• Zachariah@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    15 hours ago

    I assure you far more people are hired because they’re not part of a minority group than because they are.

    • JackGreenEarth@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      15 hours ago

      I don’t know statistics on either, but anecdotally I know far more people critical of ‘normal’ discrimination than ‘positive’ discrimination

        • JackGreenEarth@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          11 hours ago

          That seems to show that many people are discriminated against in job applications, but not the general level of support for that behaviour amongst the general population.

          • julietOscarEcho@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            10 hours ago

            It continues despite general opposition. That’s exactly the problem. Systemic and unconscious biases are really hard to combat, even if there wasn’t a vocal reactionary minority. “just don’t discriminate” has at this point been proven beyond doubt inadequate to equalize opportunities.

      • TheFriar@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        13 hours ago

        But I think the point is, equally qualified people both have equal claim to the job. Adding in centuries of lost opportunities for being part of a minority group means that righting the balance makes sense.

        Think about it economically. Reparations are paid because of the massive imbalance in opportunity. Where do you stand on that?

        • JackGreenEarth@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          12
          ·
          13 hours ago

          You’re not helping the individuals who were discriminated on in the past, you’re favouring an individual who has no specific connection to other members or the discriminated group besides their shared characteristic, and did not choose to be a part of that group.

          • TheFriar@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            edit-2
            10 hours ago

            …exactly. They did not choose to be a part of a minority group, but that fact means they have almost certainly been discriminated against in the past—their ancestors most definitely have, meaning less generational wealth and a diminished starter point due to centuries of racial oppression. If you’re born middle class, or upper class, there is a greater likelihood for opportunity and upward mobility. That drastically decreases the poorer you are, and minority groups are disproportionately represented in the lower classes…again, due to a long history of racial discrimination.

            Trying to right that trend has to start with the current generation, and that generation is made up of individuals, whether you think they deserve to be the first in line to receive the benefits of balancing the scales or not.

            It has to start somewhere.

            • JackGreenEarth@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              11 hours ago

              In some instances you’re right, and that’s a different matter. In many others though the current individual is not disadvantaged because of their status as belonging to a minority group.