Hacker News Reader

Comment by 4ntonius8lock | Hacker News Reader

I find it suspect how as soon as I say young people get discriminated on, a bunch of people who I'd assume are older than in their 20s, come out and defend such discrimination.

I'm not that young anymore. I called them old farts because that is what they were. They discriminated on me based on my age alone, so that makes them old farts in my book. I wouldn't have been considered for the director position without any leverage, the numbers dropped for a good while after I left.

There are respectable old men and women. Just like there are respectable young men and women and there are snot nose kids who discriminate against old people. In general, people who discriminate lose the right to respect from me and I might refer to them in a despective tone when commenting on an anonymous site where I'm answering informally.

View on HN

I suspect that the incivility and self-righteousness that comes through in these comments may have lead some to think that the poster needs some time to gain perspective, and wisdom, about how to deal with everyone with respect.

I might be an incivil, self-righteous person, but could you please explain to this incivil person why ageist discrimination is OK when applied to the young but not the old?

Because in that case it's not about age, age is the excuse given because they didn't want to actually explain why they didn't think you were good for the position. Maybe they attributed your negative qualities to young age and thus used that as the explanation, maybe not. Maybe they wanted a reason you couldn't argue against or fix. If they were particularly devious a-holes and you'd annoyed them then maybe they said age because they knew it'd drive you insane.

edit: And right for the position includes personally not liking you or thinking you're not acting appropriately to them. I doubt they cared much for how the company does compared to their own egos.

One day I will know as much about my own life as you seem to believe you know about me.

Even if my particular case was not about ageism, we can agree it happens against the young unfairly, sometimes. Even if I'm too much of an asshole for it to happen to me.

So, my point stands: can you please explain to this self righteous, incivil person who deserves the discrimination he has experienced, why it is OK to discriminate against the young but not the old?

P.S. Odd how in your last comment when I argued against your logic and you couldn't answer any more, you said: 'I don't care about this you do' and then proceed to post a bunch more times in this same thread.

>So, my point stands: can you please explain to this self righteous, incivil person who deserves the discrimination he has experienced, why it is OK to discriminate against the young but not the old? Or are you going to admit to being a troll like you did on the other comment when I addressed your weak arguments?

I didn't say it was. I said, it's okay to discriminate against personality traits which generally come with age. For example, lack of emotional stability is a negative trait in management and it correlates somewhat with age. As I said, it's about being able to portray those traits and that you possess them independently of age. Moreover, just like work experience matters so does life experience. Your brain changes with experience. It also changes drastically until you mid 20s. So, just like work experience (as measure by years working) can be a proxy for seniority so can life experience (as measured by age) be a proxy for those traits. Hopefully, people independently test things instead of relying on proxies alone.

Finally, the difference between youth and everything else you've mentioned in terms of discrimination is trivially simple. The young naturally become old with time. The old do not become young with time. Blacks don't become white. Women don't become men. A few years of wait versus eternity of wait is the difference.

Reading your post, it sounds like what your saying is that discriminating against the young is justified and not that big of a deal.

It seems your post makes this argument without actually stating as much. So I'm trying to get where you stand on age discrimination against the young.

P.S. this is irrelevant to requesting experience, that is a requirement independent of what age the person has.

My point is that what you believe to be age discrimination may not be that at all, rather a judgement of suitability based on temperament and how relationships are handled.

A certain equanimity and humility often is attributed to age and the acquisition of wisdom. Perhaps this is what was referred to, rather than an actual judgement based on age.

People frequently do not confront behavior directly, rather using euphemisms or attributing decisions to other aspects to avoid a heated and personal confrontation. One of the necessary skills of leadership positions is to be aware of this and respond to the real, underlying issue rather than the superficial one.

Bob, the CEO, turned out to be a good friend of mine. Next time we have some beers, I'll tell him that his perspective was false and he was trying to protect my feelings (despite being a very brash guy who is known for being upfront) - I'll tell him how jhayward, nickpsecurity, JumpCrisscross and marcinzm and others told me his leadership secrets.

Well, let's leave the world of theory, which I'll let the ass-u-me crowd dominate:

Even if my particular case was not about ageism, we can agree it happens against the young unfairly, even if sometimes. Even if I'm too much of an asshole for it to happen to me.

So, my point stands: can you please explain to this self righteous, incivil person who deserves the discrimination he has experienced, why it is OK to discriminate against the young but not the old?

Fine, young person here. I personally rather the person in a higher up managing position to have a lot of experience because it's such a vast scope of departments and functions you are usually responsible for in a large company. Having experience in multiple roles and area helps a shit ton from being blindsided.

If this is a small company with less responsibilities, then I would consider this a problem and more so ageist, because less complexity and moving parts doesn't require more experience.

But I agree with the others a little bit as well, you seem to lacking a little EQ.

Age is a proxy in people’s minds for other things, usually maturity, gravitas and playing the social game. Not always but more often than not. Age is a quick if inexact proxy but you can prove it in other ways.

That's true.

But it seems really inappropriate to say this here.

We are discussing the insidiousness of discrimination with the hope of socially being more conscious and finding ways to improve this.

It's kinda like going into a place with victims of racism and saying 'get over' and 'use your white voice/dress more white' when talking about the issue of racism. Or suggesting that racial discrimination is justified. It's out of place, even if the suggestion is coming from a good place of wanting the best for the other person.

P.S. I had a department with large numbers and strong growth on my side for leverage, that is why the CEO considered me in the first place. The numbers took a big hit after I left. If the board would have had more people in their 40s and less in their 70s-80s, I would likely have been accepted. Explaining to me that this is politics is a very pedantic in assuming I don't understand politics.

>P.S. I had a department with large numbers and strong growth on my side for leverage, that is why the CEO considered me in the first place. The numbers took a big hit after I left. If the board would have had more people in their 40s and less in their 70s-80s, I would likely have been accepted. Explaining to me that this is politics is a very pedantic in assuming I don't understand politics.

The fact you're talking about strong growth and large numbers is why I don't think you understand politics. That doesn't matter to the board. It's the foot in the door at best. Did you align politically with the board? Did they know it? Would you be a reliable pawn for them? Did they think they could work with you and get you to do what they wanted? Did you have strong support from other department heads? Did you have strong support from other in higher positions? Did you have any major opponents? Any secret opponents? Did you know of those opponents through your connections? I could go on but point being, that doing a good job is pretty low on the list of things which matters in politics.

One day I will know as much about my own life as you seem to believe you know about me.

Even if my particular case was not about ageism, we can agree it happens against the young unfairly, even if sometimes. Even if I'm too much of an asshole for it to happen to me.

So, my point stands: can you please explain to this self righteous, incivil person who deserves the discrimination he has experienced, why it is OK to discriminate against the young but not the old? Or are you going to admit to being a troll like you did on the other comment when I addressed your weak arguments?

I don't really care.

People who engage in age discrimination, against young people, should be fired or fined out of existence.

Discrimination is discrimination.

So every car insurance and car rental company should be removed? After all, they all charge higher rates to young people irrespective of years actually driving. I mean, sure science says the human brain doesn't mature until mid 20s and sure young people have much higher rates of accidents. But, damn it, we should just wipe them all out anyway, right?

It is my experience that when people resort to sarcasm they have lost the argument and can't face it.

But I'll address what you are saying:

Insurance can charge people without using ageism.

Before, insurers found that black people needed to pay more. After all, they were barbaric said the insurers. Then it became illegal.

Insurance companies still exist. Doing away with barbaric old practices is a good thing and as has happened when women got the right to vote, or civil rights, or other major positive reforms, the world continued on without falling apart.

It's sad that even in a rationalist place like hacker news, ageism is still something that can be openly admitted to. At least racists and sexists generally have to hide their ignorance if they don't want to be shunned by society.

>It is my experience that when people resort to sarcasm they have lost the argument and can't face it.

Or they understand that this site is in the end entertainment. Sarcasm makes it more fun for both the writer and the other readers.

You're projecting how much you care about this issue onto me. Reality is, I don't care about it much at all, it's a mild intellectual diversion to me. You're hurt by this, you're infuriated by this, you're driven by this. I'm not.

So 1 of 3:

1- Rational: Your original argument is flawed, you realize it and have changed but can't admit it 2- Irrational: You can't defend your argument since you haven't, but won't change 3- Plain Nasty: You are trolling.

I'm inclined to think 3, though most people don't use their real name when trolling.

Or 4. I don't care to argue those points because I find doing so to not be entertaining or insightful. I used to argue to the death and then I realized that in the end it brought neither joy nor enlightenment. So I don't anymore.

You're free to think you've won, I don't care. Although one piece of life advice for someone who seems to like arguing and seems to be good at it. People will often stop arguing with you because they find it tiring. You'll think you've won and pat yourself on the back. They'll think you didn't win. Instead they'll just think you're good at arguing (but still wrong), an a-hole and will dislike you silently from then on.

Normally I would have stopped responding by now but I find this side conversation insightful.

Every argument you have given has been in favor of discriminating against the young.

If you are intellectually honest you'd just admit that is your perspective. Or clarify.

Would you please not post in the flamewar style to HN? it's against the rules here, and we've had to ask you this already.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Im sure that people made the exact same arguments that you are making, regarding race and gender.

And it is just as bad.

You can't expect to be taken seriously in a discussion of age discrimination when you are using blatant discriminatory language. Imagine if in a race discrimination discussion you had said the equivalent "I hire respectable black people, but I don't hire--[the word I can't say or HN would ban me]"

Reply on news.ycombinator.com