Randomness thread, part two.

[wufwugy]

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.

[Poopadoop]

Seems like another perk of visiting the UK would be the cider.

Wouldn't be high on my list personally but I'm more of a drink to get drunk guy than a drink connoseiur guy.

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.

[MadMojoMonkey]

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...

[MadMojoMonkey]

Wouldn't be high on my list personally but I'm more of a drink to get drunk guy than a drink connoseiur guy.

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.

Still... it burns... even the stuff that doesn't taste like it's made from rot.

[Poopadoop]

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.

[Savy]

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.

God you sound like a great guy.

[wufwugy]

not as great as you.

[OngBonga]

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 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.

[aubreymcfate]

IRL I can't speak anywhere nearly as fluently as I can write. But I can and do talk to anybody about anything interesting.

this is pretty much me, except there are times when i'm verbally on my game.

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.

[Savy]

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.

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.

[wufwugy]

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.

[Savy]

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.

[wufwugy]

i guess that makes you american.

[OngBonga]

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.

[OngBonga]

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.

[wufwugy]

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.

[Savy]

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.

[wufwugy]

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.

[OngBonga]

Jesus, America is messed up...

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/georgia-...clown-attacks/

[BankItDrew]

I brought a hammer to school in preperation of fighting someone whom I thought was a clown. Clown as in jerkoff though.

[BankItDrew]

All day I couldn't stop thinking about the weapon in my bag. I think it frightened me more than the asshole did.

[BankItDrew]

Never told anyone this. But fuck... It was just a hammer.

[Poopadoop]

Sounds like you were really ready to nail that guy.

[BankItDrew]

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

I had no nails tho

[OngBonga]

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".

[Poopadoop]

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".

Ya, you wouldn't have looked nearly as clever then as when you first took out your hammer.

[wufwugy]

One time when I was a kid I was gonna whoop this loser's ass at school, but he brought a hammer.

[Savy]

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?

[wufwugy]

He rushed me. I was helpless.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Damn kids!

and their hammers!

[BankItDrew]

One time when I was a kid I was gonna whoop this loser's ass at school, but he brought a hammer.

Lol bully

[wufwugy]

I'll get you next time.

[OngBonga]

He rushed me. I was helpless.

wusswussy

[Keith]

Sounds like you were really ready to nail that guy.

I thpught this was a classic british sarcastic double entendre which everyone else seemed to miss .

[wufwugy]

wusswussy

I was thrown off by crazy weaponized cerebral palsy ginger.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I thpught this was a classic british sarcastic double entendre which everyone else seemed to miss .

I didn't miss it, but it was just too easy a pun to give it a nod.

I was thrown off by crazy weaponized cerebral palsy ginger.

Seems a bit redundant.

You could have just said ginger.

[BankItDrew]

I was thrown off by crazy weaponized bells palsy ginger.

Fyp

[OngBonga]

Not all gingers have weapons.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Every tool is a weapon if you hold it right.


Every ginger is a tool.


Therefore, every ginger is weaponized.


QED

[Poopadoop]

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.

[BankItDrew]

So how 'bout that presidential race, huh? Exciting! Let's talk about that.

[wufwugy]

There would be less racism if it was legal to not hire based on race. Economics ftw.

[wufwugy]

There's a presidential race on? All I see is one person running.

[wufwugy]

Well scratch that, one person and one entity. The person is running against the entity of bigotry and corruption.

[Poopadoop]

Ya, Trump is a modern day Martin Luther King and Serpico rolled into one.

[Poopadoop]

Maybe he will start a movement called Ginger Lives Matter.

[BankItDrew]

If he doesn't, I will.

[wufwugy]

Ya, Trump is a modern day Martin Luther King and Serpico rolled into one.

I agree. He (or at least the people he represents) are definitely fighting against race supremacy and rampant corruption.

[Savy]

There would be less racism if it was legal to not hire based on race. Economics ftw.

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.

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 :/

[BankItDrew]

It's hard to not assume an applicant named Shaneequa won't have baby daddy issues.

[wufwugy]

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.

That's totally awesome. I'd be interested in knowing what you think the most powerful parts of the argument are.

[wufwugy]

It's hard to not assume an applicant named Shaneequa won't have baby daddy issues.

RACIST JOKE ALERT

Ain't no Shaneequa applying for work.

RACIST JOKE ALERT

[BankItDrew]

Lmao woooowwwww

[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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 :/

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.

[Poopadoop]

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.

[wufwugy]

Don't know how making racism legal makes for less racism.

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.

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.

[Keith]

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.

[Poopadoop]

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.

[Poopadoop]

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.

[wufwugy]

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 ?

My statements assumed equal distribution of quality regardless of race.

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.

[Savy]

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.

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).

[wufwugy]

And who's to say the racist employer won't understand all this and hire people so as not to appear racist?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Savy]

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.

[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.

In that case, let's legalise murder and torture too, since imposing society's will on anyone is immoral.

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.

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'.

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.

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.

[Poopadoop]

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.

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.

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.

[wufwugy]

In that case, let's legalise murder and torture too, since imposing society's will on anyone is immoral.

*Initiate* force. It is moral to counter an initiation of force with force.

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'.

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.

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.

I was trying to be brief, and by doing so was not clear.

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.

[wufwugy]

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.

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.

[wufwugy]

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.

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.

[Poopadoop]

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.

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.

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.

[Savy]

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.

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.

I would agree with your post though.

[Poopadoop]

*Initiate* force. It is moral to counter an initiation of force with force.

So all of the laws that don't counter an initiation of force are immoral? How about stealing?

[Poopadoop]

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.

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?

[Savy]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[wufwugy]

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.

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.

My proposal depends on a majority of people not liking racism. But so does your proposal of outlawing it.

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.

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.

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.

[Poopadoop]

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.

It's a hypothetical scenario, but I can imagine places in the world (including the US) where it would apply.

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.

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.