politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
But capitalism is about making a profit above all else, isn't it?
If you purposely ignore 20-50% of the potential hiring pool regardless of qualifications simply because you're a bigot, someone else is going to hire them (potentially for less) and simply outcompete you.
That's not how it works in real life and I think you know that.
Capitalism is its own complex beast and one I'm not going to opine on here but I fucking wish we lived in a meritocracy where you could just hire people that are good and magically crush it in the market. We very much don't.
Cream rises to the top all by itself, doesn't it? You don't need to legislate that. Neither do you need to legislate gravity.
The reason there is no meritocracy in our economy is precisely because we have laws against it, not in spite of it.
Or are you saying that hiring the most competent people isn't an automatic guarantee that you'll crush it? In which case, why would you be in favor of a law that requires employers to hire the most competent candidates?
But you do need to legislate against discrimination and pollution and etc (insert long list of heinous shit that's happened in American history that led to legislation).
No. It's because of crony capitalism and human nature and more but it definitely isn't because we have laws against it. That doesn't even make sense.
I'm saying you can have more talented people and still lose in the marketplace for a zillion reasons. I'm in favor of laws that protect people from being discriminated against, which generally leads to more qualified people getting hired regardless of their skin color.
Anyways, on the off hand change you're engaging in good faith and not just a troll - I highly suggest you read up some on the history of minority groups in the USA; particularly how former slaves were treated and how the reconstruction era after the civil war really fucked them over. Plus just the general exploitation of cheap migrant labor.
That's all I'll say about all this.
I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying that even though cream always does rise to the top, passing a law requiring to do so would make it go faster? Or simply that it would make you feel more reassured that it eventually will? If it's the latter, should we perhaps also pass a law requiring the sun to rise every day, or that objects must always fall down instead of up? Where do we draw the line?
Anyways, on the off hand change you're engaging in good faith and not just a troll - I highly suggest you read up some on the history of minority groups in the USA; particularly how former slaves were treated and how the reconstruction era after the civil war really fucked them over. Plus just the general exploitation of cheap migrant labor.
That's all I'll say about all this.
Are you actually this naive or are you engaging in bad faith? Are you unaware that racism exists and is rampant? Are you aware that capitalism as practiced is not remotely a meritocracy and there's no actual free market?
So you're saying that making it so people hire based on how qualified they are rather than, say, race, is actually good for business. Because there are flawed and bigoted people out there, and even though a capitalist business is about making a profit, there's people out there who would rather screw up the system over petty differences than have business be better and innovate more.
Sure, there probably are people like that, but they deserve to fail and go out of business, don't you think?
Well the problem with that is that there's some businesses that wouldn't fail and go out of business even if there were instances of bigotry in hiring. So that's why people had to step in.
Like, if you tried to get a job at Starbucks and weren't hired because you were white, that one store isn't going to fail, much less the company. And it wouldn't be fair to hire or not hire people based on your race, right?
So people set up rules so that hiring people based on race is illegal, which works out better for businesses and people overall.
Why would you want a law that forces a business run by bigots or racists to hire you despite hating you for your skin color? Don't you think they'll just find other, legal ways to mistreat you or discriminate against you? And if you fail, they'll feel more righteous about their bigotry, but if you succeed, they'll resent you for that.
I'd honestly rather just have them tell me upfront if they're racist, that way I won't waste my time with them.
The problem with that logic is that you're assuming you'll just find another job. What if you lived in a city that was super crazy liberal, and no one was hiring you because you were straight. Unfortunately you still need a job to get by, and you can't afford to move if you don't have a job.
But hey, about mistreating you? There's laws about that, too, all part of the package deal that comes with not hiring you based on race. With strict enough penalties companies would rather their employees not be bigots because they don't want to go to court.
A side effect of all this is that bigotry dies in people's hearts when they are exposed to the people they are bigoted against. If there was someone who hated Americans, but then got to actually meet and talk to one and work with one, they would realize Americans aren't all bad and can be pretty nice and chill. So making sure people don't hire based on race helps eliminate racism and keeps things fair for everyone, which helps business innovate by giving people a chance.
Oh, is that so? Well, at least you seem to understand that bigotry can cut both ways. That's more than most people here seem to be willing to acknowledge.
That said, if I was faced with that sort of situation, I would to whatever I can to find a way to move somewhere else where I'm welcome.
You can mistreat people in subtle ways that are difficult to sue over or prove in court. Like, giving people bad hours, or passing them over for promotions.
Yes, I do believe this CAN work, but it generally requires at least a shred of willingness to participate. You cannot simply force someone into accepting someone they don't like. That sounds sounds a hell of a lot like raping your way into a relationship, don't you think?
I don't think, because I don't think getting people to accept other people is anything like rape.
So you say that you get that bigotry can cut both ways, basically people can be bigoted towards anyone, and can happen pretty much anywhere. So one of the only things we can do is make it so bigots can't use their power to hurt people they hate, regardless of who they hate. That's why we have laws against things like, hitting each other and murder. We also have other laws to keep people from discriminating when doing business and hiring people. I think that those are laws that you are in favor of, because you don't want people to discriminate against you.
I'm definitely in favor of laws against rape, assault, theft, and murder, but I think bigotry and discrimination are simply too vague a charge to be properly defined or enforced, and will always defeat themselves in the long run anyways.
Say someone is running an Indian restaurant, should they be forced to hire white people? Would you trust that you're getting authentic Indian food if either the chef, or even the serving staff was predominantly Chinese? Would you go to a Chinese restaurant run by Mexicans an expect authentic Chinese cuisine, or a Mexican restaurant run by white people, and expect proper, authentic cuisine?
All of these examples sound extremely racist on the surface, but let's be honest, chances are extremely high that someone of the same ethnicity is vastly more qualified to work there than someone who's not, because they simply understand the culture and the flavors better. And of course there are always counterexamples, but those are the exception rather than the norm.
Meritocracy simply means having to earn your laurels by putting in effort and proving yourself. You don't need to legislate that because cream rises to the top all by itself. It doesn't rise any faster because there are laws requiring it to do so, just like the sun doesn't rise any faster if you make a law requiring it to do so.