This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Ironic that you accuse me of missing the point when you don't seem to have understood either the original argument or my response. The standard of "legitimate business reason" is definitionally impossible for an IQ test, and an IQ test will also create the kind of disparate impact which means it needs to pass and meet that impossible standard (if it is an actual IQ test).
You claimed that companies sell and buy intelligence tests for "that very purpose", with the obvious implication being that this is evidence that such practices are not illegal. The reason that crypto companies violating the law in plain sight and carrying on with their illegal business for years before facing any kind of prosecution is relevant is that it is a direct rejoinder to your example.
Says who? That would be true only if an IQ test can never be "a reasonable measure of job performance." Griggs, 401 US at 436. And if that is the case, what is the problem with banning them?
But, of course, they aren't banned, and they can sometimes be a reasonable measure of job performance. Which is why they are often used re public safety employment.
No, that is not the implication. As I explicitly stated, those practices are not illegal. The evidence is rather meant to refute OP's claim that they are illegal in practice; ie, that compliance with the law is so difficult that companies do not engage in the practice, despite it being legal. That was OP's claim, and the fact that companies in fact ARE engaging in that practice is evidence that OP is wrong.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link