Couldn’t agree more. If you have a problem with alcohol, you avoid it. If you have a problem with eating meat, you avoid it. If you have a problem with gluten, you avoid it. If you have a problem with certain Lemmy users or instances, guess what? You avoid them.

Doesn’t mean everyone else has to do the same. It’s about taking personal responsibility for your own mental health and peace of mind. This was always allowed, it was part of the design right from the start.

Found the BMW driver

BMW drivers deserve this as punishment for all the missed turn signals

A 2015 model is definitely going to be Intel, that was the only thing they made at the time

Apple is a publicly traded company as well, which means they have the same incentives, but they do the exact opposite, having frequently broken backwards compatibility in major ways in order to make massive structural changes, like moving to an entirely different processor architecture not once, not twice, but three times now, and often breaking backwards compatibility in major ways in order to reduce bloat.

This is more likely a cultural issue than a technical one. Basically, both companies practice very different philosophies when it comes to engineering decisions. Of course, a major reason why Apple can do this while Microsoft can’t is the fact that Apple makes their own hardware, while Microsoft doesn’t.

I mean… unless you can find a theater that specifically caters to Chinese audiences, like others suggested, I can’t really think of any other alternatives. I’m sure you can understand that it’s pretty difficult for regular theaters to cater to every foreign audience because the entire screen would be full of subtitles, or they’d have to have 50 different screenings a week, with Chinese being shown at 10am on a Wednesday.

Wait until the movie is out on streaming services (or DVD/BluRay) and then watch it with subtitles at home?

I’m sorry, but that doesn’t make any sense. You get more of what you measure, so if you measure diversity, you get more diversity. Any increase in quality will at best be accidental. In fact, it might very well get worse due cultural differences creating additional friction.

What do you think people should do about things like, hiring unqualified white people over qualified black people, for example?

Simply hire the best qualified candidate, regardless of skin color. No DEI needed.

You’re free to believe that, but that’s not what actually happens IRL. How it really works is that someone will look at the race and gender makeup of the team and if there aren’t enough women or POC, they’ll focus hiring a black lesbian, or a transgender Asian, or whatever else they can find, even if their qualifications don’t quite hit the mark.

The point of DEI is to increase “diversity, equity, and inclusion”, it’s literally right there in the name. Do you see competence, excellence, or qualification in there anywhere? Me neither. And that’s because that isn’t what DEI is about.

So you’re saying hiring based on race instead of qualification isn’t a problem?

I’m definitely in favor of laws against rape, assault, theft, and murder, but I think bigotry and discrimination are simply too vague a charge to be properly defined or enforced, and will always defeat themselves in the long run anyways.

Say someone is running an Indian restaurant, should they be forced to hire white people? Would you trust that you’re getting authentic Indian food if either the chef, or even the serving staff was predominantly Chinese? Would you go to a Chinese restaurant run by Mexicans an expect authentic Chinese cuisine, or a Mexican restaurant run by white people, and expect proper, authentic cuisine?

All of these examples sound extremely racist on the surface, but let’s be honest, chances are extremely high that someone of the same ethnicity is vastly more qualified to work there than someone who’s not, because they simply understand the culture and the flavors better. And of course there are always counterexamples, but those are the exception rather than the norm.

Meritocracy simply means having to earn your laurels by putting in effort and proving yourself. You don’t need to legislate that because cream rises to the top all by itself. It doesn’t rise any faster because there are laws requiring it to do so, just like the sun doesn’t rise any faster if you make a law requiring it to do so.

The problem with that logic is that you’re assuming you’ll just find another job. What if you lived in a city that was super crazy liberal, and no one was hiring you because you were straight. Unfortunately you still need a job to get by, and you can’t afford to move if you don’t have a job.

Oh, is that so? Well, at least you seem to understand that bigotry can cut both ways. That’s more than most people here seem to be willing to acknowledge.

That said, if I was faced with that sort of situation, I would to whatever I can to find a way to move somewhere else where I’m welcome.

But hey, about mistreating you? There’s laws about that, too, all part of the package deal that comes with not hiring you based on race. With strict enough penalties companies would rather their employees not be bigots because they don’t want to go to court.

You can mistreat people in subtle ways that are difficult to sue over or prove in court. Like, giving people bad hours, or passing them over for promotions.

A side effect of all this is that bigotry dies in people’s hearts when they are exposed to the people they are bigoted against. If there was someone who hated Americans, but then got to actually meet and talk to one and work with one, they would realize Americans aren’t all bad and can be pretty nice and chill. So making sure people don’t hire based on race helps eliminate racism and keeps things fair for everyone, which helps business innovate by giving people a chance.

Yes, I do believe this CAN work, but it generally requires at least a shred of willingness to participate. You cannot simply force someone into accepting someone they don’t like. That sounds sounds a hell of a lot like raping your way into a relationship, don’t you think?

Right back at ya.

Why would you want a law that forces a business run by bigots or racists to hire you despite hating you for your skin color? Don’t you think they’ll just find other, legal ways to mistreat you or discriminate against you? And if you fail, they’ll feel more righteous about their bigotry, but if you succeed, they’ll resent you for that.

I’d honestly rather just have them tell me upfront if they’re racist, that way I won’t waste my time with them.

You responded to it.

Thanks, I appreciate your honesty.

You didn’t answer my question either when you asked yours, so I assumed answering a question with another question was fair game. Don’t expect me to play by your rules if you won’t even play by them.

Do you have any actual arguments, or are you just here to spout verbal abuse and baseless accusations?

Do you believe that if there was a collective bias against white people, it would be harmful?

If two people are interviewing for a job, but only one position is available, whoever does not get it is hurt by that decision regardless of skin color, no?