Last edited by theticalanti; 06-12-2016 at 12:44 AM.
now, first disclaimer: apologies, as I haven't read this wall of text (nothing personal, I'm just in a shitty mood today in general...)
basically the first thing that comes to mind when I hear the word "corporation" is - burn them all down to the ground. That's of course biased as I have my own personal very negative experiences with corpo world and mobbing.
But yeah, burn them down to the ground, let's cut electricity and go back to raising actual sheep instead of trying to make people into sheep... ekhm.
perhaps these "differences in talent" are too negligible to matter much in the grand scheme of things. this really seems to be a question of what makes a corporation successful. probably it just needs a certain amount of highly talented individuals and everyone else can be average and it will still function fine. the highly talented ones can all be white males and it shouldn't affect a thing (especially in a society where being white and male is privileged anyway!) - in fact all the employees can be white males as long as there is enough talent among them. (this is my "theory")
i think that people who say privilege doesn't come into play are wrong. i mean, there have been studies on this sort of thing. like for instance the (old!) one referenced here about black names vs. white names: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/black-na...resume-burden/
privilege is a real thing. and it's not easy to see the biases at work because most people aren't trying to be biased "these days." i'm sure most people think they're being "objective."
i'm not knowledgeable about laws in hiring. where i work there aren't quotas or anything like that... i don't think there are laws about who to hire either? it's just that (ahem, qualified) people may be invited to interview? or apply based on demographics in an attempt to try to balance out the inequality. this doesn't mean they will be hired. it's just trying to get the pool of applicants to match the demographics in a field percentage-wise at least. (i really don't know the laws)
Last edited by inumbra; 11-01-2014 at 03:43 AM.
Um, you're fucking stupid. The employment status of one man and one woman is, first of all, not going to have any impact on the economy.
Originally Posted by William
Second, there's no point considering a scenario in which every business is like corporation A, or like corporation B. There are tons of organizations like corporation B, who nonetheless have no problem using women to further their agenda. Ever heard of Sarah Palin?
There are also many corporation As, who hire competent women but then relegate those women to the most menial tasks available.
So, what I'm trying to say is... What's your point, exactly?
Do you find it necessary to call somebody "fucking stupid" because they have a different opinion than you? You can address what he said without acting rude and disrespectful.
Originally Posted by maithili
Last edited by Ron Mexico; 11-02-2014 at 05:51 PM.
Please forgive me. I have nothing to add at this time. But I want to read back over what you've said when I'm not so tired and see if I can come up with anything. So I'm commenting now to make it easier to find this thread later. What I will say now is I've recently begun familiarizing myself with libertarian philosophy and very beginner-beginner Austrian economics. I grew up in very liberal California and paid very little attention to politics. So it has really stretched my brain to be learning to see from this perspective. I've also been reading evolutionary psychology, some laymen-level game theory, about logical fallacies, and it all seems to tie together nicely.