Affirmative action is definitely racist and sexist. Without it, maybe it is in some cases.
269 karma · joined November 9, 2016
Like all the people's time and energy invested in social justice today...what would these same people have been investing their energy in before 2010s?
What I see is that people love being outraged, purpose-driven, and procrastination. And with social justice, while you're procrastinating, you can be outraged, and you can join a movement and gain a purpose.
Social media is probably to blame.
As a male, this has always been my main argument against affirmative action.
Too many SV white-knights feel they are helping simply because they are well intentioned. But good intentions do not always lead to the best outcomes.
And the costs are these "lingering self doubts", and teams being suspicious of "diversity hires".
Self-respect is very hard to quantify, but there is a distinct need for humans to be respected and authentically appreciated, and the extreme advocacy for females is sapping away this motivating force that is essential to work and life.
With the internet everyone has had the ability to learn programming for ages, and it really hasn't dramatically changed much. People are just not interested in it at some point.
Wouldn't "our own" as used earlier also include "these people"?
I think you are injecting context which was never there in the first place.
They will always be cheaper than US labor. And there are other advantages like employer loyalty because they cannot easily change job, which means employers can push them very hard and they won't quit - because its complicated to shift to another employer and they have to restart their green card.
I think behind all this is the feeling that the best opportunities are given to foreigners who then rise up the ranks, opportunities which could have been given to Americans.
Regarding immigration in general, the left continuously argues to keep low-paid foreign workers here to the benefit of large corporates. The justifications of "all of Silicon Valley companies support foreign immigration" makes perfect sense for these companies, but not for the nation. Silicon Valley is a bubble.
Is this not proof the media is losing touch with reality...
But from a male perspective (in the hypothetical above), I don't see it at all. I only see it as positive, and I think most males would feel the same. If there were repeated advances, then it would get a bit frustrating. And if I didn't get the job after knocking back repeated advances, then I would definitely see who I could contact about it.
Where can I find a list of "objectively wrong" things, and is there some kind of formal process to challenge them?
If she is a suspect, then she would feel pressured to go along with the police's advances, because of the risk of retaliation for knocking back advances. So, B.
But for the victim of your sister's crime, she will want justice to be served, and will definitely go for B.
Its interesting to think about what this would be like if the roles were reversed. The VC was female, and the applicant was male.
As a male in this situation I see this as completely neutral, even positive. If the founder likes me, then I have more chance of getting a highly sought after role which I might not have otherwise - as no company really hires solely on merit anyway. As a male, if there is a female HR contact, I would always welcome them flirting with me, as it only increases my chances of getting the job by giving me points when there are subjective evaluations required.
If I was single and interested in this female VC its a clear opening for a date. If I am attracted to her, I could have a date. If not, I could just laugh it off and say I'm already seeing someone. Life moves on.
Now if I push back an advance, they might get petty and decide to not hire me as some kind of revenge, or otherwise, they may be more likely to hire me because they want me around.
---
Now, obviously this is not a 1-1 analogous situation because of the world as it is today. Some notable differences...
- There are more male VCs than females. - There are probably less female applicants for such positions. - Males are the physically stronger sex. - Males are more likely to make advances than females (is this true?).
So I am interested in which of these above variables must be inverted to change my reaction. I need to think more on it.
But an interesting aspect is that, perhaps males think like this, and therefore think its okay. I am guessing that its the other gender imbalance variables that make this not applicable vise-versa, which is harder for males to play out in their mind.
...is clearly figuratively as the commenter mentioned.
It is the most pessimistic and depressing narrative that is forced onto every minority these days.
And at some point its probably a vicious cycle - in that employers become afraid of minorities because they feel that everything will be construed as discrimination. And the minorities have huge power because they can easily play the discrimination card.
Do you see any merit in this?
I hate what this PC culture has become. You have to watch yourself so carefully or you will get publicly shamed like this. And if someone over reacts there is no consequence. Its a race to the bottom.
The issue I see is that a lot of these issues are just about being in "a minority group". But a lot of complaints are levelled against the "male gender". This is sexist. Everything else is not.
Sexism has to be when people are treated differently solely because of their sex. In the tech world and corporate world, there is often a large imbalance between male and female, so that the treatment of a minority group appears sexist, because females are usually the minority.
The best test is to reverse the groupings and apply the same test.
When you think about it like this, it becomes less about "men" being somehow inherently bad which is a gross generalisation, and more about "humans are terrible people sometimes". But the issue with the latter statement is its not easy where to throw the blame.
It is ridiculously not what it seems. I read the comments here, and the FB post and after watching it in full context you get such a different perspective.
And it is just as the lady on the panelist has said in her comment.
The moderator is trying to simplify things for the audience.
After introducing her he tries to create an analogy as to how to think about it and says:
"I'm giving a very garbled caricature of it, you're the expect, why don't you tell us."
Why would he use self-deprecating language if he was being sexist? He is openly saying that she could explain it better.
He talks over her a few times, but he is in know way talking down to her, rather just trying to place everything in his overarching analogy which is the role of the moderator. To maintain a common thread running through the discussion.
Then he reframes it again, and concedes: "I'm putting this in a provacative way. Please explain it to us properly."
Again, he is even acknowledging when he feels he is being provocative.
After the interruption:
"That always happens to me...do I talk too much?"
Which seems like he knows that he gets overly excited sometimes and talks to much.
Seriously people!
So who is sexist in this scenario?
Turns out its the feminist in the audience assuming that a woman needs someone to cause a public disturbance because she could not help herself be heard.
Why is it every time some social justice event gains public attention, it turns out to not be sexism/racist/etc. at all.
Great tip. The solution to so many problems is to involve challenging opposing points of view.
There is a big problem with the left in America rejecting opposing points of view. "Safe space" and "shut it down" culture, etc. Mainstream media newsrooms packed with only liberal reporters, etc.
But unfortunately everyone gravitates to places of comfort around people with like-minded views, because its too difficult to constantly be questioning your beliefs or challenging someone else.
Good examples are Fox News' Hannity and Colmes and CNN's Crossfire. Both shuttered, and just ended up with replacement shows with one point of view.
I find that more and more Trump people can make the arguments of left-wing people, but the inverse is not true.
If the left didn't excommunicate anyone they disagree with maybe there would be more a chance to have reasoned political discussions, but so far, anywhere online where there is a left-wing community, all opposing viewpoints are silenced. See Reddit, etc.
When I read it I thought to myself - this is the first thing I really disagree with Trump on...but reading on:
> The supplemental questionnaire will only be given to “a fraction of 1% of the 13 or so million people who apply for a visa to visit the United States each year