No you don’t. You made that up.
You aren’t wrong, but rationality is not the standard by which we judge discrimination in this society. If it’s discrimination of a demographic on a particular list, it’s bad. It doesn’t matter how rational it is.
I think this is right, though I think our current system doesn’t have too many misfires. I would prefer a system of rebuttable presumptions of impropriety for listed attributes.
Even more than that, I’d prefer a honest disclosure of the standard we’re using for impropriety. As I said, I think I mostly agree with the classification (and I also think we should rationally tolerate some misclassification if that’s what minimizes impropriety, i.e. I think it’s right to err on the side of false positives than false negatives). But being honest about it makes it a lot easier to follow.
People accept reasons when they’re given. I think liberalism has accepted its own conclusions to such an extent that it sees a request for reasons as tantamount to a rejection of the conclusions. That’s a terrible way to convince people, and worse, it means eventually most liberals don’t have good reasons to believe what they believe, and you get nonsense like the notion that saying certain sets of ideas are more dangerous than others is bigoted. That’s a silly misunderstanding of liberalism’s own ideas.
To bring this tangent back on topic, I think ageism is a similar example. We take a thing that actually strongly affects how people behave, and deem it a trait we can’t consider when we’re asked to predict a person’s behavior. Ism-ification proceeds by ruling out a discussion of how that thing being ism-ified actually bears on the question at hand. It’s treated as though the -ism is enough argument. It isn’t.
I think a lot of the lack of perceieved misfires is familiarity. It’s been forever since race-based hiring was a thing; very few people who come here were even alive when it was a thing (if youd don’t count affirmative action, I mean). So any sort of fair business practice or concept that would have needed that to exist doesn’t even enter our thoughs and we don’t see a misfire.
But on the other hand, consider the restaurant Hooters as it once was. If a short, fat man applies as a waiter at Hooters, the answer should be ‘no’, and sex discrimination is the reason- the entire point of the restaurant is “You go here to look at the waitresses’ tits”. So is it rational that such a restaurant applies sex discrimination in it’s hiring? Or, is that the sort of business that is inherently discriminatory and shouldn’t exist in the United States? I would consider disallowing such a business to be a major misfire of the system, but in a few decades maybe people will be aghast that such a thing was allowed, and Hooters will be mentioned in the same breath as negro drinking fountains.
Even that doesn’t go far enough. One could read this sentence as an implicit agreement that rejection of the conclusions is an evil, and that questioning is only permitted in a ‘devil’s advocate’ context. I’m sure that’s reading far more into your statement than you intend, but my point is to agree with you about how far liberalism has gotten from its roots in rational inquiry.
I don’t think understanding enters into it most of the time. I’ve written a lot here about the intellectual dishonesty of the left. I think the sort of pheneomenon you describe above isn’t an attempt at understanding anything. I think it’s a tactical word game that has been proven as an effective strategy in silencing opponents in a far more efficient manner than rational engagement. If I can find a way to call you a bigot, no matter how convoluted, there is a sense in which I win and you lose. I a lot of superficially academic work and discussion is actually a veneer for that sort of base interaction. That’s what I was referring to in my first post in this thread to you- rationality doesn’t enter into it. Discrimination-talk has been completely or nearly-completely co-opted by this word game.
I agree with this as far as it goes, but I can’t accept that age affects a person’s behavior more strongly than sex; they seem about the same to me. Race seems much less of an influence than either of those to me.
The younger group (born after the 1960s) wants to become more wealthy by getting money and other things from the older group (so-called “baby-boomers” - born before the 1970s). The reason for that is the greed! Greed is supported by greedy politicians and greedy lobbyists, if they benefit from it, and they do, because the younger group elects those politicians and lobbyists who promise them everything by benefitting from them and the promised “everything”. By this “Robin-Hood-politics”, the younger group, their “Robin-Hood”-lobbyists and their “Robin-Hood”-politicians benefit, because the older group is averagely wealthier than the younger group.
It is the “spoiling” of fruit - too much sugar, not enough drought.
Early 1960’s and married to an early 1950’s man. We and most of our friends just want basic comfort not wealth. Power and wealth leads to betrayal and pain. I work for a family that takes care of those that are helpful, above and beyond law. They started off dirt poor.
If you consider employment history as a form of stereotyping, then both the young and old job seeker are in the same boat because they each have to produce a work history. Therefore, the stereotyping is applied equally to them. Unless you want to argue that a longer history (of the older worker) produces more stereotyping or that a shorter history (of the younger worker) produces more stereotyping.
I see. Experience and being good at a job are actually liabilities. 
Is everything in an organization in 2016 really new?
Somebody who uses those apps on a daily basis can’t be very proficient if he/she learned it later in life? A bold and unsubstantiated claim.
Why not bet on the lower academic scores and IQ scores of blacks in the USA?
One can’t say that, it’s not PC. 
they dont want to give away their money
there’s cuter options to which people can offer their help
there’s hotter options for people to fuck
theres stronger options for physical demands
theres mentally quicker options for problem solving
old people succeeded at their goal of making it better for subsequent generations. i suppose it sucks to acutely feel this
Like I said: It is the greed.
They should "give away their money“? Why?
Greed is the answer.
To want basic comfort and not wealth, as you said, is the normal way of most bourgeois or middle-class people. That is absolutely okay - in my opinion. Globalism economically means the synthesis of capitalism and communism, and no one knows which one of the both is more considered in globalism. Is it capitalism, or is it communism, or is it exactly a „50%/50%-thing“? - Howsoever. The formerly creeping expropriation of the Western bourgeois or middle-class people has been accelerating its speed more and more.
And many do, because it’s too expensive to manage a house for a retired person. Many sell their homes just so they are able to take care of medical expenses.
Wait till it’s your turn, gib!
There is almost a complete disregard for totality of human condition (old age) in the West. It’s like you stop existing in social consciousness after a certain age, or just become irrelevant. And that begs the question: what is the purpose of creating a society in the first place? Instead of cutting the young generation from the past (and future), why not preserve the continuum in its totality and keep the old people as active participants in social consciousness? Just concentrating on the cutest, hottest, or strongest as representative to the point of exclusivity is also neglecting the rest of the human condition and making society shallow and superficial. There is more to being human than just being young and beautiful. It just seems like a very shallow representation of human experience, especially when encountered in ‘advanced’ societies such as ours.
One thing that would keep homes, put your home in the name of a young heir. Legally own no property. But , many egos can’t handle that so they lose all and their kids lose any inheritance so that hurts that generation.
It’s my understanding that Hooters does and is legally allowed to discriminate in its hiring, because it has a legitimate reason to discriminate. It’s like a pg-13 strip club, so being a woman is a qualification for the job.
As for whether that should exist, I do think it’s a bad thing, but not the kind of bad thing that can be effectively punished away by the state. It seems to be a symptom of a shallow male sexuality, and I think it will die out over time, because it has in wealthy, well-educated, and secure areas (and with the assumption that over time more areas will be so wealthy, well-educated, and secure). But criminalizing symptoms doesn’t treat social ailments; if Hooters goes away, it will be due to a cultural change, and I’d say it isn’t the government’s role to enforce culture.
I mean, I clearly accept many of the conclusions, but I think there are good reasons to accept them. To the extent rejection of the conclusions is in spite of good reasons to support them, that seems like an evil. But beyond that, if the conclusions are rejected for good reasons, ones that are understandable if not compelling, you’re right that that isn’t and shouldn’t be considered an evil. Even irrational conclusions aren’t evil when they aren’t intentionally dishonest. I try to go by the standard of good faith, and by those lights most conclusions made by the average person, rational and irrational, are not evil. Often wrong, but not evil.
Sure, but everyone tries to avoid rational arguments, because rational arguments are hard and might accidentally lead to conclusions contrary to our interests. That’s why we talk about “death taxes” and “black lives matter” instead of rational tax policy and criminal justice.
As much as I hate that kind of discussion, I can’t deny that it’s meta-rational: it works to get people to vote. If our goal is to reduce taxes or reform the criminal justice system, inflammatory rhetoric can be the rational course of action if it gets poorly informed and unthoughtful people to support a cause that is supported by good reasons.
I think there are two variables that need to be taken into account. One is how much an attribute affects behavior, and the other is how much people generally think an attribute affects behavior. Even if sex is twice as relevant as age in predicting behavior, if people think sex is 100 times as relevant, it may be worth instituting a presumption of impropriety.
For age, I think people generally estimate the cost/value of age accurately, so a presumption will likely not do much to reduce impropriety, and while increasing the false positives.
Yes, but they also both have an age…
My point was that we’re trying to evaluate an individual, possessed of all the complexity individuality entails, based on very limited information. So we fill the gaps with stereotyping: this candidate was a “manager”, that means she’s responsible and comfortable in a leadership role. That’s not always true, we’ve got assumptions about what the attribute means, and we reach conclusions based on those assumptions.
That’s just to say that reading into a candidate’s attributes can’t be an inherently illegitimate way of evaluating them. If age is informative, predictive of how a person will perform in a role, it is legitimate to consider it. The fact that stereotypes don’t apply to all members of a class is not disqualifying; some managers are irresponsible and don’t lead anyone, be can still consider their time as a manager in evaluating them as a candidate.
Let’s say you’re hiring for a construction job, and someone applies who is 105. You haven’t met them, you don’t know anything about them, you have to decide based on age alone. What are the odds that you will accurately determine whether or not this worker is right for the role?
Now, same question, but replace “105” with “black”. Then replace “construction” with whatever you want, and give me a version that’s as obviously true. “Sunscreen model”? “Lead role in a George Washington biopic”? You have to get pretty specific for race to be a legitimate factor. But for advanced age, it’s probably easier to list jobs where there aren’t legitimate concerns.
I think Ageism is a thing, because sometimes I get this nightmarish daydream where I am an old man in a retirement home. And I absolutely hate it there, and society has gone to shit, and everything is the opposite of awesome.
And I will try to talk to the nurses about an important emergency, but they just laugh at me because I am old and don’t take me seriously because I am male. And I am a total genius but noone takes me seriously because I am old and male and they just assume I have dementia and don’t listen to me nor try to understand what I am saying.
This is what ageism means.
I hope you will not end up in a home in your old age but will instead have a beautiful sexy lesbian girlfriend with blow
job lips and tight vagina who will be your soul mate and queen and every thing you have ever wanted in a life partner
I hope so too
I can agree with that, but it is not the respective younger group alone, it is the whole greed system that benefits from an alleged(ly) „social injustice“ by expropriating those who are allegedly "responsible“ for that "problem“. The fact is almost always that this allegedly "responsible“ people (here in this example: the older people in the West) are victims of this greed system. The example of the older people in the West shows this clearly. They are or will soon be retired, thus get money and services for not working, not being needed anymore. The greed system is an expropriation system; so it must and does always find a group for expropriation. Regardless which kind of group it is: the greed system is merely interested in expropriation and the legalization of expropriation, thus in getting rich and powerful by lies and deception (Lug und Trug).
Not sure how you are applying expropriating towards seniors, could be not enough coffee yet. My paychecks, since 15 yrs old, have always had portions taken out for old age as have many my age and older. That money was to be held for us. I don’t see how it is taking from others.
Like I said: The greed system works creepingly, but it is nevertheless obvious how it works. The situation in the US is perhaps not like the situation in Europe, but demographical aspects have always played an important role in economy and politics, and the greed system strikes its terror into people’s hearts in the USA too, probably even more than in Europe.