Member Since: 14th Jun 2014
22nd Jan 2016
First off, it seems we agree to give the lad a fair crack at least - so great to have some common ground!
It's only really point 1 of your "two things you had to say", that I take issue with - as I was one of the ones to draw the discrimination parallel.
If you found my comments "laughable" as in humorous, then bless you. It was after all meant to be a whimsical, tongue-in-cheek rant to convey a bit of light relief during self-assessment season. I even got one "thanks" I notice - which was most unexpected - hope they found it amusing! It made me chuckle as I was writing it anyway... I do hope no-one took it too seriously; after I posted it I did fleetingly think "gosh, I hope people realise it was a joke and I don't get reported!"
If you mean "laughable" as in my argument was derisible, then I'm looking forward to some solid logic behind why you think the discrimination is any less in this situation. As behind all the facetiousness (probably not a word), I believe there still lies a valid point to what I was saying. If you judge the chap purely on who he is, that is discrimination pure and simple.
To clarify, I didn't suggest the OP was discriminatory to ask the question. It is a very valid question. I only said the people who instantly called to flat reject the candidate based purely on who he was were being discriminatory. This I stand by.
I also don't say there is no risk, because there is - but you have to deal with it fairly. Give the lad an interview, and if it throws up any red flags around this risk then you have a bona fide reason to reject his candidacy. To flat reject from the outset is plain wrong, and just as wrong as any other form of discrimination. Maybe I'm missing something? If so please do enlighten me.
21st Jan 2016
then add a pinch of prejudice...
Gobsmacked at how many people have openly admitted they would definitely not hire someone purely based on them being related to a competitor. To my mind this flouts all manner of anti-discriminatory regulations; and if not the exact letter of the rules, then surely the spirit of them.
I find the easiest way to identify prejudice is to do a simple test. Change one factor in the argument, and ask yourself if you still feel the same way about it. So in this case, change the key factor from them being a competitor's relation to - say for example - if they were a particular gender. Would you still feel comfortable with your comments that you would flat refuse them employment based purely on who they are, regardless of - I dunno, call me old fashioned - maybe their merit or their CV or their personality? Next ask yourself why you didn't notice the prejudice in the first place.
Don't beat yourself up over it by the way - no doubt this is partly/largely because the media these days seem to love to place different forms of prejudice into some sort of obscure and highly subjective hierarchy, over which they themselves make up all the rules - eg make a joke about a Frenchman or an Aussie, that's fine apparently. Joke about an Irishman? - that is more borderline these days, but you still might be ok. Joke about a woman, or a Jew, or a black person, or a LGBTQXYZABC person?! - frogmarched to HR, lose your job, imprisoned for hate speech, ostracised by all your friends, even your own dog hates you now and sits the other side of the room; now stay in the corner and think about what you've done...
So why doesn't that same thing happen when you make a joke about a Frenchman - it's exactly the same prejudice! Is it just me, or have the very rules we apply to discern prejudice themselves become heavily prejudiced? Either we can joke and laugh inclusively about the foibles and quirks of each and every demographic, or we can't do it to any demographic. Currently we have the very worst of both worlds.
And when I say "worlds" that isn't a classist or racial thing... oh, sorry, by "racial" I meant to say xeno-relationally empowered... dig dig dig....
Oh right, so that is why they do it! - to keep everyone on the back foot constantly thinking about what they can and can't say without possibly offending someone, and basically to trample all over free speech - I get it now! Anyway, I digress with the shortcomings/quasi-Orwellian takeover by the broadcast and social media...
Where was I - oh yeah - So, I don't want to come across all self-righteous and/or naïve (no doubt I will though, and maybe I am a bit) - but to still hear this kind of blind prejudice in the 21st Century is frankly appalling. And I consider myself fairly right-wing (or maybe that is just because the "norm" is now so far to the left, that Bono is at risk of being labelled a fascist.)
Yet what you are doing by saying "definitely would never hire him in a million years" - that is real, genuine, pukka, genuine, unadulterated prejudice*! And everyone is perfectly ok with it!? I'm the only one to raise an issue so far? Have we really forgotten what ACTUAL prejudice is?
*(haha - I genuinely was just about to put 'kosher' in that list of adjectives - phew, lucky I stopped myself in time! I've taken a punt with 'pukka', as it is popularised in London these days, yet the origins are from the Hindi. Cockney is way down the bottom of the hierarchy of prejudice, so that's fine I'll get away with mimicking that. The Hindi origins might still get me into a bit of bother though - it is a bit of a risk.)
Or do we really all blindly follow the media and think that prejudice is something more like if I were to go: a rabbi, a priest and a minister walk into a bar...
- bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzztt -
*** This person's account has been terminated - code violation: bigot ***
Lose all your friends, lose your job, go to jail, do not pass Go, do not collect £200.