• Aceticon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    12 hours ago

    From what I’ve seen when those things were actually practiced, it’s somewhat different and broken into two parts:

    • One one side, seriously incompetent people from the group which is a recipient of “positive” discrimination get jobs they should never have gotten and the quality of their work is going to be noticed by everybody else as long as they’re around and will reflect on others of the same group because the very act of segregating some people based on highly visible characteristics for the purposes of receiving special treatment strengthens the view of them as a group in other people’s minds, which in turn strengthens views such as “they’re all the same”.
    • On the other side, the very competent people from the group which is a recipient of “positive” discrimination are seen by default by colleagues and even managers as inept, have to fight even harder for their competence to be recognized and often their ideas are just casually dismissed because everybody sees them as “somebody who only got the job because of the quotas”.

    From what I’ve observed first hand neither feels insecure: the former play the influences game even harder than the rest because they know with absolute certainty that they’re only were they are thanks to social and political games, whilst the second just get angry and frustrated because they’re not treated as equals - because they are not equals since they’re part of a group which got privileges others did not - and thus not respected for their competence.

    By creating a separate class of people, who don’t go have to pass as high a barrier as the rest, so called “positive” discrimination might land them the job but it also makes sure they’ll always be looked at as less competent, further reinforced in the minds of everybody else by those of that groups who are indeed “too incompetent for the job and wouldn’t have gotten it if it weren’t for quotas”

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      11 hours ago

      There are more than enough competent minorities to hire a couple for diversity. And hiring 10 diversity hires, out of a hundred, isn’t going to meaningfully impact opportunities for competent non minorities. This is some conservative bullshit trying to sneak in the idea that minorities are dumber than white people.

      • Aceticon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 hours ago

        Sure mate, it can’t be that your “‘Equality’ But Different For Some Than For Others” is neoliberal cosplay of “left” rather than something genuinely left-wing AND that by preserving the differentiated treatment of people based on characteristics they were born with you’re just maintaining the very same mindset as the Fascists (that people’s gender/etnicity/sexual-orientation determines how they should be treated), no, no, no, it must be that it’s the other person (whose history of posts is there for all to see - so feel free to prove it) is a “conservative”.

        By the way, when I described my conclusions of my own experience, I never said that the group who was getting “positive” discrimination was a minority. Funny how you jumped to conclusions.

        • Maggoty@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          7 hours ago

          Funny how you parroted conservative propaganda and continue to do so while acting concerned.

          For anyone not familiar, minorities have had generations of poverty and trauma baked into them. You cannot transition directly to a complete meritocracy and magically repair that. They will remain oppressed and poverty stricken because it’s a systemic cycle. Affirmative action breaks that cycle.