Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul
Right, the world is perfect, we all get along, sitting by the lake, in the warm sunshine, singing Kum-ba-ya every evening. I'm sure you live in your own little fantasy world.
You dont seem to know what to believe, since you contradict yourself here.
Prioritising "underrepresented groups" (whatever that means) is the opposite of merit, its called bias.
The rationale is complete nonsense.
Creating resentment and disharmony is not going to lead to "a fairer society in the longer term", it will lead to trouble (and already does).
Thats nothing more than guesswork (and as stated, theory) you could just equally state that (in theory) if women stayed at home, and did everything they were told, there would be a decrease in abuse. (You may not agree with it, but you cannot prove or disprove it any more than the previous theory).
It just goes to show, the lunatics are still trying to run the asylum - I suppose it wins stupid idea of the week.
|
I think that what she's saying is that if, say, two candidates are shortlisted for a job in a tech firm are of equal merit, consideration of merit can then be taken out of the equation.
If one candidate is male and one is female, especially if they are a person of colour or are a lesbian, then they should be picked if these groups are underepresented in the company, as their input/influence should lead to tech firms taking a different approach/attitude towards treatment of the aforementioned minority groups to improve the treatment and consideration of them by the company.