• JackGreenEarth@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    18 days ago

    Either of course. It just seems the former goes without saying and a large number of people support the latter.

    • Zachariah@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      18 days ago

      I assure you far more people are hired because they’re not part of a minority group than because they are.

      • JackGreenEarth@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        18 days ago

        I don’t know statistics on either, but anecdotally I know far more people critical of ‘normal’ discrimination than ‘positive’ discrimination

        • TheFriar@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          18 days ago

          But I think the point is, equally qualified people both have equal claim to the job. Adding in centuries of lost opportunities for being part of a minority group means that righting the balance makes sense.

          Think about it economically. Reparations are paid because of the massive imbalance in opportunity. Where do you stand on that?

          • JackGreenEarth@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            18 days ago

            You’re not helping the individuals who were discriminated on in the past, you’re favouring an individual who has no specific connection to other members or the discriminated group besides their shared characteristic, and did not choose to be a part of that group.