id get along with everybody here irl. the only people i dont find common ground with irl are literal (figurative) douchebags. nobody here is a douche.
Printable View
id get along with everybody here irl. the only people i dont find common ground with irl are literal (figurative) douchebags. nobody here is a douche.
Wouldn't be high on my list personally but I'm more of a drink to get drunk guy than a drink connoseiur guy.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
The things that wowed me when I got here were the history, castles and other oldy buildings, some of the countryside, the fact that everyone apologises constantly (I know they say that about Canada but here it's out of control) , and just a lot of little funny things that you wouldn't expect, like some of the words they use differently.
IRL, I swear a lot.
The lack of a "cancel" button means I say a lot more really dumb stuff, too.
Also, there a marked lack of gifs in my responses to things.
I have a sarcastic sense of humor in person, but sarcasm doesn't come across in text, so I try to avoid it here.
But def. a little too pedantic, too long-winded, socially awkward in altogether stupid ways... yep, yep, yep.
Also, easy to smile and hard to anger, not interested in melodrama, fascinated by anyone who takes their self seriously enough to be good at anything...
Me, too, but I've never really grown to appreciate alcohol that much. I find that top shelf liquors are worth it. I don't drink often, and I don't like mixing drinks, so I want something that stands on its own.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Still... it burns... even the stuff that doesn't taste like it's made from rot.
IRL I can't speak anywhere nearly as fluently as I can write. But I can and do talk to anybody about anything interesting. Something to do with growing up on the prairie i think. I'm also funny so I'm told.
Also IRL I like dogs and there aren't any dogs on this forum afaik. So that's another difference.
God you sound like a great guy.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
not as great as you.
This is what Americans don't get about sarcasm. If someone can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not, you're doing it right. Americans are too obvious about it. Sarcasm works better in text because people can't see you smirking.Quote:
I have a sarcastic sense of humor in person, but sarcasm doesn't come across in text, so I try to avoid it here.
this is pretty much me, except there are times when i'm verbally on my game.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
i've often wondered how i come off online (mainly here since this is the only online community i've really found myself attached to, which is random as all hell), like how people would imagine my demeanor is based on my words.
IRL i apologize way too much. chronic apologizing is such a shitty habit.
This, the only people who should be able to pick up on sarcasm are other British people. People say it like it's a good trait though, it's not.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
id like to see examples of british sarcasm that are more subtle than american sarcasm. you're probably right about american sarcasm being a little obvoius, but id like to see some examples.
http://i64.tinypic.com/4l1zxz.pngQuote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
i guess that makes you american.
Yeah it's not easy but I'll have a go.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-b3GsjDUb9s
An Idiot Abroad, with Ricky Gervais and Karl Pilkington.
If you watch that through, you'll start to ask yourself if Karl is being serious, or if he's playing to the camera. You really can't tell.
It's not always about being subtle, idk it's hard to really nail it. Like, there's more direct sarcasm like where Ricky slaps Karl down at 2:25, explaining that he'll need a film crew with him to make a tv show. But look at it this way... someone dumb (like Karl) might just think "oh yeah", instead of thinking "don't take the fucking piss"... Karl might not actually be aware that Ricky is mocking him with that deadpan expression as he slowly spells it out. The intent from Ricky is to make it obvious that Karl is an idiot. All the better if Karl is too dumb to realise.
I think that's almost a bit too direct for even Karl to miss, but the way these three guys talk to each other, it's dripping sarcasm, and it often goes unnoticed.
6:48 where Karl asks if the fish are for company or if they're an appetiser... you really don't know if he's taking the piss out of the Chinese, or if he's too stupid to know and he's actually just thought it and then just spewed words to the camera.
It's a great example of subtle sarcasm if he is taking the piss, because he's so stupid that it isn't obvious.
Ah, I see what you mean. His line is definitely sarcasm, but real subtle and easy to miss.
If that line isn't sarcasm, then the previous one about letting Susan know he's got fish since she's always wanted one is sarcasm.
It's essentially a lot more deadpan no one is ever going to be saying "lol just kidding, just a joke" the context is very important. A lot of the time what's said is the opposite of what's meant.
we americans are insecure and hate it and want everybody to know how witty we are.
you brits are insecure and wear it as a badge.
Jesus, America is messed up...
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/georgia-...clown-attacks/
I brought a hammer to school in preperation of fighting someone whom I thought was a clown. Clown as in jerkoff though.
All day I couldn't stop thinking about the weapon in my bag. I think it frightened me more than the asshole did.
Never told anyone this. But fuck... It was just a hammer.
Sounds like you were really ready to nail that guy.
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
I had no nails tho
Ha you'd have looked dumb if you ended up confronting the dude, he'd just laugh at you and say "what you gonna do with that with no nails" and you'd be all "i dunno".Quote:
Originally Posted by BankItDrew
Ya, you wouldn't have looked nearly as clever then as when you first took out your hammer.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
One time when I was a kid I was gonna whoop this loser's ass at school, but he brought a hammer.
So he won?Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
He rushed me. I was helpless.
:(
Damn kids!
and their hammers!
Lol bullyQuote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
I'll get you next time.
wusswussyQuote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
I thpught this was a classic british sarcastic double entendre which everyone else seemed to miss .Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
I was thrown off by crazy weaponized cerebral palsy ginger.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
I didn't miss it, but it was just too easy a pun to give it a nod.Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith
Seems a bit redundant.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
You could have just said ginger.
FypQuote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Not all gingers have weapons.
Every tool is a weapon if you hold it right.
Every ginger is a tool.
Therefore, every ginger is weaponized.
QED
At work we had to take sensitive training (or whatever it's called). Found out that in the UK, it's illegal to refuse someone a job because of their race, religion, or disability. It is, however, legal to refuse them a job because they're fat and/or a ginger. Fact.
So how 'bout that presidential race, huh? Exciting! Let's talk about that.
There would be less racism if it was legal to not hire based on race. Economics ftw.
There's a presidential race on? All I see is one person running.
Well scratch that, one person and one entity. The person is running against the entity of bigotry and corruption.
Ya, Trump is a modern day Martin Luther King and Serpico rolled into one.
Maybe he will start a movement called Ginger Lives Matter.
If he doesn't, I will.
I agree. He (or at least the people he represents) are definitely fighting against race supremacy and rampant corruption.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
I've started preaching that when it comes up in conversation more recently, get some very mixed responses but on the whole most people agree. I've concluded most people are just racist.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
I recently heard about a program here (and I'll bastardise the rules of it) that lowers the university grade boundaries if you come from a family with below a certain income or has certain problems. Yet by doing this they don't realise that all they are doing is artificially bridging a divide that results in people not putting in the effort to get the required grades. Now there is more to this like you can argue the grades wanted & criteria for picking people in the first place is artificial and bias (which it is) but then fix the problems that exist.
On the other hand it made the news when they were talking about trialling hiding certain personal information, such as your name, on your application when you apply to university which is a great way to eliminate bias and incredibly easy to implement. Yet was being called stupid :/
It's hard to not assume an applicant named Shaneequa won't have baby daddy issues.
That's totally awesome. I'd be interested in knowing what you think the most powerful parts of the argument are.Quote:
Originally Posted by ImSavy
RACIST JOKE ALERTQuote:
Originally Posted by BankItDrew
Ain't no Shaneequa applying for work.
RACIST JOKE ALERT
Lmao woooowwwww
Don't know how making racism legal makes for less racism. If it's legal to (say) steal, you might think that would increase theft, not decrease it.Quote:
Originally Posted by ImSavy
Moreover, I don't know how you can say 'I'm not hiring you 'cause you're black' and expect that to not have a broader social impact than just on the economy.
This I agree with; reverse discrimination is retarded. I happen to be in a job where historically women have been promoted less often than men. However, rather than trying to start giving promotions irregardless of sex, they are instead trying to redress the imbalance in the system by promoting women over men regardless of merit. So now we're being sexist, just in the opposite direction. Omfg.Quote:
Originally Posted by ImSavy
Another case where equality has turned into reverse discrimination is that we are required by law to take into account any learning disability a student may have. So some student writes an essay with shit grammar and punctuation but because they're dyslexic we are not supposed to penalise them for that. Funny, but I thought you were supposed to be treating everyone equally, not giving what amounts to a bonus to people because their particular type of intellectual deficit has a label.
Take another perspective: someone who's bad at maths will not normally be called 'aculculaic' (bad at maths) in the same way someone who's bad with language will be called 'dyslexic'. So the dyslexic student gets what amounts to an unfair advantage over the student who's bad at maths.
However, there may be situations where a side is facing indirect discrimination - i.e., if poor people are going to shitty schools and getting shitty grades as a result, then I can see the logic of lowering the bar for them a bit, although I agree it's not as good a solution as giving everyone an equal education before they get to university.
I don't know about this, but my guess it's being discounted because it doesn't address the problem of people failing to get admitted because they went to a shitty school and got a shitty education.Quote:
Originally Posted by ImSavy
There's another element in all this: no uni wants to be known as the racism or classism uni (not even Oxbridge). So they've got selfish reasons for filling quotas of students from disadvantaged backgrounds.
The reason racist employment strategies reduce racism is because they hurt the racist employer, aid the racist employer's competition, and even aid the potential employee the racist employer was racist towards. The economics behind why this counter-intuitive claim is true can be best explained by what incentives are caused by the behavior as well as where the costs and benefit distribute.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Let's say we have an employer who doesn't hire black people. This will increase his labor costs because he would sacrifice some in labor quality in order to meet his race desires. He would pass on black applicants that he would hire if they were white, and he would hire white candidates that he wouldn't hire if he didn't pass on the black candidates. His labor cost increase would raise his product prices, and this would cause a drop in sales. His competitors on the other hand would have reduced labor costs by having even more quality applicants to choose from, and their sales would increase due to the reduction in labor costs and product prices that would follow. If the racist employer kept up his ways (most wouldn't), he would pretty quickly go out of business. Free market capitalism is the ultimate punishment for racists. The black laborers would benefit by not inevitably working for secretly racist bosses. Furthermore, exposure to consumers would have even greater effects. Given how much consumers detest racism, once word gets out that a company doesn't hire black people, well, that company is basically done.
If, however, the racist employer was barred from enacting his racism, instead of the virus being exposed to light and killed, it would fester and come out in some other form. His competitors, the people who believe the right things, would not be rewarded for their right behaviors and instead be the ones punished.
isn't there a racist undertone in what you just posted by implying that black employees should be paid less even though they could be a higher quality candidate than a white guy ? And the non racist companies wouldn't be rewarded for employing black guys on the cheap , they'd be paying the black guys the same or better rate than the white guys if they were higher quality.
And who's to say the racist employer won't understand all this and hire people so as not to appear racist? He could be just as successful, and his racism could still come out in another form.
Having a law that bans overt racism in hiring practices at least has the advantage of being a morally superior position to having no such law.
There might also be economic advantages to being a racist cunt. For example, you own a restaurant in a neighborhood populated by racists. Hiring the wrong color waiters could cost you business, so now the economic choice is the immoral one, not the moral one.
My statements assumed equal distribution of quality regardless of race.Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith
Let's say each company tries to hire only the top 1 percentile of perceived applicant quality. If the racist employer doesn't hire blacks, his 1 percentile pool of applicants would exclude the black candidates, and he would have to makeup for this inefficiency somehow. The most usual way he would make up for it is increasing the number of white applicants he considers, which would lower his percentile cutoff. Instead of pulling from a pool of the 1 percentile of all races, he would pull from a pool of, say, 2 percentile of non-blacks. This 2 percentile cutoff would reduce his worker productivity totals, which would increase his labor costs.
It's not been put to trial yet, they're trying it next admission after the one that's just about to happen (I could be wrong on that).Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
This is typically what happens. The added benefit is that it undermines his feelings of racism; whereas a law making it illegal emboldens his racism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
If we're making moral arguments, it is more moral to not initiate force on people to do something against their will than to initiate force on people to conform to the will of others.Quote:
Having a law that bans overt racism in hiring practices at least has the advantage of being a morally superior position to having no such law.
The same process I outlined would work here to, just in a far more expansive and complex way. It would be a daunting task to lay out the specifics, but the ultimate end is that this behavior would turn that place into an economic shithole and the punishment would fall on the racists. Additionally, we need to always be thinking in terms of net, which tells us that the amount of increased racism this policy would create would be dwarfed by the amount it eliminates elsewhere.Quote:
There might also be economic advantages to being a racist cunt. For example, you own a restaurant in a neighborhood populated by racists. Hiring the wrong color waiters could cost you business, so now the economic choice is the immoral one, not the moral one.
To add to the conversation going on and somewhat answer Wufs question.
An argument that gets thrown round a lot is that women earn less money than men for doing the same job. My argument is that this is mostly (not completely) false. As lots of in depth looks at the actual research done on the topic tells you. So say there are two groups of people and they both are exactly the same at doing a job but you can pay the people from group A less than those in group B. Now no one in their right mind is going to hire people from group B, no different to getting two quotes on a job from two companies and going with the cheaper one. Yet this effect isn't seen at all (in fact the same group of people arguing the problem would say the exact opposite happens). Yet that effect shows to hold true in lots of other areas where a company can get the same job done for much less such as the exploitation of migrants in certain markets such as farming.
Now there are obviously lots of problems with lots of groups of people being put off and not encouraged to push themselves and no one is doubting that it's harder for certain groups of people to get the opportunities to go for certain jobs or careers and that is a problem which needs addressing. The issue I have is that to fix that problem they tend to falsely address what's going on.
What I think happens much more naturally is that the best people for jobs tend to rise to that position but it's a slow process and you can't change what happens. Let's say there is a career path that is split into 3 promotions. That company is sexist and doesn't like hiring women & prior to this point would be 100% male so instead of a roughly 50/50 intake they hire 95% men and 5% women. Now if you're looking at an equal pool of candidates those women hired for the job on average are going to be better than the men as only the very best women are getting hired as it'd be stupid not to hire them when they are so much better than the worse men getting hired. This pushes the fact that their opinion is stupid and as a result the year after they think ohh we like money and they're performing so well we'll be a bit less sexist and then maybe 10% of hte intake is female and this process repeats until it reaches a point where the candidates are being chosen on merit. To add to this effect the best women are also going to work their way up the company and that helps with the process of equality (more meritocracy as it should be).
By putting limits on what you can and can't do you create subsets of workers that only need to be good enough to be hired from that group rather than being the best of everyone & if you put those conditions onto anyone your results will be worse which is damaging for what the problem was in the first place and worse for the companies etc so worse for the employees.
edit - Unfortunately this is a much slower process than something that can be seen as an "instant" fix and doesn't create the right headlines etc. So I think working on things that eliminate bias (such as the uni thing I mentioned) are all great, I'd even go further and say I don't think quotas are awful things in theory they just have to be absolute minimum expectancy rather than forcing what "we" think will happen eventually. So not 50/50 but if your company hiring 200 people from a very mixed multinational area is all white then you should probably be able to produce a reason for that.
In that case, let's legalise murder and torture too, since imposing society's will on anyone is immoral.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
In other words, you've said in effect, 'I'm right, but I can't explain why, so I'll just say it's complicated'.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
It doesn't tell us this unless someone lays out how it works. One could just as easily argue that 'net' tells us that the amount of increased racism would expand to encompass other areas.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Exactly, this is the problem with reverse discrimination. You're instantiating a policy that enacts the very thing you've taken a moral stand against.Quote:
Originally Posted by ImSavy
There has to be some kind of statute of limitations on how much of society's previous folly we need to redress. For example, no-one would argue that in order to right the wrong of slavery, black people should be allowed to enslave white people for a couple of hundred years. But that would be consistent with the logic of reverse discrimination.
*Initiate* force. It is moral to counter an initiation of force with force.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
The principles do not change regardless of scale. It's still about incentives even on a large and complex scale. The reason providing step-by-step details is a daunting task can be analogized through how showing the total permutations of two out of a hundred is a daunting task while showing the total permutations of two out of five is not, all the while the principles are the same.Quote:
In other words, you've said in effect, 'I'm right, but I can't explain why, so I'll just say it's complicated'.
I was trying to be brief, and by doing so was not clear.Quote:
It doesn't tell us this unless someone lays out how it works. One could just as easily argue that 'net' tells us that the amount of increased racism would expand to encompass other areas.
Because we think in terms of net, we can't just point out one type of instance where racism could increase and call it a day. My initial explanation includes the net, and is part of why economists like Milton Friedman discussed the idea with audiences.
I think you'd be surprised at how many people would argue along these lines. The US President and the Democrat candidate for President support some who would argue that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
The thing is that you would be able to produce a reason for that because the state of your company in the first place would have baked into it that reason. A company like you described would not be competitive, and because the term you describe it in is a competitive one (and a multicultural "non-racist" one), the company would either have a non-racist reason for its existence or would not exist in the hypothetical form.Quote:
Originally Posted by ImSavy
This logic works perfectly fine if you apply it appropriately and understand its limits. For example, it makes sense when hiring workers in a factory setting where their sole influence on the prosperity of the company is their own ability. Where it can fall down is in the case I've described, where the employer has reason to think a racist hiring policy would be more economically advantageous than the opposite.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Let's say there's two restaurants about to open in a racist neighborhood. The laws are lax about equal opportunity hiring, so you can basically hire job applicants based on their color if you want. Owner A is racist and does just that, Owner B is non-racist and hires based on merit. Although Owner A is forced to hire some less-qualified workers, he more than makes up for that because his racist customers would rather come to his restaurant and be served by a dope of the same color as them than a competent worker of another color, such as work at Owner B's restaurant.
Owner A the racist gets rich, Owner B the non-racist goes broke. Owner A gets reinforced for being a racist, Owner B gets punished for being non-racist. The racists in the neighborhood as a whole see this, and it reinforces their own racist ideas.
Imagine now the same scenario but with an equal opportunity hiring policy enforced (immorally, apparently) by law. Both Owner A and Owner B have to hire based on merit. They both end up having some employees of the 'wrong' color, and the racists in their neighborhood have to suck it, possibly re-evaluate their racist ideas through being exposed to the fact that there's people of the 'wrong' color doing a good job out there, and at the very least realise that there's no economic benefit to being a racist.
I never said it exists I just gave a very obvious extreme example to what I was talking about. I meant to say multicultural area not multinational though. Kept stopping and starting with that post so may read pretty badly and not fully complete some of the ideas brought up.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
I would agree with your post though.
So all of the laws that don't counter an initiation of force are immoral? How about stealing?Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Would argue or do argue? Let's be clear and give some examples please of who these people are supporting and what they're actually arguing for?Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
The customer base of that restaurant has to be a very niche market, if the area is so mixed then you're essentially destroying a huge proportion of your customer base by only catering to racists because not only would the people of opposite colour not be welcome people of the same colour who disagreed with the notion also wouldn't go there. We also see that as globalisation occurs that becomes less and less of a thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
To add to that the thing is then they aren't equally as qualified because the way you look is important. Lots of jobs (I'd argue all to differing degrees) it matters what you look like. Being good looking is a huge natural advantage in life, same for being tall in lots of circumstances. Lots of things factor into how good you are at a job. If me and a beautiful girl both applied to work behind a bar and our looks were the only thing separating us she is massively more qualified for that job. I'd argue she could be some fair degree worse at most other things and still be a better pick than me but if the person hiring overestimates then he makes a bad business decision and as a result is punished.
My proposal depends on a majority of people not liking racism. But so does your proposal of outlawing it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
A super cool thing about economics (and capitalism) is that peoples' beliefs are baked into the spending. Policy based on this yields moral results more efficiently.
But they don't have to hire based on merit in this scenario. They have to hire based on race quota. Merit would correlate well with it, but not as well as otherwise. The US has policy like this and it has been shown to reduce quality and merit, and even though this looks paradoxical on the surface, the policy hurts all races.Quote:
Imagine now the same scenario but with an equal opportunity hiring policy enforced (immorally, apparently) by law. Both Owner A and Owner B have to hire based on merit. They both end up having some employees of the 'wrong' color, and the racists in their neighborhood have to suck it, possibly re-evaluate their racist ideas through being exposed to the fact that there's people of the 'wrong' color doing a good job out there, and at the very least realise that there's no economic benefit to being a racist.
It's a hypothetical scenario, but I can imagine places in the world (including the US) where it would apply.Quote:
Originally Posted by ImSavy
Dispose of all other differences aside from race; they're equally tall, equally attractive, equally friendly, and equally competent at taking orders and giving people their food. The only difference in 'merit' is based on whether the employer thinks they will piss off his racist customers or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by ImSavy
Stealing is an initiation of force.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Also, laws by government are an initiation of force, but I'm not sure we wanna go there.
"Would" because they more or less haven't because they would lose a lot of support. Instead they have done things like slaughter cops, beat whites (and other blacks), and vandalize. Combining this with analysis of their worldview and of the type in history, it is not much of a stretch to say that some would argue that whitey must be shackled to make full reparation for slavery.Quote:
Would argue or do argue? Let's be clear and give some examples please of who these people are supporting and what they're actually arguing for?
Not at all. My proposal of outlawing racist hiring practices doesn't care whether the majority agree with it or not. It's based on morality not popularity, and not economics for that matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
You're assuming people are naturally non-racist and I'm assuming the opposite. In fact, people's natural inclination is to be racist until it's explained to them that it's not ok.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
They would have to hire based on merit and independent of race. In other words, race would be irrelevant to your choice of who to hire. The problem with current policy is that it amounts to reverse discrimination in many cases because of quota systems and their ilk.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
I don't doubt there's such people out there, what I doubt is that they're being supported either directly or indirectly by Obama or Clinton.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Here's another point: Business generally isn't so cutthroat that you immediately go bankrupt by hiring someone who isn't the ideal candidate based on merit. So without an equal hiring policy, a businessperson could decide it's more important for them to only hire their own kind than to be as rich as they possibly can.
Customers are a part of your business so obviously it is important, if this group of racists keeping this persons business alive aren't going to give that business their custom as a result and that business can't replace the lost customers then I'd say it's massively important.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
By making the wrong choice he is negatively effecting the society around him.
Then set up another business that doesn't do those things and you've got an advantage.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
This is exactly what I'm saying, and why it is better to have an equal hiring policy that ensures fairness rather than relying on the wonders of capitalism to make it happen incidentally, when there's obvious situations in which it wouldn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by ImSavy
I'm not arguing for 'equal opportunity' policies as they generally exist now, as they tend to amount to reverse discrimination, which I'm against. What I'm saying should happen is the law should not allow you to make a judgment of a person's qualification for a job based in any way on the applicant's race (among other things).
That's not the point, the point is that the economic factors aren't the only motivations employers have. Some might rather pass on another ivory back scratcher than hire 'one of them'. The question then becomes is that something a fair and just society would allow? I would say not.Quote:
Originally Posted by ImSavy
The wrong choice can also be the one you are trying to force them to make.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
It only happens if it has the support of the people.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
My assumptions don't contradict this.Quote:
In fact, people's natural inclination is to be racist until it's explained to them that it's not ok.
From a regulatory perspective, a company that hires only whites based on merit would not appear different than a company that hires only whites based on faked merit and secret race.Quote:
They would have to hire based on merit and independent of race. In other words, race would be irrelevant to your choice of who to hire.
BLM is supported by Obama and Clinton.Quote:
I don't doubt there's such people out there, what I doubt is that they're being supported either directly or indirectly by Obama or Clinton.
Really? Ever hear about the civil rights movement in the Deep South in the 1960s? Seems it was pretty unpopular with the locals and had to be supported by force if my knowledge of history is correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
A company can fake compliance if it really wants to, but it's much harder to give the right appearance when all you do is hire one race. That's just lol.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
There's a difference between showing sympathy for blacks who feel trodden on (rightly or wrongly), and supporting the kind of actions or beliefs you described above. I think there's some nuances here that you're not acknowledging.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Elaborate please. By 'wrong' do you mean economically or morally? I don't care if the right moral choice is the wrong economic choice. My goal is not to make capitalists richer. My goal is a fair and just society.Quote:
Originally Posted by ImSavy
You created a scenario where the only differing characteristic between two candidates was race in a racist establishment and are trying to say that in that scenario race shouldn't play a factor it 100% should and hiring the desired race is like the only good decision as the options areQuote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
1 - race does matter hire "wrong" race bad decision (-1)
2 - race does matter hire "right" race good decision (+1)
3 - race doesn't matter hire "wrong" race irrelevant (0)
4 - race doesn't matter hire "right" race irrelevant (0)
You're saying the outcome should be 50/50 exactly which means you get each outcome equally as often so it cancels out. If you only choose the right race you any possible outcome of the negative side so only get a 0 or + expectation which on average gives a + as opposed to your 0.
There is no moral to it it's a choice. When people start making racist decisions (here it's logical but your scenario isn't realistic) what actually happens is they get punished lose that power they had and the problem starts to correct itself. By forcing people to make -EV decisions who exactly are you benefiting? It doesn't help anyone.
The whole point about racism and sexism and those topics is that they don't matter to the extent that some people think they do (i.e. racists) so to try and argue about racism by constructing scenarios which make race the only important thing is pretty stupid.
See my post about women entering a sexist business that shows how these things tend to get overcome in reality. Being able to pay people less money than others actually helps push through this effect funnily enough and would probably help generate demand that sorts itself out over time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ImSavy
I'm confused here sorry. How does hiring the 'wrong' race get you a +1? if by 'wrong' you mean 'morally right, economically wrong' that's silly, because there is no 'right' or 'wrong' race morally.
If it's strictly an economic choice, you should hire only the race that your customers approve of. Is that what you mean?Quote:
Originally Posted by ImSavy
How do they get punished? I just explained that they get rewarded because their customers are racist too. And if they don't get punished, the rest of your argument falls down; the problem doesn't correct itself.Quote:
Originally Posted by ImSavy
It's not an economic argument about how to make racist restaurants prosper. I think that's where you're missing my point.Quote:
Originally Posted by ImSavy
It's a thought exercise to show why the argument about capitalism incidentally reducing racism is flawed. Yes it is stupid to say there's a business in which race is the only thing that matters. But it's just as stupid to say that the employees' race can't ever influence a business' success in ways that economic models haven't accounted for (or at least not the one Wuf is talking about).Quote:
Originally Posted by ImSavy
How is this relevant at all to the scenario I described? You're not paying people based on race, you're hiring them based on race.Quote:
Originally Posted by ImSavy
I got my - and + mixed up, I edited it but you must have quoted my post before I changed it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
No I'm saying in your exact scenario the choice comes down to race as to who is more qualified for the job.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
In your scenario they don't get punished but that's why it's stupid your scenario isn't realistic. I've already explained how they get punished in a previous post in real circumstances.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
My question stands who exactly are you benefiting and how by forcing that decision on the owner of the business. I've explained why it's bad for that business but you haven't mentioned who benefits.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
@bold - The point is though it isn't that's just what you want it to be. Race can & on rare occasion does play a factor in who the correct choice for a role is I've never said it can't. I don't think Wuf would say that either but obviously I don't speak for him. What I'm saying is that racist choices are on average very bad for society. The racist pockets of society were clearly much more in the past and I imagine then racist choices were much less bad on average as a result. The more obvious and bad choices you make though the easier it is to exploit that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
I was trying to branch back to reality not just what you're talking about.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
That's what I said you said lol.Quote:
Originally Posted by ImSavy
I know they get punished in your scenario, they don't in mine. You can argue that's because my scenario is exaggerated or unrealistic but that doesn't mean the logic of how the economics of it work is flawed.Quote:
Originally Posted by ImSavy
You mean apart from the person of the 'wrong' color who gets to have a job? I would say the society as a whole benefits because people tend to be more peaceful, riot less and shoot fewer cops when they live in a just society.Quote:
Originally Posted by ImSavy
Let's say (and I did) that there's more than one restaurant in this neighborhood. Economic competition (trying to be realistic here). So by making them both hire by the same rules both end up on equal economic ground. Maybe being forced to hire the 'wrong' color hurts them both somewhat but tough shit. Like I said it's not about helping people get rich, it's about having a fair and just society.
It has nothing to do with being rich, the vast majority of business decisions aren't made by rich people they're made by normal everyday people.
It isn't what you said I said because I'm not just talking economically I'm talking definitively it's the best choice.
Giving someone a job who isn't the most qualified for a job is a bad thing as you said yet now you've given it to an individual person that's considered a good thing? Even if that means the net of that society is worse as a result. We have to remember in that scenario the people who are less happy as a group now blame that individual and as a result resent them creating more negative emotions in society. Especially when that person is a very easy victim.
So why are you arguing with me?Quote:
Originally Posted by ImSavy
I agree. But there are also people who will take an economic hit for the sake of maintaining their racist views.Quote:
Originally Posted by ImSavy
Again, this assumes everyone is a rational creature who only makes the best economic choices. No reason to think that's the case.Quote:
Originally Posted by ImSavy
No, we were talking strictly about hiring policies. Normal everyday people don't decide who a company will hire.Quote:
Originally Posted by ImSavy
If they're only qualification is race, then yes fuck that.Quote:
Originally Posted by ImSavy
If a person is resented because they've been treated fairly, then that's better than them being treated unfairly.Quote:
Originally Posted by ImSavy
Desegregation was supported by the people. That's where the federal government got its motivation and legitimacy for stepping in.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
By your premise of race being irrelevant regarding hiring decisions, the regulatory entities would be powerless to enforce an abuse since an abuse couldn't reliably be determined to have transpired in the first place.Quote:
A company can fake compliance if it really wants to, but it's much harder to give the right appearance when all you do is hire one race. That's just lol.
You are correct, but this does not describe Obama and Clinton. They race bait and give full-throated support to BLM in the midst of and subsequently to BLM black supremacists murdering, assaulting, and vandalizing innocents.Quote:
There's a difference between showing sympathy for blacks who feel trodden on (rightly or wrongly), and supporting the kind of actions or beliefs you described above. I think there's some nuances here that you're not acknowledging.
Note that the primary driver of the growth of fairness and justice that current and recent western generations benefit from is capitalism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Also we are capitalists.
To begin, we have to think in terms of aggregates. The majority of racist employers live in regions where they would lose their livelihoods if they were perceived as running a racist company. By this alone, we would find that the vast majority of them would not act on their racism in hiring, and the small handful of holdouts would go out on their bankrupted shields.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
A small minority live in places where there is enough of a niche for racism that they could survive (or perhaps grow business) by being viewed as racist. However, this quantity is much smaller than people think. Regardless, let's imagine a scenario in some backwater where racism sells and a racist company gets more sales than before it was viewed as racist.
In this case, the region would have increased emigration from the negatively affected (both labor and capital) as well as decreased immigration (also both labor and capital). While it would have some immigration favoring the racism, because most people do not favor racism and because many who do would not pay much of a cost to favor it, the net would be emigration. Our racist company would lose some because of this but let's assume that it gains by net due to even bigger sales increase from the local racist customers than its increased costs from the capital/labor flight. However, the racist patrons of the company would lose out since most of them would be more negatively affected by the capital/labor flight. The region would experience a reduction in both aggregate demand and aggregate supply (big recession coming), and as long as it kept on its racist path, it would become a shitpot. Then our grandchildren, decades from now, would be talking about how the last ardent racists died in a shitpot that nobody outside that shitpot cared about.
On the macro, humans do not tolerate blatant racism. Because of this, on the macro, racism doesn't sell, and on the macro, what doesn't sell doesn't survive. That is, at least when you have free market capitalism.
Growth happens on the margins. One regulation that adds one small "tough shit" to the economy negatively affects those on the relevant margins. This type of thing manifests in big ways because of large quantities and snowballing effects. For example, universities being "forced to hire the 'wrong' color" is associated with a statistically significant increase in blacks being misplaced in educational institutions and flunking out of schools above their level instead of being top of class at less rigorous schools. It is reasonable to think that this one tiny "tough shit" policy has turned what would have otherwise been very prosperous lives on average into much less ones.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
This does more to eradicate racism than forcing the person to hire people he doesn't want to. Allowing those people to enact their racist policy punishes their racist behavior (and rewards the non-racist). Forcing them to not enact a racist policy does not punish their racist behavior (and doesn't reward the non-racist).Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
No, it would relatively easy to show that a company was using racist hiring practices. You simply note how they hired candidate A who has no education or experience at all in making widgets but is the same race as all their other employees, vs. candidate B who has a degree and 10 years experience in making widgets but is a different race.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
I'm sure they do Wuf.... I'm sure they openly endorse murder by BLM and this isn't just your rampant partisanship showing.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy