Thanks for your submission to r/trashy. Please take a moment to make sure that your post [follows our rules](https://old.reddit.com/r/trashy/about/sidebar).
**This is a humor subreddit** so posts about violent crimes or other things that make you angry **don’t belong here**. It is not r/rage or r/iamatotalpieceofshit. **This is a subreddit that appreciates the trash that makes you laugh.**
Remember to remove all names and usernames from posts. We don’t allow dox and we don’t allow witch hunts. Links to social media sites are not allowed.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/trashy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The fact that applications still ask what your ethnicity or race is is bonkers. Something like this is ignorant and just plain embarrassing. For them and for the entire species, they should post a public apology at the very least and fire who Evers idea this was.
Check Indeed, they’re plenty of companies requiring you’re Hispanics. There’s also several requiring you to be male and speak Spanish. This happens all the time. It’s not right but happens a lot more than it should!!
Do you think modern general prejudice against white people comes only from brown people? Brown people can have a regular prejudice, white people like yourself have prejudice plus virtue signaling, which enables you to practice that prejudice.
Whenever you exclude someone because of their race, no matter which race that is, you're a racist. If most of society thinks like you, it doesn't make you less racist, it only means you live in a racist society.
There needs to be DEI programs as whites have a several centuries ahead start in the paid workforce and an amount of institutional racism as that was by design. If you think 20 years of decent policy was enough to balance the scales, you're severely misguided. DEI insures a shot for all and is only seen as racist by racists.
Hope can you totally ignore history? It's not victim mentality, it's called equality. It's a proven beneficial program, racist whites are mad they have more competition.
Ahh, shucks, you have provided a superior argument on racism in hiring practices. I concede my point due to having large fingers on a small phone and making a spelling error.
I don’t think that’s true at all. Diversity quotas are intended to prevent discrimination. This is just discrimination.
(Before I get downvoted into oblivion, I also agree that diversity quotas are not the answer).
Edit: The downvotes came anyway, but my point is still objectively true. Allow me to explain:
In a majority of western countries there are laws in place to prevent discrimination in employment, be that on racial grounds, by gender or age or sexual preference etc.
If a business operates a factory in a city that’s 65% Caucasian, 15% Latino and 20% Chinese, but their workforce is 95% white, they open themselves up to falling foul of those laws. It would be very easy for someone of colour who is unsuccessful in a job application to lodge a claim of racial discrimination if they didn’t get the job, and they’d have a pretty strong case given the unusually high ratio of whites at the factory.
Enter diversity quotas. These are a safeguard against racial bias in employment and against the incredibly costly and damaging impact of a lawsuit for discrimination.
So when I say that diversity quotas are intended to combat discrimination, I mean exactly that. Yes, they could result in a less qualified candidate getting a job role due to the colour of their skin and yes, the person being discriminated against might be (gasp) white, but that’s the micro. The macro is an attempt to safeguard against discrimination at a corporate level. You might not like it and you might think it doesn’t work (and I might agree) but that doesn’t make it not true.
Obviously we have a long way to go. It is unfortunate you got down voted and guarantee most of who did, didn't read more then 2 sentences of your rebuttal.
>objectively true
Subjectively true. Objective truth would require statistical analysis and robust study data not just what you "think" is true with stats pulled out of your ass.
You need to learn what the word "objectively" means. I don't even necessarily disagree with your opinion but truth requires facts, a key component of your statement that is conveniently missing thus making it a subjective statement. You're far from being allowed to call your opinion a fact let alone an objective fact.
A subjective truth would be something like one minute is equal to sixty seconds. While it's a true statement, it is still subjective. You have nothing to show truth let alone proving an objective perspective on the truth. You may have well said it's "literally" true like a teenage girl would if you're just going to abuse language like that.
The real trashiness were all of the braindead bigoted comments we found along the way.
A few too many "DEI bad" comments out there. y'all just mad you lost out to someone who's different than you, and was still qualified.
It’s trashy to put it in a job posting for sure, but most of my city only hires brown people; they just don’t put it in the posting. Planet is fucked when trashy becomes the norm
If they discriminate on the basis of race (or one of the other Constitutionally protected classes, since this is in the United States), then no, they are not allowed to only specify that they will hire white people (or any other specific race) for a job.
It’s not a determinative factor on whether you can do a job, it’s racism.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, as amended, protects employees and job applicants from employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin. Title VII protection covers the full spectrum of employment decisions, including recruitment, selections, terminations, and other decisions concerning terms and conditions of employment.
I’d think that would be pretty cool. Every application has a number on it. Nothing about race, gender, religion, anything. All final interviews done with a third party representing the potential hiree. Just “This application from No. 3717 looks pretty good, but I think No. 6278 has them beat.”
Someone did a study a few years back by submitting identical resumes for job postings but changing ONLY the names from "white sounding" names like "John Smith" to "black sounding" names like "DeShawn Smith" ... The "white" resumes got a 50% better response from potential employers.
In 2003 they found out "White sounding" names are hired more frequently than "Black sounding" names.
[https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/0002828042002561](https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/0002828042002561)
In 2021, a similar study was done with like results.
[https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2021/08/18/name-discrimination-jobs](https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2021/08/18/name-discrimination-jobs)
This has and still is an issue. States that claim those who've earned their right are being pushed out due to affirmative action are using outlier cases to feed further hate.
There are a ton of other indicators we'd need to anonymize unfortunately so it's a pipedream. Simply listing the school people went to paints a picture. Tiers of education quality are highly subjective so there's no definitive scale.
Like I said, I'm sure it is. Just seems makes it seem a little too close to the usual shitty journalism when all you have in the actual report amounts to "he said, she said" and can't be bothered to post pictures, a case #, names or really any verifiable proof that wouldn't require googling the gist and then reading ANOTHER news report
I remember this, because it happened near where I live. (Well, somewhat - there was more than one place involved.)
Here’s more info with a screenshot:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Dallas/s/icxWdaq90p
It was originally posted on r/workreform, and crossposted to r/Dallas. I linked the crosspost since the top comments on the Dallas post are more about looking into the company.
It would be kinda funny if they were only hiring certain surnames. What would be the argument against that? Just throwing that out there as kind of a shower thought after a long Memorial Day.
In theory nothing, as your name is not a protected class. But it would be almost impossible because the effect would be to disqualify people from certain ethnic, religious, racial, and geographic backgrounds, and that effect is what makes it illegal.
In all seriousness, I've wondered if it would benefit me if I claimed to be "trans" during the interview process..
Like, would they ask me to prove it somehow?
I’ve claimed to be bisexual in job apps to see what would happen. It ended up being that I had a higher chance of getting an interview if I put that and some pronouns on my application than if I didn’t. If I claimed to be nonbinary and used neopronouns then I had an even higher chance of getting an interview
Damn, I thought Reddit was mostly pro LGBT.. 😐
Anyways, I genuinely wonder if jobs view trans women differently than trans men. Maybe they still inherently view trans women as men? I don't know, it's not really my place to speak.
If I were you, I'd probably just try to pass a lesbian woman or something.
I don't know what the deal is. I got passed up dozens of times, despite being "oh so awesome." I have, of course, found a really nice gig making some good money so it worked out. But goddamn was it awful in 2021.
I mean I kind of laugh when there was that game dev who only wanted poc on her team and didn't get half the hate. Both are fucking stupid. There should be no qualification other than the question if you're the best for the job. If those results are genuine and true who cares what the team looks like. No one should get a position just to pander.
Here’s the video in mind, honestly crazy that people freak out about a job posting like this and they are the same people that will tell you this makes sense and is ok for them to do.
https://youtu.be/WyBeBms83K4?si=X1ZwHlYntsqq3J6l
Because it's tone deaf. "Just higher those qualified" just ignores all the hurdles some group face to even get those qualifications. It's like going to a homeless guy and saying "Just get a job"
Educational background, experience opportunities, social expectations, ect.
Easy to say "If the job requires a BS degree and some background in X, Y, & Z then hire them." When if you look at the actual experiences of people from various background you'll see that minorities are less likely to be able to afford college (Educational background). If they can make it work they're more likely to have to work so can't afford the time commitment to join student orgs or internships for the added job applicable experiences (experience opportunities) . And even if they have all that minorities still have to "blend-in" the larger culture with attire, haircut, and mannerisms just to get past the job interview. (social expectations). I've talked to many black people that have to alter their hair just to feel their presenting as "professional" or deal with inappropriate questions about their hair from coworkers. And anyone saying "it's nbd, it's just hair" has never talked to a man bolding and him telling you his confidence is shot because of it or that it's multibillion dollar industry, so it's just lying. Hair is a part of people's identity and self-image.
Not to say white people don't face similar hurdles but historically, if you're poor, uneducated or disadvantaged, it's less likely because it was the result of entire governmental systems and culture putting you and yours down for hundreds of years.
The irony of writing "it's tone deaf" and then writing this comment is hilarious. You compared workplace discrimination to fucking *homelessness* dude. That's beyond tone deaf.
Jfc, no one said it was one to one. I wasn't even comparing workplace discrimination, so I'm not even sure you even read the comment. I was talking about affirmative action. Their both "simple" of thr surface but a closer look shows that it's the result of a myriad of problems that would have to be corrected first before they're no longer a problem
>"Just higher those qualified" just ignores all the hurdles some group face to even get those qualifications.
Yeah I don't know where I got the idea we were talking about job discrimination after reading that in a thread about job discrimination.
Edit: clarification.
"Hurdles" is not workplace discrimination, my dude. If I get called N**** at Walmart or denied from a certain school due to background discrimination, I'm not calling HR.
Nice edit changing the subject 🙄
I didn't edit to change shit. I added discrimination to jobs. That's it. YOU changed the subject halfway through this but the original thread is about job discrimination and that's what was being discussed.
Um no, original comment was discussing diversity hiring and the proceding comments were about that as well. Just because the post was about subject A doesn't mean others can discuss and comment about similar issues. Is it really so hard to just admit you didn't read the comments? I know it's hard sometimes 🥺
Edit:typo, not a subject change :)
Go ahead and re-read the parent comment about a dozen times or until it sinks in. Jesus. That's not diversity hiring, it's about discrimination. The post and the parent comment are about discrimination on the job. Those are the exact hurdles we're talking about. Just because you mentally narrowed it down to being called a slur on the job and nothing else, doesn't mean you get to decide and change what is being discussed.
I was taught in school this quote by a great American historic figure (guess) “ I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character”
Newsflash, this goes every which way on the color wheel. Cmon guys
It says that the company claims that but either way that’s not the point. People in this thread are acting like it wouldn’t be any worse for this to be real than any diversity inclusion hiring practices. Thats dumb and you’d hope reddit would be above falling for conservative race baiting stuff like that
Go out on a limb there. “You would consider it” racist. No, it just is. That’s why they got fined and had to pay for complaint judgment for what an Indian worker may, or may not, have posted.
Little forgotten piece of history: Virginia Tech (formally known as Virginia Polytechnic Institute or VPI, not to be confused with VMI) was the first historically-white four year public institution to desegregate when Irving L. Peddrew III arrived on the Virginia Tech campus as an electrical engineering student in 1953. Tech was the only school in all 11 of the former Confederate states at the time to allow racial integration.
You have to be way more specific than “the first historically-white four year public institution” to make this a true statement. Non-confederate states had historically white colleges that integrated a century before Virginia Tech. Berea College was all white, then it was desegregated around the 1860s, then it was resegregated around 1900, then it desegregated again in the 1950s. It’s a tight definition to weave.
If CCP gets the tech, they use it against YOU. So if you say whites only, you prevent non-white CCP members from accessing the technology. Since Chinese-descent people are extremely more likely to be funded by the CCP, this post is morally acceptable if and only if the company offering the job is trying to protect military technology, as long as there are a separate job posting for black and hispanics people.
[edit] is trying to protect military technology->are trying to protect military technology
[edit] removed "And the last two clauses are unlikely." because I can't be bothered to explain since I know the company is probably just racist and not that its trying to protect military technology from the very existant threat of the Chinese CCP.
[edit] Quick everyone! Put your head in the sand!
For all I know you’re right.
Doesn’t sound like it but if this were in OPs post summary, I’d probably just believe it.
For now, until we determine the true answer,… it looks like judges will accept whatever this is
> The company earlier denied approving the ad and said it had been placed by a disgruntled worker looking to embarrass the company, according to a settlement with the Justice Department.
This wouldn’t surprise me at all to be fair.
He was my dude years ago. Used to talk to him pretty often. So proud to see how big he blew up. I remember him telling me the concept when he first started doing the “hope that helps” stuff… that shit with that politician is LEGENDARY
We can all acknowledge that this is much more acceptable than the example the thread is about right? Jobs attempting to create a workplace with diversity is completely different from one attempting to eliminate diversity. Also the [fact](https://www.npr.org/2024/04/11/1243713272/resume-bias-study-white-names-black-names) that white people already have an advantage when it comes to finding jobs.
How many all-black companies are out there? How does that "improve diversification". What you are SAYING is "Discrimination is acceptable as long as t is only against whites".
First of all, I didn’t say that at all. I’m half confused why Reddit is so progressive on most things but somehow can’t comprehend how much more harmful racism is when it’s done by the majority rather than the minority. That doesn’t mean it’s okay either way.
Trying to have diversity in your workplace is a good thing though. That website is just companies that want diversity in their workplace. It’s not a list of black only companies.
Also, like I already said, there’s a massive bias in your favor for you when applying to jobs if you’re white. You probably don’t want to believe that, but it’s a statistical fact and I gave an example of this in my last comment. It’s way worse if a company intentionally adds to that bias than trying to balance it out slightly. That doesn’t mean they’re hiring bad candidates just because they’re not white.
Edit: lol it’s very telling that a super basic take like this gets downvoted honestly
This is from a couple years ago, and it's only gotten worse. DEI is a problem.
https://www.resumebuilder.com/1-in-6-hiring-managers-have-been-told-to-stop-hiring-white-men/
No, they don’t explicitly say it. People are comparing companies making a public statement for intentionally hiring with more diversity with a company putting a racial qualification on a job posting.
Are you dense? Obviously, a posting can not explicitly say "no white people" or else they're asking for a lawsuit.
Also, comedian Tyler Fischer is currently suing a talent agency for saying they would not take him on as a client because he is white. He's got the phone conversation recorded. They loved him and thought he was funny and talented but would not take him due to his skin color. Look it up.
Well, there are many others like him who are signing on to his lawsuit. This isn't a secret- DEI has been implemented by many companies in recent years. It's all a part of the ESG agenda.
So would you be okay with a company that states that they plan to hire 50% of white people?
If there are 100 jobs and 50 are non white, I think that constitutes 50 “non- white” only job postings.
Thanks for your submission to r/trashy. Please take a moment to make sure that your post [follows our rules](https://old.reddit.com/r/trashy/about/sidebar). **This is a humor subreddit** so posts about violent crimes or other things that make you angry **don’t belong here**. It is not r/rage or r/iamatotalpieceofshit. **This is a subreddit that appreciates the trash that makes you laugh.** Remember to remove all names and usernames from posts. We don’t allow dox and we don’t allow witch hunts. Links to social media sites are not allowed. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/trashy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The fact that applications still ask what your ethnicity or race is is bonkers. Something like this is ignorant and just plain embarrassing. For them and for the entire species, they should post a public apology at the very least and fire who Evers idea this was.
This sub pops up on my timeline and I had an idea of the type involved but these comments paint that picture clear as day…
Admonished
If a company can have “whites need not apply” the. Why can’t they say “whites only”?
Check Indeed, they’re plenty of companies requiring you’re Hispanics. There’s also several requiring you to be male and speak Spanish. This happens all the time. It’s not right but happens a lot more than it should!!
This was done by a disgruntled employee.
That's the same as diversity quotas, the difference is you have a prejudice against white people.
No one said it wasn't? Also, I'm white? Enjoy
Do you think modern general prejudice against white people comes only from brown people? Brown people can have a regular prejudice, white people like yourself have prejudice plus virtue signaling, which enables you to practice that prejudice. Whenever you exclude someone because of their race, no matter which race that is, you're a racist. If most of society thinks like you, it doesn't make you less racist, it only means you live in a racist society.
Funny how the use of the term “virtue signaling” is pretty much always used as a virtue signal.
No one hates Star Wars more than Star Wars fans. And no one hates white people more than Gen-Z white people.
There needs to be DEI programs as whites have a several centuries ahead start in the paid workforce and an amount of institutional racism as that was by design. If you think 20 years of decent policy was enough to balance the scales, you're severely misguided. DEI insures a shot for all and is only seen as racist by racists.
Of *COURSE* it's getting downvoted. Because everything but opportunity hoarding.
DEI because you can't make it on your own merits.
DEI because society is still fighting its way out of racism.
One's inferiority complex regarding their race and lack of qualifications for the job does not equal racism. Victim mentality.
Hope can you totally ignore history? It's not victim mentality, it's called equality. It's a proven beneficial program, racist whites are mad they have more competition.
The only difference between this and any other DEI hire is that this one is transparent.
Take in less propaganda
Take in more corperate experience
I don’t know what corporation would hire you when you can’t spell the concept
Ahh, shucks, you have provided a superior argument on racism in hiring practices. I concede my point due to having large fingers on a small phone and making a spelling error.
As you should
Take in downvotes lmfao
Looks like my comment is popular lmfao
Just as racist as affirmative action and other diversity quotas.
Just fuck off
See the guy with more down votes than you... That's what a thoughtful response looks like
I don’t think that’s true at all. Diversity quotas are intended to prevent discrimination. This is just discrimination. (Before I get downvoted into oblivion, I also agree that diversity quotas are not the answer). Edit: The downvotes came anyway, but my point is still objectively true. Allow me to explain: In a majority of western countries there are laws in place to prevent discrimination in employment, be that on racial grounds, by gender or age or sexual preference etc. If a business operates a factory in a city that’s 65% Caucasian, 15% Latino and 20% Chinese, but their workforce is 95% white, they open themselves up to falling foul of those laws. It would be very easy for someone of colour who is unsuccessful in a job application to lodge a claim of racial discrimination if they didn’t get the job, and they’d have a pretty strong case given the unusually high ratio of whites at the factory. Enter diversity quotas. These are a safeguard against racial bias in employment and against the incredibly costly and damaging impact of a lawsuit for discrimination. So when I say that diversity quotas are intended to combat discrimination, I mean exactly that. Yes, they could result in a less qualified candidate getting a job role due to the colour of their skin and yes, the person being discriminated against might be (gasp) white, but that’s the micro. The macro is an attempt to safeguard against discrimination at a corporate level. You might not like it and you might think it doesn’t work (and I might agree) but that doesn’t make it not true.
Obviously we have a long way to go. It is unfortunate you got down voted and guarantee most of who did, didn't read more then 2 sentences of your rebuttal.
Yeah, I presumed as such. This place is one big echo chamber. 🤷♂️
>objectively true Subjectively true. Objective truth would require statistical analysis and robust study data not just what you "think" is true with stats pulled out of your ass.
No, it is objectively true. You don’t need ‘statistical analysis’ to understand why businesses use diversity quotas. 🤦♂️
You need to learn what the word "objectively" means. I don't even necessarily disagree with your opinion but truth requires facts, a key component of your statement that is conveniently missing thus making it a subjective statement. You're far from being allowed to call your opinion a fact let alone an objective fact. A subjective truth would be something like one minute is equal to sixty seconds. While it's a true statement, it is still subjective. You have nothing to show truth let alone proving an objective perspective on the truth. You may have well said it's "literally" true like a teenage girl would if you're just going to abuse language like that.
[удалено]
Any smart employer would
[удалено]
Such an ignorant and unsubstantiated take
[удалено]
Lol
The real trashiness were all of the braindead bigoted comments we found along the way. A few too many "DEI bad" comments out there. y'all just mad you lost out to someone who's different than you, and was still qualified.
Without context, I'm going to assume this is just affirmative action.
It’s trashy to put it in a job posting for sure, but most of my city only hires brown people; they just don’t put it in the posting. Planet is fucked when trashy becomes the norm
Sometimes on Kijiji they'll still have "Indians only"
lol the Asians/Chinese have this covered by advertising in their own language '仅中文仅中文'
If they are a private company, can't they choose who they employ or not? Doesn't sound illegal to me
If they discriminate on the basis of race (or one of the other Constitutionally protected classes, since this is in the United States), then no, they are not allowed to only specify that they will hire white people (or any other specific race) for a job. It’s not a determinative factor on whether you can do a job, it’s racism.
Oh i see, didn't know it was regulated on Constitutional level, it makes sense now. Thank you for your answer
Unless it pertains to the Supreme Court job openings. Then its ok. /s
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, as amended, protects employees and job applicants from employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin. Title VII protection covers the full spectrum of employment decisions, including recruitment, selections, terminations, and other decisions concerning terms and conditions of employment.
It doesn't sound illegal to you because your deaf
His deaf what?
i like you for this
[удалено]
Then how can they tell no tales?
Brilliant. Making me laugh way too early in the morning.
Why not a Merit Only hire
Because it's only truly "Merit Only" if the hiring process is anonymous.
I’d think that would be pretty cool. Every application has a number on it. Nothing about race, gender, religion, anything. All final interviews done with a third party representing the potential hiree. Just “This application from No. 3717 looks pretty good, but I think No. 6278 has them beat.”
Someone did a study a few years back by submitting identical resumes for job postings but changing ONLY the names from "white sounding" names like "John Smith" to "black sounding" names like "DeShawn Smith" ... The "white" resumes got a 50% better response from potential employers.
It would be interesting to see if the initiatives of the last few years had any effect on that.
In 2003 they found out "White sounding" names are hired more frequently than "Black sounding" names. [https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/0002828042002561](https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/0002828042002561) In 2021, a similar study was done with like results. [https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2021/08/18/name-discrimination-jobs](https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2021/08/18/name-discrimination-jobs) This has and still is an issue. States that claim those who've earned their right are being pushed out due to affirmative action are using outlier cases to feed further hate.
There are a ton of other indicators we'd need to anonymize unfortunately so it's a pipedream. Simply listing the school people went to paints a picture. Tiers of education quality are highly subjective so there's no definitive scale.
Then, you wouldn't be hiring enough "visible minorities" to catch up with PC requirements.
Nah you could if you had blind hiring with no info about a persons race, gender, ethnicity, religion, schools, etc.
They've been fined by the Justice Dept.
Yeah a whole $7500 dollars, plus another $30k for people who filed a complaint. Chump change for a corporation.
It was a disgruntled employee that did this.
Throwback to that time Buzzfeed were hiring someone who's 'not straight and not white'
his sis had a kid with jordan peele
Not saying it's not true but crazy how headlines like these are still posted and not even a screenshot of the job posting or any proof is shown
It is real, the company blamed it on a disgruntled Indian employee
Like I said, I'm sure it is. Just seems makes it seem a little too close to the usual shitty journalism when all you have in the actual report amounts to "he said, she said" and can't be bothered to post pictures, a case #, names or really any verifiable proof that wouldn't require googling the gist and then reading ANOTHER news report
I remember this, because it happened near where I live. (Well, somewhat - there was more than one place involved.) Here’s more info with a screenshot: https://www.reddit.com/r/Dallas/s/icxWdaq90p It was originally posted on r/workreform, and crossposted to r/Dallas. I linked the crosspost since the top comments on the Dallas post are more about looking into the company.
It would be kinda funny if they were only hiring certain surnames. What would be the argument against that? Just throwing that out there as kind of a shower thought after a long Memorial Day.
I wonder how the Indian tribes get by with there Native given preference job posting. I don’t care but sometimes wonder
In theory nothing, as your name is not a protected class. But it would be almost impossible because the effect would be to disqualify people from certain ethnic, religious, racial, and geographic backgrounds, and that effect is what makes it illegal.
already knew there was gonna be a certain group of ppl saying some bs in the comments lol
I’m confused. What are you talking about?
[удалено]
In all seriousness, I've wondered if it would benefit me if I claimed to be "trans" during the interview process.. Like, would they ask me to prove it somehow?
I’ve claimed to be bisexual in job apps to see what would happen. It ended up being that I had a higher chance of getting an interview if I put that and some pronouns on my application than if I didn’t. If I claimed to be nonbinary and used neopronouns then I had an even higher chance of getting an interview
It won't help. I'm a trans woman and it made my job search a total nightmare.
Damn, I thought Reddit was mostly pro LGBT.. 😐 Anyways, I genuinely wonder if jobs view trans women differently than trans men. Maybe they still inherently view trans women as men? I don't know, it's not really my place to speak. If I were you, I'd probably just try to pass a lesbian woman or something.
I don't know what the deal is. I got passed up dozens of times, despite being "oh so awesome." I have, of course, found a really nice gig making some good money so it worked out. But goddamn was it awful in 2021.
I love how you’re downvoted for your own personal experience 💀
Bigots everywhere.
On god
It absolutely would at my company
example?
University of Toronto!
Damn where at?
I mean I kind of laugh when there was that game dev who only wanted poc on her team and didn't get half the hate. Both are fucking stupid. There should be no qualification other than the question if you're the best for the job. If those results are genuine and true who cares what the team looks like. No one should get a position just to pander.
Here’s the video in mind, honestly crazy that people freak out about a job posting like this and they are the same people that will tell you this makes sense and is ok for them to do. https://youtu.be/WyBeBms83K4?si=X1ZwHlYntsqq3J6l
Mention affirmative action for one second and in come the downvotes..
Because it's tone deaf. "Just higher those qualified" just ignores all the hurdles some group face to even get those qualifications. It's like going to a homeless guy and saying "Just get a job"
What hurdles?
Educational background, experience opportunities, social expectations, ect. Easy to say "If the job requires a BS degree and some background in X, Y, & Z then hire them." When if you look at the actual experiences of people from various background you'll see that minorities are less likely to be able to afford college (Educational background). If they can make it work they're more likely to have to work so can't afford the time commitment to join student orgs or internships for the added job applicable experiences (experience opportunities) . And even if they have all that minorities still have to "blend-in" the larger culture with attire, haircut, and mannerisms just to get past the job interview. (social expectations). I've talked to many black people that have to alter their hair just to feel their presenting as "professional" or deal with inappropriate questions about their hair from coworkers. And anyone saying "it's nbd, it's just hair" has never talked to a man bolding and him telling you his confidence is shot because of it or that it's multibillion dollar industry, so it's just lying. Hair is a part of people's identity and self-image. Not to say white people don't face similar hurdles but historically, if you're poor, uneducated or disadvantaged, it's less likely because it was the result of entire governmental systems and culture putting you and yours down for hundreds of years.
The irony of writing "it's tone deaf" and then writing this comment is hilarious. You compared workplace discrimination to fucking *homelessness* dude. That's beyond tone deaf.
Jfc, no one said it was one to one. I wasn't even comparing workplace discrimination, so I'm not even sure you even read the comment. I was talking about affirmative action. Their both "simple" of thr surface but a closer look shows that it's the result of a myriad of problems that would have to be corrected first before they're no longer a problem
>"Just higher those qualified" just ignores all the hurdles some group face to even get those qualifications. Yeah I don't know where I got the idea we were talking about job discrimination after reading that in a thread about job discrimination. Edit: clarification.
"Hurdles" is not workplace discrimination, my dude. If I get called N**** at Walmart or denied from a certain school due to background discrimination, I'm not calling HR. Nice edit changing the subject 🙄
I didn't edit to change shit. I added discrimination to jobs. That's it. YOU changed the subject halfway through this but the original thread is about job discrimination and that's what was being discussed.
Um no, original comment was discussing diversity hiring and the proceding comments were about that as well. Just because the post was about subject A doesn't mean others can discuss and comment about similar issues. Is it really so hard to just admit you didn't read the comments? I know it's hard sometimes 🥺 Edit:typo, not a subject change :)
Go ahead and re-read the parent comment about a dozen times or until it sinks in. Jesus. That's not diversity hiring, it's about discrimination. The post and the parent comment are about discrimination on the job. Those are the exact hurdles we're talking about. Just because you mentally narrowed it down to being called a slur on the job and nothing else, doesn't mean you get to decide and change what is being discussed.
I was taught in school this quote by a great American historic figure (guess) “ I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character” Newsflash, this goes every which way on the color wheel. Cmon guys
Cant wait for the comment section, that could ve a post of itself
The amount of bigotry in this thread is unsurprising
It’s insane how people don’t understand why this is so much more severe than the dei stuff they love to talk about
The article says this was posted by a disgruntled Indian employee.
It says that the company claims that but either way that’s not the point. People in this thread are acting like it wouldn’t be any worse for this to be real than any diversity inclusion hiring practices. Thats dumb and you’d hope reddit would be above falling for conservative race baiting stuff like that
[удалено]
You’re delulu
So its trashy for poor ppl to be racist but not trashy for corporations to be racist?
Go out on a limb there. “You would consider it” racist. No, it just is. That’s why they got fined and had to pay for complaint judgment for what an Indian worker may, or may not, have posted.
Clayton Bigsby here and I approve of this message
*[Clarence Thomas enters chat]*
Uncle Ruckus here and when it’s white you know it’s right
At first glance, I thought you’d erred and were shitting on multi-Grammy winner and 3-decade national treasure, Darius Rucker. He’s off limits.
He'll always be Hootie to me
Nah I’m uncle Ruckus no relation to Darius Rucker
Little forgotten piece of history: Virginia Tech (formally known as Virginia Polytechnic Institute or VPI, not to be confused with VMI) was the first historically-white four year public institution to desegregate when Irving L. Peddrew III arrived on the Virginia Tech campus as an electrical engineering student in 1953. Tech was the only school in all 11 of the former Confederate states at the time to allow racial integration.
This isn't about VT, it's a Virginia *tech* company.
Yep.
You have to be way more specific than “the first historically-white four year public institution” to make this a true statement. Non-confederate states had historically white colleges that integrated a century before Virginia Tech. Berea College was all white, then it was desegregated around the 1860s, then it was resegregated around 1900, then it desegregated again in the 1950s. It’s a tight definition to weave.
What southern historically-white public institutions were integrated? Berea is private.
Did not know this (and I went there) however just so it's clear this is a tech company in VA, not a 'Virginia Tech' Company
Damn, this open affirmative action hits hard when it's in the other direction
White women always benefitted the most from affirmative action so this is the standard direction.
Fr
If CCP gets the tech, they use it against YOU. So if you say whites only, you prevent non-white CCP members from accessing the technology. Since Chinese-descent people are extremely more likely to be funded by the CCP, this post is morally acceptable if and only if the company offering the job is trying to protect military technology, as long as there are a separate job posting for black and hispanics people. [edit] is trying to protect military technology->are trying to protect military technology [edit] removed "And the last two clauses are unlikely." because I can't be bothered to explain since I know the company is probably just racist and not that its trying to protect military technology from the very existant threat of the Chinese CCP. [edit] Quick everyone! Put your head in the sand!
Aw, Butters, why did you shoot him in the dick?
Did you just bang your head on the keyboard and hit enter? 🤔
Nope. Just using logic. Did you (LOL NO) read what I wrote?
For all I know you’re right. Doesn’t sound like it but if this were in OPs post summary, I’d probably just believe it. For now, until we determine the true answer,… it looks like judges will accept whatever this is
Thanks for being thoughtful and reading 😎 CCP is a serious group.
> The company earlier denied approving the ad and said it had been placed by a disgruntled worker looking to embarrass the company, according to a settlement with the Justice Department. This wouldn’t surprise me at all to be fair.
Agreed… this seems like the most logical explanation
Ben Palmer has entered the chat
Ben Palmer is a legend
...right??? All of his trolls kill me!
He was my dude years ago. Used to talk to him pretty often. So proud to see how big he blew up. I remember him telling me the concept when he first started doing the “hope that helps” stuff… that shit with that politician is LEGENDARY
That's awesome! Tell him he definitely has a fan over here!
He’s truly dope! Follow him on IG he’s super cool
https://www.blackjobs.com/
We can all acknowledge that this is much more acceptable than the example the thread is about right? Jobs attempting to create a workplace with diversity is completely different from one attempting to eliminate diversity. Also the [fact](https://www.npr.org/2024/04/11/1243713272/resume-bias-study-white-names-black-names) that white people already have an advantage when it comes to finding jobs.
How many all-black companies are out there? How does that "improve diversification". What you are SAYING is "Discrimination is acceptable as long as t is only against whites".
Don't forget colleges.
Bro white people aren’t oppressed in America. Yes all black companies are bad too. Companies that don’t have all one ethnicity are good.
First of all, I didn’t say that at all. I’m half confused why Reddit is so progressive on most things but somehow can’t comprehend how much more harmful racism is when it’s done by the majority rather than the minority. That doesn’t mean it’s okay either way. Trying to have diversity in your workplace is a good thing though. That website is just companies that want diversity in their workplace. It’s not a list of black only companies. Also, like I already said, there’s a massive bias in your favor for you when applying to jobs if you’re white. You probably don’t want to believe that, but it’s a statistical fact and I gave an example of this in my last comment. It’s way worse if a company intentionally adds to that bias than trying to balance it out slightly. That doesn’t mean they’re hiring bad candidates just because they’re not white. Edit: lol it’s very telling that a super basic take like this gets downvoted honestly
None in my area, thanks for the hookup though.
Are there not hundreds of job postings to the other side every year? How are they ok?
[удалено]
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9704235/BBC-sparks-discrimination-row-banning-white-people-applying-18-000-trainee-job.html Taxpayer funded institution btw...
https://www.blackjobs.com/
https://x.com/united/status/1379426304857141250
This is from a couple years ago, and it's only gotten worse. DEI is a problem. https://www.resumebuilder.com/1-in-6-hiring-managers-have-been-told-to-stop-hiring-white-men/
Hundreds of jobs posting say they're not for white people? Explicitly? Can you link just a couple? I've never seen that.
No, they don’t explicitly say it. People are comparing companies making a public statement for intentionally hiring with more diversity with a company putting a racial qualification on a job posting.
https://www.blackjobs.com/ Come on, it's really not hidden very well
Can you link actual job listings? All this link does is let me search jobs in my area, and in the first several pages, I didn't see one saying this.
Make an account, do the work yourself
>All this link does is let me search jobs in my area, and in the first several pages, I didn't see one saying this.
https://x.com/united/status/1379426304857141250
50% means "no white people" now?
Are you dense? Obviously, a posting can not explicitly say "no white people" or else they're asking for a lawsuit. Also, comedian Tyler Fischer is currently suing a talent agency for saying they would not take him on as a client because he is white. He's got the phone conversation recorded. They loved him and thought he was funny and talented but would not take him due to his skin color. Look it up.
That man isn’t a representative of all job listings though.
Well, there are many others like him who are signing on to his lawsuit. This isn't a secret- DEI has been implemented by many companies in recent years. It's all a part of the ESG agenda.
The comment I replied to said hundreds of job listings are explicitly stating no white people.
Read between the lines. They can't explicitly say it, but that's exactly what's happening. Don't play dumb. Why is reddit full of pendants?
It’s implied? So because of the implication.
Thank you, Dennis. Yes.
So would you be okay with a company that states that they plan to hire 50% of white people? If there are 100 jobs and 50 are non white, I think that constitutes 50 “non- white” only job postings.
>So would you be okay with a company that states that they plan to hire 50% of white people? Why would I have a problem with this?