Split Thread Diversity Equity and Inclusion and merit in employment etc

[johnny karate]

Yes I said they should sue.

But they didn’t, and yet you still insist slander, libel, and fraud happened while also insisting that racial discrimination didn’t happen unless there was a lawsuit.

That you cannot see the glaring contradiction here is the crux of the problem.

 

[johnny karate]

I consider violations of the civil Rights act to be much more serious than libel laws.

Violations of the civil Rights act affect us all. And should be taken very seriously. Not simply used to slander somebody on Facebook.

A double standard and special pleading to rationalize the double standard.

You’re doing great.

 

[Hercules56]

But they didn’t, and yet you still insist slander, libel, and fraud happened while also insisting that racial discrimination didn’t happen unless there was a lawsuit.

That you cannot see the glaring contradiction here is the crux of the problem.

Violating the Civil Rights Act is a much bigger deal than slander, in my view.

 

[johnny karate]

Violating the Civil Rights Act is a much bigger deal than slander, in my view.

We're talking about standards of evidence and how you use differing ones for things you want to believe and things you don't.

 

[Hercules56]

We're talking about standards of evidence and how you use differing ones for things you want to believe and things you don't.

Yes, I have a higher standard of evidence for violations of the US Civil Rights Act, which is a VERY big deal that affects ALL Americans.

Accusations of someone violating this law should always be brought to court.

 

[bruto]

Violating the Civil Rights Act is a much bigger deal than slander, in my view.

It's also a bigger deal for the defendant, who in many cases will be wealthy and powerful and politically connected, while the plaintiff is none of those things. A paper trail is hard to establish in most cases, and a "gentleman's agreement" of like minds leaves none.

As for why slander litigation doesn't occur, there may be many reasons, some good, like a cost benefit analysis that says it's cheaper and less harmful to ignore it, especially if it's spurious or comes from a disreputable source; and some not so good, like the realization, especially in this age when "fake news" seems a passable defense, it's less dangerous to engage in a bickering match than in a trial where truth might actually be presented.

Either way, I think the lack of lawsuits has little relevance to whether the charges are true.

 

[Hercules56]

It's also a bigger deal for the defendant, who in many cases will be wealthy and powerful and politically connected, while the plaintiff is none of those things. A paper trail is hard to establish in most cases, and a "gentleman's agreement" of like minds leaves none.

As for why slander litigation doesn't occur, there may be many reasons, some good, like a cost benefit analysis that says it's cheaper and less harmful to ignore it, especially if it's spurious or comes from a disreputable source; and some not so good, like the realization, especially in this age when "fake news" seems a passable defense, it's less dangerous to engage in a bickering match than in a trial where truth might actually be presented.

Either way, I think the lack of lawsuits has little relevance to whether the charges are true.

Yes, we know you do.

 

[arthwollipot]

Yes I said they should sue.

And you honestly can't think of any reasons why someone might not?

 

[Hercules56]

And you honestly can't think of any reasons why someone might not?

Personal choice.

 

[arthwollipot]

Personal choice.

And for what reasons might someone make that choice, do you think?

 

[Hercules56]

And for what reasons might someone make that choice, do you think?

Cuz they might be suing someone poor and won't be able to get much money out of them.

Unlike big companies like Disney which have billions of dollars.

 

[arthwollipot]

You can do better than that.

 

[johnny karate]

Yes, I have a higher standard of evidence for violations of the US Civil Rights Act, which is a VERY big deal that affects ALL Americans.

Accusations of someone violating this law should always be brought to court.

You have no standard of evidence for libel, slander, or fraud. Only personal belief.

And that you seem to think there haven't been numerous cases of racial discrimination brought to court remains hilarious.

 

[johnny karate]

You can do better than that.

Assumes facts not in evidence.

 

[Hercules56]

You have no standard of evidence for libel, slander, or fraud. Only personal belief.

And that you seem to think there haven't been numerous cases of racial discrimination brought to court remains hilarious.

Thats a lie, i never stated such a thing.

 

[johnny karate]

Thats a lie, i never stated such a thing.

I didn't make any claims about what you stated.

 

[EHocking]

Cuz they might be suing someone poor and won't be able to get much money out of them.

Unlike big companies like Disney which have billions of dollars.

Ah, so your argument is not for civil equity, just how much cash you can make.
Suing a company over civil rights should not be about making money from them, it should be about social justice.

But that’s not the American way if your posts are any indication,

Sue for cash not for principle.

 

[Hercules56]

Ah, so your argument is not for civil equity, just how much cash you can make.
Suing a company over civil rights should not be about making money from them, it should be about social justice.

But that’s not the American way if your posts are any indication,

Sue for cash not for principle.

Whatever...

 

[EHocking]

Whatever...

Ah, the defence of the indefendable

 

[Trausti]

I wasn't originally asked about lawsuits. I was asked about the existence of discrimination. I provided evidence of that. The lawsuit request was an after-the-fact goal-post shift. Why would I respond to such bad faith engagement from dishonest actors? I'd just as soon try to convince a Trump supporter that they aren't an anti-science, fascist, mouth-breathing moron.

But it's not evidence of racial discrimination. It's class discrimination. The folks who do these "studies" seem curiously disinterested in seeing if lower-class White sounding names also received lower call backs. These "studies" are tailored for a pre-deterimined outcome. Do you think names like Ben Carson, Ryan Coogler, or Jordan Peele would be on the no-call-back list?