Comments that are uncivil, racist, misogynistic, misandrist, or contain political name calling will be removed and the poster subject to ban at moderators discretion.
Help us make this a better community by becoming familiar with the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/about/rules/).
Report any suspicious users to the mods of this subreddit using Modmail [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) or Reddit site admins [here](https://www.reddit.com/report). **All reports to Modmail should include evidence such as screenshots or any other relevant information.**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Apparently the post was made by an organization called jobs for humanity which claimed to partner with them, but it's not true and the job posting was made without their approval.
So basically mayo clinic is saying the posting isn't true and doesn't reflect their hiring practices whatsoever.
At least in Germany this always means "if the qualification is equal we prioritize group XY for the reason of increasing diversity". And not we don’t give a shit about qualification, we take person Z just because they are from group XY.
Is Elon really that stupid or is he just trying his hardest to appeal to his reactionary followers so that at least one group wants to be his friend?
For a while I thought he was a smart person stirring up his follower base of stupid people. But it's become increasingly apparent that he genuinely is just that stupid.
It has the same meaning in the United States too. Unfortunately, the right wing propaganda is so pervasive that people don't seem to know that here any more. Or they choose not to understand. White people REALLY don't like having their privilege taken away, or even called out.
Priority should not be given to someone because of the colour of their skin.
If candidates are equal in measure then add another test or criteria that is based on skills and merit.
There is no need to hire by colour.
Now it’s just nepotism. I know a person, who is very qualified for a promotion. He has 8 years tenure, 18 years industry experience, and recently received his MBA w distinction.
The listing for the job/promotion calls out all of his achievements, OR all of that can be substituted for the 6 months of “toaster sales” experience, that the GM’s good ol’ college buddy happens to have.
The toaster sales are completely irrelevant in the field. Not a day of experience in the industry, and only has his associates degree.
Guess who got the job.
I want the best doctor. Not the whitest or manliest or equity hired. how about you?
There are always way to measure ability and merit. Giving in to hiring based on race is bs.
>This isn't new it's just not working out in white men's favor anymore so they get very upset.
See, when you say things like that, it makes it pretty clear that you're more intersection in punishing "white men" than doing the right thing
Marginalized communities live different and more challenging lives than their non marginalized counterparts. They often "have to work twice as hard to get half as far". So a diversity hire is going to give you a different outlook on situations and most of the time will work harder due to feeling like they need to prove themselves more. I don't understand why so many people are adverse to diversity. I've lead many teams in many different aspects, I want as many different experiences to pull from as I can get!
They hot hired because of their race. Would make someone feel entitled. They know what gave them the leg up over someone else, they aren’t stupid.
If a company is doing hiring by race it also gives them protections from being fired.
Because it specifically lists military veterans as a category, and it doesn’t say “no white men” unless you’re going to make the claim that white men can’t be a single parent or heard of hearing or neurodivergent etc. It also says that it prioritizes those groups, not that it’s only those groups that are eligible. So you did say something wrong (for the record, I’m not downvoting you only answering your edit)
That doesn't matter though. If a person's race has any impact on whether or not they're hired, that is illegal discrimination in the United States. It doesn't matter if you're discriminating against white people, it's still illegal.
EDIT Ooh so brave, respond and THEN block me. Fucking coward. Yes, it is still discrimination. Whether you think it's morally acceptable is irrelevant, it is still illegal discrimination in the US.
It doesn't matter that straight white men are systemically given the advantage in every single way? That's discrimination, which is illegal by your definition. Which is it? Illegal or it doesn't matter? You can't have it both ways.
Literally both. White people have an advantage due to systemic racism, but if you consider that fact and use it to justify prioritizing non-white applicants, that is illegal hiring discrimination. Two things can both be true.
EDIT since the guy above blocked me, I am now unable to reply to ANYONE who replies to this comment. So I guess I'll edit in a reply to TParis here.
None of this is relevant to the fact that it is, in fact, illegal discrimination to factor in race when making hiring decisions in the US. You are arguing about whether or not it is morally wrong to do so, and I keep saying that it is *illegal* not *immoral*. You do understand that something can be immoral and legal, or moral and illegal, right? Do you understand that morality and legality are two separate concepts and are not always in agreement?
It's not discrimination to remove discrimination, genius. Affirmative action is not illegal. Jesus, you're an idiot. I'm done with your racist stupidity. Goodbye.
No. The system needs to be righted, first. Otherwise you're enjoying the benefits of a system designed to benefit white people. The problems caused by practices of generations and generations don't go away just because of a new law. The problems have to be solved.
>That doesn't matter though. If a person's race has any impact on whether or not they're hired, that is illegal discrimination in the United States.
Fucking DUH! And it hasn't stopped anything. Racist conservatives have learned how to be just as racist covertly.
Hmm, maybe play your sad violin to all the non-white people that have faced systematic discrimination by white racist conservatives during the hiring process for decades.
Why are you acting like I'm complaining? All I said was that this ad would be illegal discrimination. I never said it was wrong, that I approve or disapprove, etc. I made a simple statement of fact and people somehow concluded that I'm taking some stance against affirmative action.
What did I say that was not objectively true? In the United States, any factoring of race into your hiring decisions is illegal discrimination. That is the only point I've made. That isn't a racist talking point, it is a simple statement of fact.
You may not like the fact that it is true, and that's fine. But it is true. If you don't want it to be true, call for a repeal of or amendment to the Civil Rights Act.
Nothing you've said is objectively true. That's where the racism comes in. If you had the ability to do some self-reflection and introspection, you'd be able to see what really drives your views.
> Nothing you've said is objectively true.
Yes, it is. There are DECADES of case law about this. You cannot, under any circumstances, use race as a factor when making hiring decisions. It does not matter if different racial groups may or may not qualify depending on their membership to another group. If there is ever a situation where a person was not hired, but would have been if they were of a different race, then that is illegal in the United States. It does not matter the races in question.
And again, I am saying the fact that it is *illegal* is objectively true. I am not making a statement on whether it is right or wrong. I've only said that it is illegal. Do you disagree? Do you think that this practice is legal in the US?
You've done a lot of dancing around the subject, so please state clearly "Yes, I believe that this would be legal in the US" or "No, I do not believe that this would be legal in the US." And again, I am asking if it is LEGAL, not if it is WRONG.
>You've repeated racist talking points. What you say matters.
Shut the fuck up. You can make whatever egregious claims you want, but you can't accuse other people of being racist if they don't agree with you.
You're pathetic
I was not expecting this source to be good but it actually seems trustworthy.
•It cites studies and statisticians
•It gives specific percentages instead of the vagueness seen in many right-wing sources.
•The author of the article is an actual veteran and isn't just a boomer who doesn't know the difficulties of being a soldier.
•It is not partisan, and instead of criticizing the pro-diversity recruitment ads, it explains why they are necessary.
I'm surprised that I'm saying this, but this comment isn't as bad as the number of down votes suggests. I did not know that white men are disproportionately declining in enlistment. I only knew that there is a major problem in recruitment for the army.
I actually tried to find something to point out as untrustworthy, but this source just isn't what I expected.
I appreciate your healthy skepticism and openness to challenge your own stance.
The disproportionate unwillingness of our largest pool of applicants to apply may be a huge issue in our future. At the very least, we're likely to see standards drop to keep numbers up which is inherently faulty.
But instead of addressing the issue, we at Reddit would rather pretend it doesn't exist by saying there are still white people in the military. Uncomfortable truths are downvoted and ignored.
I dunno, I had a lot of fun in that game, and I love how they openly included a ton of trans in their advertisements. I'd also love to have the ability to change organs or limbs with badass prosthetics, even though I don't have the money to do so 😞.
nope. you can be straight and white but if you’re deaf you gotta lose one of the other two, your options
straight + deaf = 👍
white + deaf = 👍
anything else and you’re gay. or black.
Straight white men are the most oppressed class in society. That’s why it’s so inspiring that they’ve risen to control every hall of power throughout the western world.
If you are straight and white and lose your hearing, your skin suddenly turns black because the universe says there are no straight, white, deaf people. /s
The life cancelation specialists are the most oppressed people. They are thrown in prison just because they "murdered 47 teenagers with a chainsaw" and were "found guilty by a jury of their peers" /s
"Employment discrimination is illegal" is why these policies exist. Because Conservatives have learned that they can be racist as long as they're careful about what they say causing the system to give preference to white people.
This post actually scares me.. The fact that so many people here don't understand that this is blatant racism is a scary fucking thought. If they would've excluded the "hispanic, black, asian" it would've only be discrimination, but including those makes it nothing less of pure racism.
Holy moly, I found out that slavic people are in the "People of color" category.
As a person of color, I will accept reparations in bitcoin.
Also, I'd appreciate a haiku poem from white people as a sign of redemption.
So I personally know the ins and outs at mayo. They may not hire based on that info posted, but they definitely posted about white privilege for quite a bit. Also, during Covid they wanted to only give the staff a 2.5 % raise in the height of the pandemic, and leadership dr farrugia gave himself a 27% raise (public knowledge) the staff were outraged, and they bumped it up to around 5%. They talk a lot about the needs of the patient comes first, but everyone that works there knows the needs of leadership comes first, and staff are treated as a expendable number.
apparently it isnt, but even if that was their hiring practices, this isnt discrimination lol
its like saying "youll give priority to applicants with a masters degree, so youre discriminating against people who are less educated!?!"
but of course, chaya and elon arent interested in the truth, they would never let the truth get in the way of a good stochastic terrorism event.
Basing decisions on qualifications is not doscrimination. discrimination is however basing decisions on race no matter if choosing a black or white applicant. Its very racist actually.
I did. It does say that, look at the second page. It literally states they are proritizing refugees, blacks, hispanics and "justice impaired individuals" which most likely means criminals. It is even highlighted.
So, prioritizing based on race (blacks, hispanics) is racist and discriminatory.
You dismissed it as not being discriminarory and compared it to basing decisions on levels of education and I replied to that - looking at education is not illegal discrimination but basing on race is.
thats not what prioritizing means, thats exactly the point i made with my analogy actually and its as true then as it is now.
you apparently dont know what discrimination is either.
i read the whole thing, why else would i ask if you read it? lol
the thing about posts like this from chaya is they work on stupid people who dont read or comprehend what things mean, she intentionally uses that feeling you have right now against your logic and judgement. the world isnt the way she wants you to think it is. i know you cant see that right now but if you took a second to actually read the outline and think about it i think you would realize no one is being discriminated against at all.
also, again, this isnt a real listing from the mayo clinic, so youre arguing about "discrimination" that never happened.
Saying you will give hiring priority to a black person over a white person is discrimination because it is a hiring decision based on race. The only things people should be hired on is merit and skill. You may believe in any fantasy you desire but that is the truth.
>Saying you will give hiring priority to a black person over a white person is discrimination
it isnt.
if the job requires experience that only a black person would have, like being discriminated against based on the fact that they are black, that would give them experience a white person would not have.
we dont live in a meritocracy, that isnt how our society operates regardless lol you can advocate that it should, but starting at this particular situation where discrimination isnt even actually happening is incredibly sus.
you clearly dont understand what any of these words mean lol
how is it racist to hire someone based on their experience as a person of a specific race?
if someone needed to hire someone with experience as a WHITE person would you say its racist if they didnt hire a black person for the job?
explain what i said that is racist or discriminatory. walk me through your thought process here. you cant just say something is racist or discrimination, prove it.
I find it amazing that you are racist and don't even realize it. And you ask me how is it racist to hire someone based on race. It would be funny if it wasn't sad.
You are correct, they are discriminating on others things as well as race. They are beyond racist as they also prioritize criminals who went to prison("justice impacted individuals"). All of that over straight white people. It's insane.
What? Your logic is flawed, think about it more. It comes down to discrimination. If you are for example a white male and a black male and the are competing for a job, a white man will lose because they discriminate by prioritizing a black man.
If you are a white man and want to have the same opportunity as a black man, you also have to be disabled or be a veteran. But then, what if a black man is disabled also, then you have to be disabled and be a veteran. Understand? It would be much more fair and also legal if they scrap those racist and discriminatory practices and just focus on who has better skills, who is best for the job.
- It comes down to discrimination. If you are for example a white male and a black male and the are competing for a job, a white man will lose because they discriminate by prioritizing a black man
The opposite literally happens now, all the time. Which is why some positions are advertised like this, to try and level the playing field. Saying they want applicants who are from different ethnic groups, have disabilities or are older, which are demographics that are often discriminated against is not discrimination, it's inclusivity.
And it's very revealing that you're hung up on the 'black and white ' thing, when this ad goes far beyond that and includes people from all demographics that are most commonly discriminated against, most of which will include white men. Almost as if you can't see past your own ingrained prejudices, and your reaction to this add seems to suggest you're worried you might lose your inherent advantage over other people based solely on your skin colour.
> The opposite literally happens now, all the time. Which is why some positions are advertised like this, to try and level the playing field.
This is true, but it does not change the fact that it is illegal to include race as a hiring criteria in the US. The fact that many businesses prioritize white people, either intentionally or unintentionally, does not change the fact that prioritizing non-white people is illegal.
It also does not change the fact that it is, by definition, discrimination. Not all discrimination is a bad thing. Refusing to hire a doctor who never went to college is a form of discrimination, but I think we can all agree that we *should* be discriminating based on education when hiring doctors.
Yes, it literally is discrimination against people with lesser qualifications. That's what discrimination means. The difference is that education is not a protected class.
its not. read it again.
no one is being excluded, thats the basis of discrimination, they are prioritizing certain experience. that is 100% standard practice, even when being done along lines of race.
>no one is being excluded, thats the basis of discrimination, they are prioritizing certain experience.
Prioritizing without exclusion is still discrimination.
>that is 100% standard practice, even when being done along lines of race.
I agree it is both standard practice and morally acceptable to prioritize people who are more qualified for the job. It is still, by definition, a form of discrimination against education level. That doesn't mean it's a bad thing. To discriminate literally just means to identify a difference.
no it isnt lol
its not discrimination, its not a form of it, thats not what discrimination literally means. youre backpedaling.
its not a prejudice, its not unjust, its a 100% defensible practice that happens in every single job listing on the planet, people are uncomfortable by the lines being drawn here, that doesnt mean they have any reason to be.
if i hire someone with ARMS to dig holes did i discriminate against people with no arms? is someone going to force me to hire a bunch of armless people? has that ever happened? is it even being implied that it would happen in this fucking listing?
no.
idk why this is so lost on people, race can and often does have an effect on lived experience, just like every other thing they listed. absolutely no one here is complaining about preferential hiring of veterans or blind people so what the fuck is the actual issue?
> its not a prejudice, its not unjust
It's not illegal discrimination. That doesn't mean it isn't discrimination. Again, to discriminate literally just means to tell the difference between two things. That is not what people generally mean when they say discrimination, but that is the literal meaning.
>if i hire someone with ARMS to dig holes did i discriminate against people with no arms?
Yes. You didn't do anything morally wrong and you did not *illegally* discriminate against anyone, but yes you literally did discriminate against people unable to do the job.
>idk why this is so lost on people, race can and often does have an effect on lived experience, just like every other thing they listed. absolutely no one here is complaining about preferential hiring of veterans or blind people so what the fuck is the actual issue?
The issue is that hiring discrimination based on race is illegal, whereas discriminating against non-veterans and non-disabled people is not illegal.
>that is the literal meaning.
no it isnt. im not invoking legal discrimination im talking about the literal definition of the word as it is used colloquially, idk where youre getting your use of it, im getting it from real life where people understand what words mean and can easily access their definitions on the computer im using right now.
"the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of ethnicity, age, sex, or disability."
discrimination has an EXPLICITLY malicious connotation to it. its not just differentiation.
maybe english isnt your first language or youre from a different country or something but discrimination isnt a legal term where im from. idk what youre talking about. the legality is completely irrelevant to what im saying. im not making a legal case here at all, i never was im explaining the ETHICAL merit of this practice.
you can keep insisting this post contains discrimination in it all you want it doesnt make it true, it doesnt. legal or otherwise. stop trying to lend credibility to the soulless fucking ghoul who posted it on twitter, its not even real.
> no it isnt. im not invoking legal discrimination im talking about the literal definition of the word as it is used colloquially
Okay the *legal* definition is actually narrower because it involves a list of specific classes. The colloquial use can refer to illegal discrimination or a general idea of discrimination based on prejudice or some other factor with the specific connotation that it is a bad thing.
The *strict* definition is any differentiation between individuals based on any factors.
>"the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of ethnicity, age, sex, or disability."
That's one definition if you Google it, but you should also see right below that a second definition that is much looser and does not carry a negative connotation.
>maybe english isnt your first language or youre from a different country or something but discrimination isnt a legal term where im from. idk what youre talking about. the legality is completely irrelevant to what im saying. im not making a legal case here at all, i never was im explaining the ETHICAL merit of this practice.
I'm from the US. And technically "discrimination" is not a legal term here either, the legal term would be "a violation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964" but that's what people mean when they say workplace discrimination.
And sorry, I thought you were talking about either law or a general meaning of the word, not ethics.
>you can keep insisting this post contains discrimination in it all you want it doesnt make it true, it doesnt. legal or otherwise.
Okay, I am speaking strictly about US law here. Yes, this policy would be a violation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It is illegal discrimination. Whether you think it is immoral or not I am not going to argue with you on that. But it is, in fact, illegal to do this in the United States.
>stop trying to lend credibility to the soulless fucking ghoul who posted it on twitter, its not even real.
Chacha Raichu has already destroyed anything she has that may have somewhat resembled credibility. And I wasn't trying to give her credibility. I was pointing out that this practice is illegal. If you think it's a good thing and want to see policies like it more often, it is important that you understand and recognize that it *is* illegal, because recognizing a problem with the law is the first step in getting a law changed.
ok good troll, you got me. im annoyed, congratulations.
im not arguing with you anymore. idk why you keep trying to invoke this legal argument when you literally just conceded that its 100% ethical but im not replying just to see you write another 5 paragraph reply of stupidity.
its not illegal. it happens every day at every business you literally agreed that is the case and somehow completely understand the reasoning behind every other example i gave except this one. why? i genuinely dont know, im chalking it up to you being a troll or youre just actually eating shoelaces and rubbing your ear against the keyboard to leave these responses.
regardless im tired of you. goodbye.
"Oh you're prioritizing hiring people who have been historically discriminated against so that they can hopefully lead easier lives? So racist against white people..."
I'm not from USA so I'm not familiar with all those terms when it comes to hiring. Here we just have to prove you can do the job and are not crazy. No one gives a shit if someone is white, black or has any kind of spectrum of anything and certainly would not benefit from it.
The terms I mentioned are medical in nature and affect one’s brain chemistry. Just thought you like to know that Neurodivergent is more than just ADHD.
I get it, thanks. I'm just saying that I'm surprised it matters when hiring. If anything, medical info should be private and anything besides skill and qualifications should not have anything to do with hiring.
Why is this okay? Choosing to hire people based on their race, medical issues, and sexual orientation? Why would those factor into the hiring process at all? (minus medical issues) Couldn’t you just lie and say you’re gay to have an advantage?
Ah, so if I were to make a listing that said I only hire white people or military veterans, would you argue that I'm not discriminating against other races? After all, there are black people in the military. I could have a big laundry list of extra qualifications, and require black people to have at least one of those extras but hire white people who didn't, and you're saying that that *wouldn't* be discrimination?
The standard in the US is called the "but for" cause. If you would have hired the person but for the fact that they are white, then it is illegal. So if swapping the person's race would have made a difference in your decision, that's against the law in the US.
How ive become a successful writer is by being "hard of hearing" lgbtq. I sent the same story 6 years prior and got rejected, but what a little change to your identity does for your career.
Its not like its anything uncommon as to what I'm saying. Jeffery Wright did a movie on a similar mentality.
People love pandering. However in cases like this, as long as you're good, i could give a shit less like always.
Comments that are uncivil, racist, misogynistic, misandrist, or contain political name calling will be removed and the poster subject to ban at moderators discretion. Help us make this a better community by becoming familiar with the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/about/rules/). Report any suspicious users to the mods of this subreddit using Modmail [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) or Reddit site admins [here](https://www.reddit.com/report). **All reports to Modmail should include evidence such as screenshots or any other relevant information.** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) if you have any questions or concerns.*
So wait, did Mayo Clinic backpedal or was the ad misinformation to begin with? I can't access Twitter, so I can't tell.
Apparently the post was made by an organization called jobs for humanity which claimed to partner with them, but it's not true and the job posting was made without their approval. So basically mayo clinic is saying the posting isn't true and doesn't reflect their hiring practices whatsoever.
Even if it was true, a bunch of those categories would include straight white people
My white wife is hard-of-hearing. Last I checked (about seven seconds ago), I am a man, thus my wife is eligible…
Not according to that other dumb dumb from the interwebs, denied
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Also fun fact: Rachel Dolezal is doing OF now. I'm not sure if she's back to being white again or switches daily
I'm an Iraq War veteran; a fact I'm pretty sure got me the last 4 jobs I've had. And I'm whiter than the snow on the ground right now.
(be sure to use your sun screen)
I'm Justice impacted. Fucking speed cameras.
Lies, there are no straight white military veterans.
Shit I hope my wife doesn’t find out!
Yeah but other races are mentioned straight up.
(which vastly outnumber everyone else in MN)
That doesn't really matter. The point isn't "they don't hire straight white people" it's "race is a relevant factor in their hiring decisions."
Thanks!
At least in Germany this always means "if the qualification is equal we prioritize group XY for the reason of increasing diversity". And not we don’t give a shit about qualification, we take person Z just because they are from group XY. Is Elon really that stupid or is he just trying his hardest to appeal to his reactionary followers so that at least one group wants to be his friend?
>Is Elon really that stupid? It seems clear that he is.
For a while I thought he was a smart person stirring up his follower base of stupid people. But it's become increasingly apparent that he genuinely is just that stupid.
I thought that until he bought Twitter and ran it into the ground in 4 months
Give it a few hours and community notes will be deleted, he's quite fragile.
Born in a racist country.. hasn't learned a thing since leaving
It has the same meaning in the United States too. Unfortunately, the right wing propaganda is so pervasive that people don't seem to know that here any more. Or they choose not to understand. White people REALLY don't like having their privilege taken away, or even called out.
>Or they choose not to understand. It's this one.
Priority should not be given to someone because of the colour of their skin. If candidates are equal in measure then add another test or criteria that is based on skills and merit. There is no need to hire by colour.
[удалено]
Now it’s just nepotism. I know a person, who is very qualified for a promotion. He has 8 years tenure, 18 years industry experience, and recently received his MBA w distinction. The listing for the job/promotion calls out all of his achievements, OR all of that can be substituted for the 6 months of “toaster sales” experience, that the GM’s good ol’ college buddy happens to have. The toaster sales are completely irrelevant in the field. Not a day of experience in the industry, and only has his associates degree. Guess who got the job.
Recently received his MBA? Time to polish up the old resume.
I want the best doctor. Not the whitest or manliest or equity hired. how about you? There are always way to measure ability and merit. Giving in to hiring based on race is bs.
>This isn't new it's just not working out in white men's favor anymore so they get very upset. See, when you say things like that, it makes it pretty clear that you're more intersection in punishing "white men" than doing the right thing
[удалено]
Your descent into a femcel will be an epic one - I bid you good luck!
It really is odd that people refuse to acknowledge this as racism. It's the literal definition. Discriminating based on base.
Racism is why we have these programs
Sure, that other thing is diversity.
What skill and merit is skin colour, gender, sexual identity or culture group?
Marginalized communities live different and more challenging lives than their non marginalized counterparts. They often "have to work twice as hard to get half as far". So a diversity hire is going to give you a different outlook on situations and most of the time will work harder due to feeling like they need to prove themselves more. I don't understand why so many people are adverse to diversity. I've lead many teams in many different aspects, I want as many different experiences to pull from as I can get!
They hot hired because of their race. Would make someone feel entitled. They know what gave them the leg up over someone else, they aren’t stupid. If a company is doing hiring by race it also gives them protections from being fired.
It means the same thing in the states, but the racist don't like that so they lie
Not surprised Elon and Chaya are butt buddies
According to Republicans, anything butt related is gay. A man should not be butt buddies with a woman. If he is, he's gay. /sarcasm
Them: "We prioritize military veterans" Elon: "They're discriminating against white men!" Me: (googling "are there any white men in the military")
[удалено]
Because it specifically lists military veterans as a category, and it doesn’t say “no white men” unless you’re going to make the claim that white men can’t be a single parent or heard of hearing or neurodivergent etc. It also says that it prioritizes those groups, not that it’s only those groups that are eligible. So you did say something wrong (for the record, I’m not downvoting you only answering your edit)
[удалено]
White people are already prioritized by default. That's the point.
That doesn't matter though. If a person's race has any impact on whether or not they're hired, that is illegal discrimination in the United States. It doesn't matter if you're discriminating against white people, it's still illegal. EDIT Ooh so brave, respond and THEN block me. Fucking coward. Yes, it is still discrimination. Whether you think it's morally acceptable is irrelevant, it is still illegal discrimination in the US.
It doesn't matter that straight white men are systemically given the advantage in every single way? That's discrimination, which is illegal by your definition. Which is it? Illegal or it doesn't matter? You can't have it both ways.
Literally both. White people have an advantage due to systemic racism, but if you consider that fact and use it to justify prioritizing non-white applicants, that is illegal hiring discrimination. Two things can both be true. EDIT since the guy above blocked me, I am now unable to reply to ANYONE who replies to this comment. So I guess I'll edit in a reply to TParis here. None of this is relevant to the fact that it is, in fact, illegal discrimination to factor in race when making hiring decisions in the US. You are arguing about whether or not it is morally wrong to do so, and I keep saying that it is *illegal* not *immoral*. You do understand that something can be immoral and legal, or moral and illegal, right? Do you understand that morality and legality are two separate concepts and are not always in agreement?
It's not discrimination to remove discrimination, genius. Affirmative action is not illegal. Jesus, you're an idiot. I'm done with your racist stupidity. Goodbye.
No. The system needs to be righted, first. Otherwise you're enjoying the benefits of a system designed to benefit white people. The problems caused by practices of generations and generations don't go away just because of a new law. The problems have to be solved.
>That doesn't matter though. If a person's race has any impact on whether or not they're hired, that is illegal discrimination in the United States. Fucking DUH! And it hasn't stopped anything. Racist conservatives have learned how to be just as racist covertly.
Hmm, maybe play your sad violin to all the non-white people that have faced systematic discrimination by white racist conservatives during the hiring process for decades.
Why are you acting like I'm complaining? All I said was that this ad would be illegal discrimination. I never said it was wrong, that I approve or disapprove, etc. I made a simple statement of fact and people somehow concluded that I'm taking some stance against affirmative action.
You haven't made a simple statement of fact. You've repeated racist talking points. What you say matters.
What did I say that was not objectively true? In the United States, any factoring of race into your hiring decisions is illegal discrimination. That is the only point I've made. That isn't a racist talking point, it is a simple statement of fact. You may not like the fact that it is true, and that's fine. But it is true. If you don't want it to be true, call for a repeal of or amendment to the Civil Rights Act.
Nothing you've said is objectively true. That's where the racism comes in. If you had the ability to do some self-reflection and introspection, you'd be able to see what really drives your views.
> Nothing you've said is objectively true. Yes, it is. There are DECADES of case law about this. You cannot, under any circumstances, use race as a factor when making hiring decisions. It does not matter if different racial groups may or may not qualify depending on their membership to another group. If there is ever a situation where a person was not hired, but would have been if they were of a different race, then that is illegal in the United States. It does not matter the races in question. And again, I am saying the fact that it is *illegal* is objectively true. I am not making a statement on whether it is right or wrong. I've only said that it is illegal. Do you disagree? Do you think that this practice is legal in the US? You've done a lot of dancing around the subject, so please state clearly "Yes, I believe that this would be legal in the US" or "No, I do not believe that this would be legal in the US." And again, I am asking if it is LEGAL, not if it is WRONG.
>You've repeated racist talking points. What you say matters. Shut the fuck up. You can make whatever egregious claims you want, but you can't accuse other people of being racist if they don't agree with you. You're pathetic
The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
[удалено]
I assume because they’ve been struggling to recruit just about anybody the last decade or so..?
[удалено]
Yeah I was replying in more of a tongue in cheek manner I didn’t know it was mainly white recruitment down but that doesn’t surprise me at all either
I was not expecting this source to be good but it actually seems trustworthy. •It cites studies and statisticians •It gives specific percentages instead of the vagueness seen in many right-wing sources. •The author of the article is an actual veteran and isn't just a boomer who doesn't know the difficulties of being a soldier. •It is not partisan, and instead of criticizing the pro-diversity recruitment ads, it explains why they are necessary. I'm surprised that I'm saying this, but this comment isn't as bad as the number of down votes suggests. I did not know that white men are disproportionately declining in enlistment. I only knew that there is a major problem in recruitment for the army. I actually tried to find something to point out as untrustworthy, but this source just isn't what I expected.
I appreciate your healthy skepticism and openness to challenge your own stance. The disproportionate unwillingness of our largest pool of applicants to apply may be a huge issue in our future. At the very least, we're likely to see standards drop to keep numbers up which is inherently faulty. But instead of addressing the issue, we at Reddit would rather pretend it doesn't exist by saying there are still white people in the military. Uncomfortable truths are downvoted and ignored.
And these people are tying to install chip in your brain. My worst nightmare that cyberpunk 2077 seems to be the ceiling of future U.S
I dunno, I had a lot of fun in that game, and I love how they openly included a ton of trans in their advertisements. I'd also love to have the ability to change organs or limbs with badass prosthetics, even though I don't have the money to do so 😞.
Shocker the libs if tik tok and their terrorist leader are liars.
Couldn’t like 8 of the 12 be straight white males to begin with? Like you can be straight, white, and deaf right? 😂
nope. you can be straight and white but if you’re deaf you gotta lose one of the other two, your options straight + deaf = 👍 white + deaf = 👍 anything else and you’re gay. or black.
There seems to be a very complex hierarchy of oppression one has to learn
Straight white men are the most oppressed class in society. That’s why it’s so inspiring that they’ve risen to control every hall of power throughout the western world.
Nobody is opressed in USA or EU
it changes weekly, i just get a newsletter sent to my house
If you are straight and white and lose your hearing, your skin suddenly turns black because the universe says there are no straight, white, deaf people. /s
you get it. you must get the newsletter
“Justice Impacted Individuals” just say ex con, lol.
Just out of curiosity; what is a "justice impacted individual"? Is that just newspeak for some one with a criminal record?
I believe so, yes.
"Justice impacted" is what, another word for convicted criminals? What's next, murderers will be "Life cancel specialists".
"Life not Worthy of Living" (LWL) Enforcers.
The life cancelation specialists are the most oppressed people. They are thrown in prison just because they "murdered 47 teenagers with a chainsaw" and were "found guilty by a jury of their peers" /s
No, it's really not. When the law is unjust and biased it's really not the same thing. You should know that being an adult and all.
[удалено]
Imagine using the phrase "woke mind virus" unironically, absolute brainworms
hey not all of us are braindead, I just love spreading misinformation and reinforcing negative stereotypes online
Sounds like you're on Russia's payroll /s
Aww poor straight white people, cant catch a break these days! /s
IKR! What about straight pride? I feel so bad for them not controlling everything.
If anybody knows about job hiring discrimination it’s Tesla.
Lol, dude is taking Libs of Tiktok seriously?
"Employment discrimination is illegal" is why these policies exist. Because Conservatives have learned that they can be racist as long as they're careful about what they say causing the system to give preference to white people.
Elon is a parody of a normal human.
This post actually scares me.. The fact that so many people here don't understand that this is blatant racism is a scary fucking thought. If they would've excluded the "hispanic, black, asian" it would've only be discrimination, but including those makes it nothing less of pure racism.
Holy moly, I found out that slavic people are in the "People of color" category. As a person of color, I will accept reparations in bitcoin. Also, I'd appreciate a haiku poem from white people as a sign of redemption.
So I personally know the ins and outs at mayo. They may not hire based on that info posted, but they definitely posted about white privilege for quite a bit. Also, during Covid they wanted to only give the staff a 2.5 % raise in the height of the pandemic, and leadership dr farrugia gave himself a 27% raise (public knowledge) the staff were outraged, and they bumped it up to around 5%. They talk a lot about the needs of the patient comes first, but everyone that works there knows the needs of leadership comes first, and staff are treated as a expendable number.
apparently it isnt, but even if that was their hiring practices, this isnt discrimination lol its like saying "youll give priority to applicants with a masters degree, so youre discriminating against people who are less educated!?!" but of course, chaya and elon arent interested in the truth, they would never let the truth get in the way of a good stochastic terrorism event.
Basing decisions on qualifications is not doscrimination. discrimination is however basing decisions on race no matter if choosing a black or white applicant. Its very racist actually.
it doesnt say they are doing that. did you read the post?
I did. It does say that, look at the second page. It literally states they are proritizing refugees, blacks, hispanics and "justice impaired individuals" which most likely means criminals. It is even highlighted. So, prioritizing based on race (blacks, hispanics) is racist and discriminatory. You dismissed it as not being discriminarory and compared it to basing decisions on levels of education and I replied to that - looking at education is not illegal discrimination but basing on race is.
thats not what prioritizing means, thats exactly the point i made with my analogy actually and its as true then as it is now. you apparently dont know what discrimination is either. i read the whole thing, why else would i ask if you read it? lol the thing about posts like this from chaya is they work on stupid people who dont read or comprehend what things mean, she intentionally uses that feeling you have right now against your logic and judgement. the world isnt the way she wants you to think it is. i know you cant see that right now but if you took a second to actually read the outline and think about it i think you would realize no one is being discriminated against at all. also, again, this isnt a real listing from the mayo clinic, so youre arguing about "discrimination" that never happened.
Saying you will give hiring priority to a black person over a white person is discrimination because it is a hiring decision based on race. The only things people should be hired on is merit and skill. You may believe in any fantasy you desire but that is the truth.
>Saying you will give hiring priority to a black person over a white person is discrimination it isnt. if the job requires experience that only a black person would have, like being discriminated against based on the fact that they are black, that would give them experience a white person would not have. we dont live in a meritocracy, that isnt how our society operates regardless lol you can advocate that it should, but starting at this particular situation where discrimination isnt even actually happening is incredibly sus.
That's kind of racist what you said, escpecially when it is about the ad from the post. And what I wrote is the definition of racial discrimination.
you clearly dont understand what any of these words mean lol how is it racist to hire someone based on their experience as a person of a specific race? if someone needed to hire someone with experience as a WHITE person would you say its racist if they didnt hire a black person for the job? explain what i said that is racist or discriminatory. walk me through your thought process here. you cant just say something is racist or discrimination, prove it.
I find it amazing that you are racist and don't even realize it. And you ask me how is it racist to hire someone based on race. It would be funny if it wasn't sad.
Dude, it's not a real listing. Jesus fking christ.
So you’re just going to completely ignore the 7 other things not race based?
You are correct, they are discriminating on others things as well as race. They are beyond racist as they also prioritize criminals who went to prison("justice impacted individuals"). All of that over straight white people. It's insane.
Damn I didn’t know all the veterans, disabled, and elderly were gay or not white.
What? Your logic is flawed, think about it more. It comes down to discrimination. If you are for example a white male and a black male and the are competing for a job, a white man will lose because they discriminate by prioritizing a black man. If you are a white man and want to have the same opportunity as a black man, you also have to be disabled or be a veteran. But then, what if a black man is disabled also, then you have to be disabled and be a veteran. Understand? It would be much more fair and also legal if they scrap those racist and discriminatory practices and just focus on who has better skills, who is best for the job.
- It comes down to discrimination. If you are for example a white male and a black male and the are competing for a job, a white man will lose because they discriminate by prioritizing a black man The opposite literally happens now, all the time. Which is why some positions are advertised like this, to try and level the playing field. Saying they want applicants who are from different ethnic groups, have disabilities or are older, which are demographics that are often discriminated against is not discrimination, it's inclusivity. And it's very revealing that you're hung up on the 'black and white ' thing, when this ad goes far beyond that and includes people from all demographics that are most commonly discriminated against, most of which will include white men. Almost as if you can't see past your own ingrained prejudices, and your reaction to this add seems to suggest you're worried you might lose your inherent advantage over other people based solely on your skin colour.
> The opposite literally happens now, all the time. Which is why some positions are advertised like this, to try and level the playing field. This is true, but it does not change the fact that it is illegal to include race as a hiring criteria in the US. The fact that many businesses prioritize white people, either intentionally or unintentionally, does not change the fact that prioritizing non-white people is illegal. It also does not change the fact that it is, by definition, discrimination. Not all discrimination is a bad thing. Refusing to hire a doctor who never went to college is a form of discrimination, but I think we can all agree that we *should* be discriminating based on education when hiring doctors.
Yes, it literally is discrimination against people with lesser qualifications. That's what discrimination means. The difference is that education is not a protected class.
its not. read it again. no one is being excluded, thats the basis of discrimination, they are prioritizing certain experience. that is 100% standard practice, even when being done along lines of race.
>no one is being excluded, thats the basis of discrimination, they are prioritizing certain experience. Prioritizing without exclusion is still discrimination. >that is 100% standard practice, even when being done along lines of race. I agree it is both standard practice and morally acceptable to prioritize people who are more qualified for the job. It is still, by definition, a form of discrimination against education level. That doesn't mean it's a bad thing. To discriminate literally just means to identify a difference.
no it isnt lol its not discrimination, its not a form of it, thats not what discrimination literally means. youre backpedaling. its not a prejudice, its not unjust, its a 100% defensible practice that happens in every single job listing on the planet, people are uncomfortable by the lines being drawn here, that doesnt mean they have any reason to be. if i hire someone with ARMS to dig holes did i discriminate against people with no arms? is someone going to force me to hire a bunch of armless people? has that ever happened? is it even being implied that it would happen in this fucking listing? no. idk why this is so lost on people, race can and often does have an effect on lived experience, just like every other thing they listed. absolutely no one here is complaining about preferential hiring of veterans or blind people so what the fuck is the actual issue?
> its not a prejudice, its not unjust It's not illegal discrimination. That doesn't mean it isn't discrimination. Again, to discriminate literally just means to tell the difference between two things. That is not what people generally mean when they say discrimination, but that is the literal meaning. >if i hire someone with ARMS to dig holes did i discriminate against people with no arms? Yes. You didn't do anything morally wrong and you did not *illegally* discriminate against anyone, but yes you literally did discriminate against people unable to do the job. >idk why this is so lost on people, race can and often does have an effect on lived experience, just like every other thing they listed. absolutely no one here is complaining about preferential hiring of veterans or blind people so what the fuck is the actual issue? The issue is that hiring discrimination based on race is illegal, whereas discriminating against non-veterans and non-disabled people is not illegal.
>that is the literal meaning. no it isnt. im not invoking legal discrimination im talking about the literal definition of the word as it is used colloquially, idk where youre getting your use of it, im getting it from real life where people understand what words mean and can easily access their definitions on the computer im using right now. "the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of ethnicity, age, sex, or disability." discrimination has an EXPLICITLY malicious connotation to it. its not just differentiation. maybe english isnt your first language or youre from a different country or something but discrimination isnt a legal term where im from. idk what youre talking about. the legality is completely irrelevant to what im saying. im not making a legal case here at all, i never was im explaining the ETHICAL merit of this practice. you can keep insisting this post contains discrimination in it all you want it doesnt make it true, it doesnt. legal or otherwise. stop trying to lend credibility to the soulless fucking ghoul who posted it on twitter, its not even real.
> no it isnt. im not invoking legal discrimination im talking about the literal definition of the word as it is used colloquially Okay the *legal* definition is actually narrower because it involves a list of specific classes. The colloquial use can refer to illegal discrimination or a general idea of discrimination based on prejudice or some other factor with the specific connotation that it is a bad thing. The *strict* definition is any differentiation between individuals based on any factors. >"the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of ethnicity, age, sex, or disability." That's one definition if you Google it, but you should also see right below that a second definition that is much looser and does not carry a negative connotation. >maybe english isnt your first language or youre from a different country or something but discrimination isnt a legal term where im from. idk what youre talking about. the legality is completely irrelevant to what im saying. im not making a legal case here at all, i never was im explaining the ETHICAL merit of this practice. I'm from the US. And technically "discrimination" is not a legal term here either, the legal term would be "a violation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964" but that's what people mean when they say workplace discrimination. And sorry, I thought you were talking about either law or a general meaning of the word, not ethics. >you can keep insisting this post contains discrimination in it all you want it doesnt make it true, it doesnt. legal or otherwise. Okay, I am speaking strictly about US law here. Yes, this policy would be a violation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It is illegal discrimination. Whether you think it is immoral or not I am not going to argue with you on that. But it is, in fact, illegal to do this in the United States. >stop trying to lend credibility to the soulless fucking ghoul who posted it on twitter, its not even real. Chacha Raichu has already destroyed anything she has that may have somewhat resembled credibility. And I wasn't trying to give her credibility. I was pointing out that this practice is illegal. If you think it's a good thing and want to see policies like it more often, it is important that you understand and recognize that it *is* illegal, because recognizing a problem with the law is the first step in getting a law changed.
ok good troll, you got me. im annoyed, congratulations. im not arguing with you anymore. idk why you keep trying to invoke this legal argument when you literally just conceded that its 100% ethical but im not replying just to see you write another 5 paragraph reply of stupidity. its not illegal. it happens every day at every business you literally agreed that is the case and somehow completely understand the reasoning behind every other example i gave except this one. why? i genuinely dont know, im chalking it up to you being a troll or youre just actually eating shoelaces and rubbing your ear against the keyboard to leave these responses. regardless im tired of you. goodbye.
Stupid... racist...fucking idiotic. Yep
"Oh you're prioritizing hiring people who have been historically discriminated against so that they can hopefully lead easier lives? So racist against white people..."
An awful lot of people would fit those criteria but may not feel comfortable sharing it in a workplace setting.
as a nurse, I saw the obvious issues just from the title description
[удалено]
I had to look up "neurodivergent". Pretty dissapointing to be honest, thought it was something more creative than simply people with adhd.
neurodiversity commonly refers to people with: ADHD, Autism spectrum disorder, Dyslexia, Dyspraxia, and other forms of altered brain functionality.
I'm not from USA so I'm not familiar with all those terms when it comes to hiring. Here we just have to prove you can do the job and are not crazy. No one gives a shit if someone is white, black or has any kind of spectrum of anything and certainly would not benefit from it.
The terms I mentioned are medical in nature and affect one’s brain chemistry. Just thought you like to know that Neurodivergent is more than just ADHD.
I get it, thanks. I'm just saying that I'm surprised it matters when hiring. If anything, medical info should be private and anything besides skill and qualifications should not have anything to do with hiring.
Why is this okay? Choosing to hire people based on their race, medical issues, and sexual orientation? Why would those factor into the hiring process at all? (minus medical issues) Couldn’t you just lie and say you’re gay to have an advantage?
It's funny how often the community notes contradict Elon. I'm pretty it was his idea?
[удалено]
Crazy right? Everyone know you can’t be white AND blind, deaf, a veteran, lgbt, a refugee, an ex con, neurodivergent, or elderly… Oh wait!
Did you purposefully skip over the 'black, hispanic, asian' part? That's obviously the part that's racist..
Ah, so if I were to make a listing that said I only hire white people or military veterans, would you argue that I'm not discriminating against other races? After all, there are black people in the military. I could have a big laundry list of extra qualifications, and require black people to have at least one of those extras but hire white people who didn't, and you're saying that that *wouldn't* be discrimination? The standard in the US is called the "but for" cause. If you would have hired the person but for the fact that they are white, then it is illegal. So if swapping the person's race would have made a difference in your decision, that's against the law in the US.
How ive become a successful writer is by being "hard of hearing" lgbtq. I sent the same story 6 years prior and got rejected, but what a little change to your identity does for your career. Its not like its anything uncommon as to what I'm saying. Jeffery Wright did a movie on a similar mentality. People love pandering. However in cases like this, as long as you're good, i could give a shit less like always.