Isn't Blizzard racist and sexist with this "diversity" thing going on?

[FrostHate]

Except that's exactly what happens at colleges all the time: They have to give favorable treatment to white men because white men are underrepresented on colleges. And nobody on the right whines and complains about it. I wonder why?

- - - Updated - - -

Nice whataboutism. But I'm yet to hear an official statement from a college that they're reconsidering their choices due to the possibility of ending up having too many blacks or women, thus giving preferential treatment to white men

[Aleksej89]

radical left is just as racist/sexist as radical right, if not even more.

the corporate leeches dont really care either way, they would sell your soul and child for profit.

so they just do whatever is the flavor of the month/year in the media/PR/HR.

[Daedius]

Which is more likely to discriminate, a hiring panel of people who share all of the same backgrounds and personal characteristics, or a hiring panel made up of people of varied backgrounds and personal characteristics?

We both know the answer, and we also both know you will proceed to make an excuse to not provide the obvious answer.

Don't assume. I go by merit and who's best for the job... Skin or gender is irrelevant.

[Overlordd]

Which is more likely to discriminate, a hiring panel of people who share all of the same backgrounds and personal characteristics, or a hiring panel made up of people of varied backgrounds and personal characteristics?

We both know the answer, and we also both know you will proceed to make an excuse to not provide the obvious answer.

Way ro ignore my whole post in the OP. Thank you!

[NineSpine]

Nice whataboutism. But I'm yet to hear an official statement from a college that they're reconsidering their choices due to the possibility of ending up having too many blacks or women, thus giving preferential treatment to white men

Look up how affirmative action impacts white people at colleges that have large asian representation, especially in the UC system.

These policies don't say you have to hire or accept specific groups. The provisions also kick in when white people are underrepresented as well. It's just that it is rare that white people are underrepresented, but when they are (such as in west coast colleges), it kicks in.

- - - Updated - - -

Way ro ignore my whole post in the OP. Thank you!

Like I said, you will provide to make an excuse to not provide the obvious answer that we both know.

[huth]

There is no such thing as racism and sexism. The races and the sexes are different from one another. Otherwise you wouldn't be able to distinguish between them.

Words like "racism" and "sexism" are tools to control people.

Racism and sexism are specificially about using features to distinguish between people that aren't actually relevant to the field in question. Yes, there are real differences between men and women. But these differences aren't relevant in a lot of professions.

Diversity creates meritocracy. They aren't opposed concepts. They are contingent concepts.

Meritocracies are not contingent on diversity. Enforced diversity even counteracts them since you need to judge people on things unrelated to their capabilities. A meritocracy simply allows for diversity, it neither requires nor causes it by itself.

The problem starts far earlier anyway. People are taught to seek and avoid various fields based on what they are long before they would even consider applying for a job, wholly independent of what they'd actually be good at. It starts at things like colour coding baby clothing.

[NineSpine]

Don't assume. I go by merit and who's best for the job... Skin or gender is irrelevant.

I didn't say to assume anything. I said which is more likely to discriminate. So, which is it?

[Overlordd]

Nice whataboutism. But I'm yet to hear an official statement from a college that they're reconsidering their choices due to the possibility of ending up having too many blacks or women, thus giving preferential treatment to white men

Actually there's been a recent studies where white attendants are compelled to lie about their skin colour to get accepted into college.

https://thehill.com/changing-america...ie-about-their

[NineSpine]

Racism and sexism are specificially about using features to distinguish between people that aren't actually relevant to the field in question. Yes, there are real differences between men and women. But these differences aren't relevant in a lot of professions.

Meritocracies are not contingent on diversity. Enforced diversity even counteracts them since you need to judge people on things unrelated to their capabilities. A meritocracy simply allows for diversity, it neither requires nor causes it by itself.

The problem starts far earlier anyway. People are taught to seek and avoid various fields based on what they are long before they would even consider applying for a job, wholly independent of what they'd actually be good at. It starts at things like colour coding baby clothing.

Meritocracy always breaks down when there isn't diversity, so expecting meritocracy to solve its own diversity problem is irrational.

[Alga]

radical left is just as racist/sexist as radical right, if not even more.

the corporate leeches dont really care either way, they would sell your soul and child for profit.

so they just do whatever is the flavor of the month/year in the media/PR/HR.

Said the jerk with an Adolf pic. Well played, gg.

[huth]

Which is more likely to discriminate, a hiring panel of people who share all of the same backgrounds and personal characteristics, or a hiring panel made up of people of varied backgrounds and personal characteristics?

We both know the answer, and we also both know you will proceed to make an excuse to not provide the obvious answer.

They're both guaranteed to discriminate, as that is literally their purpose.

[Very Tired]

The real problem is that diversity has been swept up in rebranding to come mean different genders and races. When they said diversity makes you stronger, it really means diversity of thought. That can be achieved by a room for of people of the exact same race and gender as long as they have different backgrounds or whatnot.

[NineSpine]

They're both guaranteed to discriminate, as that is literally their purpose.

Which is likely to discriminate more on characteristics unrelated to the job?

- - - Updated - - -

The real problem is that diversity has been swept up in rebranding to come mean different genders and races. When they said diversity makes you stronger, it really means diversity of thought. That can be achieved by a room for of people of the exact same race and gender.

"Can be achieved" and "Reasonable to expect it to be achieved" aren't the same thing. Is it possible for a board made entirely of Japanese men from Japan to be equally insightful about Americans as a board made up of a diverse group of Americans, sure... in the sense that anything is possible, but the idea that we should anticipate or reasonable expect that outcome is laughable.

[Daedius]

I didn't say to assume anything. I said which is more likely to discriminate. So, which is it?

Discrimination is discrimination. Don't tolerate it. We already got laws for that... yet it seems acceptable to be discriminatory for being the 'wrong type'.

[NineSpine]

Discrimination is discrimination. Don't tolerate it. We already got laws for that... yet it seems acceptable to be discriminatory for being the 'wrong type'.

Which group is more likely to discriminate? We both know the answer, and the fact that you won't just provide the answer because you know how bad it is for your argument speaks to your dishonesty.

[huth]

Which is likely to discriminate more on characteristics unrelated to the job?

Both. No, you're not getting the answer you want, because it isn't true. What differs between them is how they're going to discriminate based on it, but not whether they will. The only way of actually avoiding it is to not let them have information about said characteristics to begin with.

[Aleksej89]

Said the jerk with an Adolf pic. Well played, gg.

The amount of hate you just showed all based on a simple picture (a picture that mocks one of the worst people in history) speaks volumes about how uninterested you are in anything but hate.
I will just put you on the ignore list safely knowing i will never miss anything worth reading by doing so.

[huth]

Discrimination is discrimination. Don't tolerate it. We already got laws for that... yet it seems acceptable to be discriminatory for being the 'wrong type'.

Discrimination is not inherently bad. A meritocracy also discriminates based on merit. Discriminating just means evaluating differences. It becomes problematic when you make decisions based on irrelevant information, like whether you personally like somebody rather than whether they would be good at the job.

[Aleksej89]

Which group is more likely to discriminate? We both know the answer, and the fact that you won't just provide the answer because you know how bad it is for your argument speaks to your dishonesty.

The fact you think that in modern western societies the majority is more likely to discriminate towards a minority shows you really have never gone into a minority-dominated area.

[Reasonman]

Discrimination is not inherently bad. A meritocracy also discriminates based on merit. Discriminating just means evaluating differences. It becomes problematic when you make decisions based on irrelevant information, like whether you personally like somebody rather than whether they would be good at the job.

Agreed! To add to it, we should also aim for a system that gives people the opportunity to reach their full potential. Like giving everyone the same metaphorical starting equipment and let them do what they do with it.