Fifteenth time's the charm right? The only way to subvert institutionalize and subconscious gender and racial bias is to actively take actions to subvert it. Color-blind and gender-blind hiring practices have gone on for too long with marginal social improvements at best, and the "most qualified person" is historically and currently biased toward white straight men.
Why do you expect this particular website to participate in your cause? Or is this not about GB at all? You want to talk about hiring practices in a larger sense, go for it. You want to be a booster for affirmative action, go for that too, i'm not going to stand in your way. I am only willing to engage in debate on this specific situation; Dan and Jason are hired = you're pissed = i'm confused.
@neonie: Apologies. Much of my post was directed to another user. The quote tree made it look like you had written paragraphs that were written by someone else.
You're arguing for the hire of an inexperienced and unproven person for the position of senior editor on an established news site for the express purpose of sexual and/or racial diversity. That's not going to happen. Inexperienced people usually get their initial foot in the door as interns. By all means call for more internships at GB offices, that's quite all right and perfectly justified cause to take on. But calling for unqualified hires to senior positions based on race/gender solely because the existing staff doesn't meet your idea of diverse is disgusting.
I'm sorry mods, but this is going to be my standard response whenever someone brings this silly argument again and until they stop:
...[W]e should hire based on merit, and not gender.
Friend, I'll be honest: Every time I hear this phrase uttered anew, my brain explodes. The unfortunate — and unintended, I know! — insinuation being made here is that "merit" and "gender" (or "race," or "sexual orientation" or whatever) are somehow mutually exclusive. Yikes! Instead of letting people own their personal achievements, we perhaps suspect them of being hired according to some mysterious "quota." Yikes again!
No one is saying "hire a woman instead of a competent, qualified person." Yikes, yikes, yikes!
My original point was that I would like to see names of actual people who have allegedly been passed over in favor of Ryckert for the position. You say it's not about that. So I reply. Now you put the Frank quote in which states that this isn't about hiring an incompetent. I am confused. I will dignify arguments of sexist/racist hiring practices on a case by case basis, individually, for specific actual real life living people who applied. If it isn't about hiring incompetence in the name of diversity, who is the person who has been slighted here?
@neonie: You're arguing for the hire of an inexperienced and unproven person for the position of senior editor on an established news site for the express purpose of sexual and/or racial diversity. That's not going to happen. Inexperienced people usually get their initial foot in the door as interns. By all means call for more internships at GB offices, that's quite all right and perfectly justified cause to take on. But calling for unqualified hires to senior positions based on race/gender solely because the existing staff doesn't meet your idea of diverse is disgusting.
The entire point to these two specific position was not "to get fresh faces and new perspectives". It was to fill previously held positions that have now been vacated for purpose of carrying the workload and keeping the company functioning. We used to have Dave, Ryan, Patrick and Vinny all at the SF office.
The whole brouhaha baffles me. Dan Ryckert is awesome and I think will be a perfect fit. I don't have past experience with Jason but I'm sure the same is true for him.
And it seems to me no one has any problem with Dan and Jason at all. Nor do they seem to be inclined to offer names of applicants who would have been a better choice. It's all hypothetical angry noises. If you can provide the name of an applicant who is more qualified and, in your opinion, could have been a superior choice for the position in question, I will gladly hear you out. Otherwise, there's no argument. If you can't supply an example of an applicant who you think was passed over, all you are doing is fighting for affirmative action, which is horrible.
Also, about Home Depot Canada. They do that because construction workers tend to be stubborn and drag their heels hard on change. This is partly because their obstinance is catered to for profit by parts suppliers, so they do not need to learn the metric system anyway as there is no reason to do so. Home Depot is catering to them. The other reason is that there is a great deal of trade in parts and materials between Canada and the US, so it makes a kind of backwards sense to all use imperial in that industry on both sides of the border. US dictates this through market power. However, you will find trade workers here in Canada are quite comfortable with both metric and imperial and use them interchangeably when necessary.
Anybody with a basic understanding of math already knew everything you just said. Of course the metric system is better than the imperial system; there's no denying that. But we're so ingrained in the imperial system that changing to a metric system isn't simple at all. Think about it; does it make more sense to sell buy a gallon of milk, or a 128 fl oz of milk?
Fluid is sold in litres. 3 litre jug is the large common size. 2 litre is the standard carton.
Yep, I know this feel. I went to uni to get a BFa. I worked very hard and managed it, despite some of the mental difficulties I have. When I graduated, I did freelance illustration for a while, learned how soul crushing that job is. In my spare time I wrote two graphic novels. They represent a couple thousand hours of work, each. I hate both of them. I had a mental breakdown. Quit freelance job. I don't draw anymore. I never want to do it again. Not as a hobby and not as a profession.
Singular they is pervasive in use far beyond the point required for inclusion as grammatically correct. It's fine. It makes sense, is used often by a number of different english speaking cultures, and is in no way confusing. So. Correct.
Log in to comment