University of Louisville hiring for Assistant Professor - Whites and Asians need not apply

a reply to: roadgravel

All due respect, you're missing my point ...

Discrimination is discrimination.

PC is PC.

Whether it's "good discrimination" or "the other side's PC is worse than our PC" or not doesn't matter.

Live and let live.

Set your own house in order.

Etc. etc.

~~~~~~

Who can really say we "think for ourselves"? We are all immersed in a culture that has structured our world-views even before we were born and every day since.

Objectivity is a daily struggle that not many are willing to attempt; I'll grant you that for sure.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Some kind of cross wires here I suspect. I think we are thinking similar thoughts in all of this.

Very few are really their own person in today's world it seems, except when it comes to their own wants.

Getting millions to agree on something isn't an easy task, is it.

originally posted by: roadgravel
a reply to: Gryphon66

Some kind of cross wires here I suspect. I think we are thinking similar thoughts in all of this.

Very few are really their own person in today's world it seems, except when it comes to their own wants.

Getting millions to agree on something isn't an easy task, is it.

Yep, I don't disagree with anything you've said here.

Happy 2016!

a reply to: Gryphon66

Just for the record..many people are walking around with these beliefs. I can't embed the sources but a simple search on Google will show you the surveys justifying why managers prefer not to employ women of child bearing age and employing those with young children. Not sexist, not racist just cold hard accountancy.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: theySeeme

1. You're confused about the member you're quoting.

2. You're confused about how business measure risk in regard to the sex of their employees.

1. You are too thirsty for conflict

2. Not at all, if you read my post I stated "in the business world it is considered a liability" - does this mean ALL businesses in the business world? No, of course not. If one were to say there is alot of poverty in the world, of course we aren't talking about the entire world.

Good bye.

originally posted by: rossacus
a reply to: Gryphon66

Just for the record..many people are walking around with these beliefs. I can't embed the sources but a simple search on Google will show you the surveys justifying why managers prefer not to employ women of child bearing age and employing those with young children. Not sexist, not racist just cold hard accountancy.

How do you know this again? Telepathy? Have you taken polls?

Also your initial "joke" (which it seems is now NOT a joke) was giving the fact that a woman can become pregnant as the 100% no questions asked explanation for salary disparity ...

Which is it now?

Joke or fact?

Not employing women at all or just not paying women an equal salary for equal work?

You don't seem to be able to keep up with what you are saying, or joking about, or whatever ...

As far as your proof ... are you talking about this poll from the UK? 40% of managers avoid hiring younger women to get around maternity leave?

A few observations:

1. One study doesn't prove much aside from what the participants in that study said ...

2. The majority of managers (60%) do not allow this reported illegal discrimination to affect their hiring practices ...

3. Of course, a decision NOT to hire women of child-bearing age is sexist, unfairly discriminatory and illegal

You are mistaken in virtually everything you've stated thus far, or joked about, as the case may be.

originally posted by: rossacus
a reply to: Gryphon66

Just for the record..many people are walking around with these beliefs. I can't embed the sources but a simple search on Google will show you the surveys justifying why managers prefer not to employ women of child bearing age and employing those with young children. Not sexist, not racist just cold hard accountancy.

He is too emotionally invested in this topic to have a civil debate, just leave it alone.

a reply to: theySeeme

Thirsty for conflict eh?

Not really. This is garden-variety stuff.

You were mistaken, you misspoke yourself; I point it out.

Now you seem to be sulking ... but I'm the emotional one LOL.

"Most people" don't believe as you do, or if they do, you have no proof (that you've presented).

Show us proof. Don't stomp off.

a reply to: theySeeme

On the nail. Very emotional response. First observation is funny though, not a joke, just funny.

Sooo ... the diatribe about a single errant job posting that was fairly rapidly removed as being exemplary of all racial discrimination (which does exist when the Right needs it for their argument, and doesn't exist when they don't) in this country seems to be petering out a bit.

So what's the consensus here among my friends on the Right ... only Black folks and Latinos are racist now?

Is that the new premise you're working on?

a reply to: crazyewok

I've talked a bunch on the affirmative action law to my minority friends...

Ask:
- when should this law end? When you are the majority? Should white people then at that time get affirmative action?

- don't you want to say you beat people for the job because you were the best candidate? Or because you were the best minority?

Laws like these are tools and nothing else for control.

Let's flip it a little for the apologist here... What if there was a state or federal job that they said only a Christian or a Jew need only apply for a janitor position (position has nothing to do with practicing or teaching religion).

Would that be OK?

For the slavery apologists.. come out and say it already... You want to have white slaves today. That's the way you act, because that seems to be the only thing to get past this issue.

how is this not racist?

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: theySeeme

There is nothing sinister going on here. This falls under the minority provisions/guidelines put in place to give others a fair chance (much in the same way women owned business get cuts and tax breaks + other amnieties).

But hey, if it makes you mad

Racism is racism.

If a applicant can only get the job because of their race and would not be able to be able to compete against whites and Asians on their own merit the they shouldn’t get the bloody job!

There is no such thing as "positive" discrimination! Just discrimination!

You are selectively ommitting facts to suit your little 'safety-mental' bubble, which is crazy.

These applicants are not only getting the job because of their race, of course they are also qualified. Not the sharpest knife in the box, are you?

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: theySeeme

Gotcha! So it's A-OK for the state to use my tax dollars to discriminate racially and along gender lines if they determine it's for the greater good?

Somehow, I think your attempts to rationalize this are a bit weak.

You still fail here.

You fail to grasp the fact that affirmative action was put in motion by John F. Kennedy, one of the only good guys, and he was assassinated (seems all of our good guys are eventually).

You fail to grasp the fact that affirmative action was put in motion by elected officials - officials elected by the people, and FAR MORE than just the president - all of those who voted to pass the bill were elected by the people as well.

This is what the people wanted, that's how democracy works. What you should be upset about is how your state uses your tax dollars to house innocent black people in prisons - for crimes they didn't commit. And your tax dollars that get used when these innocents get released and file lawsuits.

And by the way, affirmative action doesn't use or require your tax dollars, do some research. Not sure how you even got stars, I suspect the racist cloud is hovering over this topic (rightfully so, I mean read the title.)

I'm not even sure you pay taxes, I mean you havee 17,500 posts and registered in 2013, with an average of 31 posts per day. You are a full-time ATSER, I doubt the state benefits from you as far as taxes goes.