that often or very often they "pass on qualified candidates because they are not "diverse enough"

​

The former needs more explanation, and the latter does not mean necessarily mean discrimination.

 

[Gospel]

Could have avoided the whole civil rights movement if racist pricks weren't allowed to keep their power and status.

 

[Metaphor]

There is also nothing in the article that rules it out. You don't know the question wording and you don't know what the authors meant by 'deprioritize'. There is no evidence that the claim is false.

I know what is actually reported in the article. You have provided no evidence except pedantic reasoning to support the OP claim.At a minimum, the OP claim is bullshit.

The OP (written by Loren) did not claim managers had been told to stop hiring white men. The OP claimed there was discrimination, and he linked to an article with that title.

You are the one choosing to believe that that the wording in the body of the article contradicts the title of the article. They are not contradictory.

“Deprioritise” could also mean to stop automatically ranking white men first. Which would mean they are not being told to discriminate

I suppose it could mean that, though I would find that a strange way to put it.

So ?

So I find that less plausible than the other alternatives.

Discriminating against white people (and white men in particular) is also consistent with the other findings in the survey, like 52% saying their own company practises "reverse" discrimination and 48% say that often or very often they "pass on qualified candidates because they are not "diverse enough"

​

The former needs more explanation, and the latter does not mean necessarily mean discrimination.

The former means discrimination. "Reverse" discrimination is discrimination. The latter also means discrimination. Passing on qualified candidates because of unchangeable demographic characteristics (like their whiteness and sex) is discrimination.

 

[Metaphor]

I find it vulgar to discriminate by race.

I'm with you on that. I have a question for you, are you a slavery in America & its effects on African American's denier? If so, thanks for being honest. If not, what do you propose should have been done to level the playing field for African Americans in an environment where the majority didn't want them to succeed?

Do you think that the answers to big social issues of the 1970s are still the best in the 2020s?

I don't.

What should have been done 50 years ago, and was, has little to do with what should be done now. Institutional Racism, aka Affirmative Action, served a very different purpose half a century ago.
Tom

TomC. I'm not sure what conversation you're reading. Metaphor finds discrimination by race vulgar. I also find it vulgar. I then asked Metaphors' opinion on what should have been done instead of affirmative action (which I did not get an answer for),

That is not what you asked.

You asked:

what do you propose should have been done to level the playing field for African Americans in an environment where the majority didn't want them to succeed?

When I asked for clarification, you did not provide any, and agreed with ZiprHead's characterisation that my question was 'bait'.

But you are wrong when you say you did not receive an answer. I said people should stop discriminating by race.

 

[Politesse]

All in how you write the headline, isn't it? "Only 16% of hiring managers report ever having been asked to prioritize non-white applicants" doesn't have quite the same ring.

 

[Gospel]

I said people should stop discriminating by race.

And how does that look exactly? How does it manifest itself in the 1960's when black people were denied promotions, positions in high skilled Jobs or flat out not hired?

 

[Gospel]

When I asked for clarification, you did not provide any

No one can clarify anything for you. With you clarifications need clarification.