I'm sorry, but I read your post 3 times and still missed what you were trying to say.
I'm not surprised in the least.
The aforementioned day of Epiphany hasn't arrived yet.
This is plain privilege speaking right here.
Get something through your head.
As a matter of principle, any business owner has the right to hire whomever they want. No group, majority, minority, no demographic, no sexual orientation is owed anything. No business owed anyone a job. White straight males aren't owed anything, blacks aren't owed anything, women aren't owed anything, Asians, Hispanics and Trans people are owed precisely jack shit.
Therefore, it's not a "privilege" - the new buzzword with which hollow buffoonery drapes itself - it is in fact an inalienable right of the business owner to pick and choose
his staff, not yours, for
his company, not yours, whose salaries
he, not you, will be paying. If he picks an all-black team, so be it, If he chooses an all-female team, it's his prerogative. if he employs just trans people, good for him. So the people you see in the usual photos have the
right to be there, because both parties agreed to it of their own accord.
Got that?
Good.
The people bellowing about diversity seem to be betraying an ingrained fear: if left to its own devices, pure Meritocracy will not reward all demographics the same way.
Who, if anyone, is the racist here, then? The person who trusts that if merit alone is the deciding factor then significant differences in distribution between demographics will probably fade away over time, or the individual with so little faith in the ability of minorities to succeed fair and square that they would anxiously give them an artificial leg up at the direct expense of others?
And some of yall speak as if you saw a picture of 100 devs (white guys) working on Halo Infinite, it'll mean all 100 of those people were the best choices.
That's entirely possible. I'm not vouching for any particular choice in the past or in the future. This is a matter of principle. The key difference, though, is that some people just aren't afraid of where absolute Meritocracy might lead, including having entire teams without a single white or straight male. I'm not afraid of any of that, not in the least. But some people do seem to be afraid. What exactly about blind, absolute unguided meritocracy seems to bring out their inner coward?
It's sad how half the people here don't even realize that not having a diverse team, doesn't mean the best people were hired either.
I do. I completely agree that not having a diverse team is not a guarantee that the best have been chosen. The reverse, of course, is also true.
Diversity hires are unjust and the moral imperative is to fight back against injustice.
This is a HUGE LIE! The "market" isn't dictated by robots or some force that doesn't have emotions. the "market" is dictated by humans.
Yes and over time guess what happens to businesses led by humans who make irrational choice after irrational choice? The market tends to take care of those.
Capitalism, The Great Exfoliator.
And all humans have emotions. And those emotions led us to doing things that are unfair and/or bias at times.
Indeed. Diversity hires being a notable example of irrational unfairness.
- If you aren't for diversity, there's no way to know if you hired the best people.
Bogus unsubstantiated assertion.
People have been trying to fix the laws, but the majority in this country don't agree to fix the laws. The market does NOT work great.
You don't have the moral right to violate other people's rights. Their rights include the right to hire whoever they want to hire, provided both parties voluntarily agree to the exchange.
Somehow you feel you have Paradise on Earth all figured out and that gives you licence to go around dictating how other people absolutely must conduct their lives
when they're not trespassing on anybody else's freedoms.
To you, it's now a matter of passing legislation and enforcing it, forcing people under the latent threat of state violence, to conform. The role of the state is to protect individual rights. No individual rights are being violated when someone is hired because he and the company wanted it so.
But, no, the entire world should guide itself by the questionable moral code and the aprioristic abstract notions of what's fair of the local Malcom X. People have the full right to live their lives as they see fit,
provided they don't encroach upon the rights and freedoms of others.
Being hired by company X is not a right.
I agree with equal opportunity over equal outcomes. But the opportunity at times aren't equal. This thread proves why that's the case.
You
don't have the right to violate other people's sphere of sovereignty just because you woke up yesterday under the misguided impression you've got it all figured out and now the entire world should align itself with your notions of fairness.
You live your life and conduct business the way you see fit.
Other people will do just the same, thank you.