Is there any more context available without me needing to watch the whole video? The description on the video alleges that these are Chinese owned tech companies but it does not describe what sort of jobs these are. For example if you are casting a role in an advertisement then it would make sense to have requirements that might otherwise be discriminatory.
As an aside, in my workplace I have observed discrimination in the other direction, where we are explicitly accounting for candidates’ gender and race in a push for diversity.
This is debatable - affirmative action can be interpreted to give preferential treatment to certain groups (based on race/gender/etc). This isn't _necessarily_ a bad thing, especially in the short term. But extended indefinitely it can certainly lead to qualified applicants being passed over in a discriminatory way.
> The executive order also required contractors with 51 or more employees and contracts of $50,000 or more to implement affirmative action plans to increase the participation of minorities and women in the workplace if a workforce analysis demonstrates their under-representation, meaning that there are fewer minorities and women than would be expected given the numbers of minorities and women qualified to hold the positions available.
One thing that annoys me about the internet is that many forums tend to vet claims of discrimination more thoroughly when the injured party is a minority, as opposed to a member of the majority.
Granted, it's not a new phenomenon (see "tyranny of the majority", "pure" democracy). Also granted, a spirit of inclusion often mitigates it, and that spirit is the mainstream in American culture (if less universally, lately).
I find it helpful to keep that dynamic in mind, though, when I read forum comments. For example, a forum with a lot of Brits is liable to brainstorm very convincing reasons why Marmite is healthy, while the status quo in an American forum might lead to an equally well-reasoned case that Marmite causes cancer.
I wish this was a blog post instead of a poorly formatted video.
I couldn't make it through enough of the video to actually see what proof he has. Given the platitudes on his shirt, it's no doubt he's probably out trying to create a villain to virtue signal against.
8 comments
[ 4.4 ms ] story [ 38.6 ms ] threadAs an aside, in my workplace I have observed discrimination in the other direction, where we are explicitly accounting for candidates’ gender and race in a push for diversity.
In the united states, that is illegal
> The executive order also required contractors with 51 or more employees and contracts of $50,000 or more to implement affirmative action plans to increase the participation of minorities and women in the workplace if a workforce analysis demonstrates their under-representation, meaning that there are fewer minorities and women than would be expected given the numbers of minorities and women qualified to hold the positions available.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_11246
Granted, it's not a new phenomenon (see "tyranny of the majority", "pure" democracy). Also granted, a spirit of inclusion often mitigates it, and that spirit is the mainstream in American culture (if less universally, lately).
I find it helpful to keep that dynamic in mind, though, when I read forum comments. For example, a forum with a lot of Brits is liable to brainstorm very convincing reasons why Marmite is healthy, while the status quo in an American forum might lead to an equally well-reasoned case that Marmite causes cancer.
I couldn't make it through enough of the video to actually see what proof he has. Given the platitudes on his shirt, it's no doubt he's probably out trying to create a villain to virtue signal against.