Hacker News Reader

Comment by rmbyrro | Hacker News Reader

So what, let'em choose to work with whoever they want. If it's all women, so be it. Only men? Whatever. I don't wanna work in either of these organizations.

I think the best answer to these divisive, sexist or racist behaviors is to show them in practice they're dumb, kick their ass in the market.

An open-minded, welcoming organization is going to attract the best minds. Collectively, these people will kick those ideological-driven asses.

EDIT: my point is we cannot legislate change to these people's minds. The only sustainable way forward is to let reality teach them. If we try to impose change like this, it'll only lead to more divisions in society.

If I see a lot of racist behaviors against blacks, or latinos or whatever, I'd be glad to join them and work hard to kick these racists out of the game.

View on HN

The challenge I have with this is that performance in "the market" does not correlate so easily with the kind of team composition the GP is talking about. And as someone who has worked for large corporations, these companies rarely seem to suffer that much from dysfunctional teams and rotten eggs in key places.

>"The only sustainable way forward is to let reality teach them. If we try to impose change like this, it'll only lead to more divisions in society."

I'd argue that changing minds does not need to be an objective of legislation. Sometimes there's just a behavior you want to prevent and it doesn't matter if people truly agree with the reason why.

> The challenge I have with this is that performance in "the market" does not correlate so easily with the kind of team composition

But clearly, hiring nominally asserts that it seeks the strongest applications. So it's contradicting itself with DEI discrimination.

Somewhat, I have experience working with HR and recruiters and from what I've encountered filling a position is a lot more about finally finding someone sufficient rather than someone exceptional. This is not to say that employers don't look for the best and the brightest, but rather, they often settle for the first few acceptable candidates because to hold out for an even better applicant has tangible costs for the business and is often not worth it.

Why can't we legislate away discrimination? Make it illegal, and prosecute the companies that engage in it.

How do you prove it?

The same way the study did: send identical applications with different genders, and see if there's significant discrepancies.

In the public realm, we must legislate equality to all.

But in the private realm, I think it's not sustainable. It's better for us to work hard and make people learn from reality.

These people are extremists. If we try to legislate change in their private realm, they'll get even more extremist internally. They'll crave for a chance of revenge. Even if it takes decades or centuries. It's unsustainable.

If only we had some laws that were enforced:

  * Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin;

  * the Equal Pay Act of 1963 (EPA), which protects men and women who perform substantially equal work in the same establishment from sex-based wage discrimination;

  * the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), which protects individuals who are 40 years of age or older;

  * Title I and Title V of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended (ADA), which prohibit employment discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities in the private sector, and in state and local governments;

  * Sections 501 and 505 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which prohibit discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities who work in the federal government;


  * Title II of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA), which prohibits employment discrimination based on genetic information about an applicant, employee, or former employee; 

  * and the Civil Rights Act of 1991, which, among other things, provides monetary damages in cases of intentional employment discrimination.

Good luck proving a company has discriminated against you for reasons that are entirely contained to an individual's brain.

Let’s zoom out a bit. The big picture is that by using discrimination they are not hiring based on merit and therefore the ability to produce the best goods and services is impaired. If these discriminatory hiring practices put them at a productive disadvantage, then companies that hire out of merit should, over time, outcompete them in a free market and put them out of business. No regulation required.

This is a privileged take that only works for people who have options to shop around for jobs.

I'm not employed. Not shopping for jobs either.

By the way, I'm available to assist whoever is a victim of these shitty extremist behavior. And I can do and say whatever I want. Everything I do is my responsibility and my property. Not my employer's, because I chose to not have one.

> I'm not employed. Not shopping for jobs either.

Wait, isn't this the exact definition of privilege?

You're imagining wealthy enough not to need to work. There is also homeless.

Or retired.

So... Let me double check I understand correctly:

I'm privileged if I have a job.

I'm privileged if I don't have a job.

What a privileged rationale!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com