The job market is an interesting one. Having a quota system for how many of each gender, ability, sexuality, ethnic background, or religion you'll employ almost guarantees the situation that a lesser candidate is chosen simply because of a demographic. Note that this lesser candidate is now equally likely to be an able-bodied, white, straight, Christian male as any other option. Should we be angry at the unfairness of it? Yes, I think so.
Should we also recognize that in the past, the lesser candidates being chosen were almost exclusively able-bodied, white, straight, Christian males and that what you are complaining about now is what the rest of us have always suffered. It's unfair now but at least it's unfair in a fair way. Previously it was unfair in an unfair way.
I hope that that we move past quotas, equal opportunities, and everything else that goes along with this and that we move from being unfair in an unfair way, and from the current situation of being fair in an unfair way, to find a way of being fair in a fair way. That's the hope.
What we have now isn't the solution but a step on the path towards one.
So basically, you're content that we've replaced discrimination with discrimination. There is no such thing as a 'fair unfair' system. This is not progress, this is punishing people for things that happened in the past which we have no personal control over. I have a good degree of control over my education, experience, and ability to perform a job. I don't have control over my ethnicity or gender. These should not even be considered either for negative OR positive consequences. Affirmative Action is bogus. There is no such thing as 'positive discrimination.' If we want to be equal, then let's be equal. No free perks. Women, head to the Selective Service office. You're capable of combat and should share the same burden if need-be in a future time of war. Tear up those minority grants. We're equal. You can't have your cake and eat it, too.
Also, the modern day 'suffering' is like I said, far over exaggerated. If you're smart in school, you don't need an easy free "African-American" scholarship. You can earn it with your intelligence. People need to stop feeling entitled, especially for things they didn't personally go through in most cases.
I don't expect many people to agree with me. I've automatically alienated many readers of this post with the topic alone. I suppose it's a conflict of interest. If this post even gets around 30% normal I'll be kind of surprised.
It's strange you think we're coming from a different position. In my comment I said I thought we should be angry at the current situation. I also said what we have now isn't a solution and that we will hopefully move past the idea of equal opportunities. I say that despite ticking two of the boxes for why I'd be discriminated against. Perhaps because I was calm about it, you thought that decided my position.
You haven't alienated me but you certainly make it harder than it should be to appreciate the thought behind your words. That may be the case for others too. This isn't a criticism. Hopefully it's seen as enlightening. Regardless of the truth of a situation, there are good and bad ways to get a point across. If you're trying to persuade people you have to be persuasive as opposed to being in attack-mode (which doesn't really work).
You seemed fairly neutral. I'm hardly in attack mode; I haven't cussed anyone or been rude, only expressed my opinion. Perhaps sternly, but not 'attack-mode.' I'm curious how you are considering yourself so much more calm than me. I just don't agree that a 'fair unfair' system is a step in the right direction. It's more like a side-step.
IIN I'm Tired of 'Equal Opportunity' and Reverse Discrimination
← View full post
The job market is an interesting one. Having a quota system for how many of each gender, ability, sexuality, ethnic background, or religion you'll employ almost guarantees the situation that a lesser candidate is chosen simply because of a demographic. Note that this lesser candidate is now equally likely to be an able-bodied, white, straight, Christian male as any other option. Should we be angry at the unfairness of it? Yes, I think so.
Should we also recognize that in the past, the lesser candidates being chosen were almost exclusively able-bodied, white, straight, Christian males and that what you are complaining about now is what the rest of us have always suffered. It's unfair now but at least it's unfair in a fair way. Previously it was unfair in an unfair way.
I hope that that we move past quotas, equal opportunities, and everything else that goes along with this and that we move from being unfair in an unfair way, and from the current situation of being fair in an unfair way, to find a way of being fair in a fair way. That's the hope.
What we have now isn't the solution but a step on the path towards one.
--
Anonymous Post Author
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
3
3
So basically, you're content that we've replaced discrimination with discrimination. There is no such thing as a 'fair unfair' system. This is not progress, this is punishing people for things that happened in the past which we have no personal control over. I have a good degree of control over my education, experience, and ability to perform a job. I don't have control over my ethnicity or gender. These should not even be considered either for negative OR positive consequences. Affirmative Action is bogus. There is no such thing as 'positive discrimination.' If we want to be equal, then let's be equal. No free perks. Women, head to the Selective Service office. You're capable of combat and should share the same burden if need-be in a future time of war. Tear up those minority grants. We're equal. You can't have your cake and eat it, too.
Also, the modern day 'suffering' is like I said, far over exaggerated. If you're smart in school, you don't need an easy free "African-American" scholarship. You can earn it with your intelligence. People need to stop feeling entitled, especially for things they didn't personally go through in most cases.
I don't expect many people to agree with me. I've automatically alienated many readers of this post with the topic alone. I suppose it's a conflict of interest. If this post even gets around 30% normal I'll be kind of surprised.
--
hoppy
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
2
2
It's strange you think we're coming from a different position. In my comment I said I thought we should be angry at the current situation. I also said what we have now isn't a solution and that we will hopefully move past the idea of equal opportunities. I say that despite ticking two of the boxes for why I'd be discriminated against. Perhaps because I was calm about it, you thought that decided my position.
You haven't alienated me but you certainly make it harder than it should be to appreciate the thought behind your words. That may be the case for others too. This isn't a criticism. Hopefully it's seen as enlightening. Regardless of the truth of a situation, there are good and bad ways to get a point across. If you're trying to persuade people you have to be persuasive as opposed to being in attack-mode (which doesn't really work).
--
Anonymous Post Author
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
You seemed fairly neutral. I'm hardly in attack mode; I haven't cussed anyone or been rude, only expressed my opinion. Perhaps sternly, but not 'attack-mode.' I'm curious how you are considering yourself so much more calm than me. I just don't agree that a 'fair unfair' system is a step in the right direction. It's more like a side-step.