Rick Reilly Gets One Right

[illmatic630]

I believe an employer should be able to do just about whatever they want on their property. It is their property after all. If you don't like you're more than welcome to go elsewhere.

This is exactly what's wrong nowadays.

"I don't care if a guy hires Joe over Da'Rick 10/10 times even though they have the same qualifications for that job."

You're basically saying that you don't care if an employer wants to discriminate and that is wrong.

 

[ickythump1225]

Not sure what bad choices have to do with hiring Joe or Da'Rick.

Because if a business wants to hire Joe over Da'Rick they should be able to without having to worry about getting dinged on some Affirmative Action claim or being called racist.

 

[illmatic630]

Uhhhh.... no it isn't. Only specific types of discrimination are protected against. If I don't like people with facial piercings I'm allowed to discriminate against them. Similarly, if I don't want to hire someone named Buttface for a sales position because of their name, then I don't have to.



This is just dumb. I mean this is flat out one of the stupidest things I've ever read on this board.

Yes, you are legally given a name when you're born. Once you get to the age of employment you easily can change your name if you feel it's a detriment to professional prospects.... or if you don't want to, you can at the very least change what you go by. I've heard stories of people trying to name their children things like Labia or Vagina because they "thought it sounded pretty"... as an infant, you can't stop your parents from doing that. Once you get older, you can absolutely choose what you are known as.

This is different than your race, gender, skin color, sexual orientation, etc. which are things you CANNOT change. That's why those forms of discrimination are often legally protected against. Don't get it twisted.

I still find it hilarious that you keep suggesting these ridiculous names to suit your argument.

 

[ickythump1225]

This is exactly what's wrong nowadays.

"I don't care if a guy hires Joe over Da'Rick 10/10 times even though they have the same qualifications for that job."

You're basically saying that you don't care if an employer wants to discriminate and that is wrong.

I don't care if they want to, that's their choice and they'll live with the consequences of their actions. If some business doesn't want to hire blacks or Mexicans that's on them and they'll have to live with their decisions. That's part of being free, having the ability to make choices and then take ownership of them and live with the consequences.

 

[illmatic630]

Because if a business wants to hire Joe over Da'Rick they should be able to without having to worry about getting dinged on some Affirmative Action claim or being called racist.

I'll give you a scenario.

Joe (white)
Bachelors in communication
2 years sales experience


Da'Rick (minority)
Bachelors in communication
2 years sales experience.


Joe gets hired 10/10 times because Da'Rick doesn't sound right. You're okay with that? That the minority doesn't get a chance because his name is Da'Rick? Come on man.

 

[ickythump1225]

I'll give you a scenario.

Joe (white)
Bachelors in communication
2 years sales experience


Da'Rick (minority)
Bachelors in communication
2 years sales experience.


Joe gets hired 10/10 times because Da'Rick doesn't sound right. You're okay with that? That the minority doesn't get a chance because his name is Da'Rick? Come on man.

Yeah I'm fine with that. If Da'Rick is the better hire the company that wouldn't hire him will suffer those consequences eventually and if they continue to make poor decisions they'll be run out of business and you'll sleep better at night knowing that no one's feelings are being hurt anymore.

 

[IrishLax]

I'll give you a scenario.

Joe (white)
Bachelors in communication
2 years sales experience


Da'Rick (minority)
Bachelors in communication
2 years sales experience.


Joe gets hired 10/10 times because Da'Rick doesn't sound right. You're okay with that? That the minority doesn't get a chance because his name is Da'Rick? Come on man.

It's not even about him being a minority. It's about him being named Da'Rick. It's already been illustrated how stupid "white trash" names can equally hurt professional prospects. It's not a race issue... it's a stupid name issue. Discriminating on RACE is both illegal and wrong.

 

[GoIrish41]

I believe an employer should be able to do just about whatever they want on their property. It is their property after all. If you don't like you're more than welcome to go elsewhere.

There are a million things you can't do on your own property. There are laws that have been put in place since the industrial revolution that prohibit child labor, standardize the work week, establish a minimum wage, ensure worker safety, and a wide variety of other "restrictions" on employers being able to just about whatever they want on their property. Perhaps you should consider why these laws were put into place. They weren't enacted in a vaccum. They were enacted because there were massive abuses by the companies that you believe should do whatever they want to do on their property. Massive sweatshops existed in cities all over this country where children and adults were forced to work in crowded factories with unsafe conditions for near slave wages. Earlier this year, you may recall a factory collapse in India that killed a bunch of workers. That is the type of conditions that exist when you let companies do whatever they want. Why? Because they are greedy and they are not opposed to treating people poorly so they can line their own pockets. This is America. We have laws that protect people from the greedy excesses of big business. But, if you do't like that, you're more than welcome to go elsewhwere.

 

[GoIrish41]

It's not even about him being a minority. It's about him being named Da'Rick. It's already been illustrated how stupid "white trash" names can equally hurt professional prospects. It's not a race issue... it's a stupid name issue. Discriminating on RACE is both illegal and wrong.

I submit that if you as a hiring official are that close minded and judgmental about a decision the actual potential employee does not even control, you are likely to miss out on a lot of incredible talent and be stuck with a bunch of guys named Joe who never bring any new ideas to the table that can benefit your bottom line. That is not a stupid name issue, that is a hiring official ignorance issue.

 

[ickythump1225]

There are a million things you can't do on your own property. There are laws that have been put in place since the industrial revolution that prohibit child labor, standardize the work week, establish a minimum wage, ensure worker safety, and a wide variety of other "restrictions" on employers being able to just about whatever they want on their property. Perhaps you should consider why these laws were put into place. They weren't enacted in a vaccum. They were enacted because there were massive abuses by the companies that you believe should do whatever they want to do on their property. Massive sweatshops existed in cities all over this country where children and adults were forced to work in crowded factories with unsafe conditions for near slave wages. Earlier this year, you may recall a factory collapse in India that killed a bunch of workers. That is the type of conditions that exist when you let companies do whatever they want. Why? Because they are greedy and they are not opposed to treating people poorly so they can line their own pockets. This is America. We have laws that protect people from the greedy excesses of big business. But, if you do't like that, you're more than welcome to go elsewhwere.

I'm not even a libertarian nor am I against all workplace safety rules because I think they are a net positive. However noble Affirmative Action and so called "anti-discrimination" laws may have been intended to be they've helped create the PC crybaby atmosphere we live in. Now every decision that goes against a minority in this nation is second guessed and viewed through the lens of "discrimination" or "racism." They've also helped create "reverse" discrimination and racism.

Race probably wouldn't be such a big issue in this country if liberals didn't do their best to make sure it never dies. You can't out of one side of your mouth claim to want a colorblind society and then out of the other side of your mouth support Affirmative Action and "anti-discrimination" laws. From my vantage point most of these laws are blatantly anti-white and anti-male. I foresee a barrage of gay friendly laws being dreamed up by leftist politicians that will soon become anti-straight laws.

 

[ickythump1225]

I submit that if you as a hiring official are that close minded and judgmental about a decision the actual potential employee does not even control, you are likely to miss out on a lot of incredible talent and be stuck with a bunch of guys named Joe who never bring any new ideas to the table that can benefit your bottom line. That is not a stupid name issue, that is a hiring official ignorance issue.

Which is almost verbatim my point. If you continually make poor hiring decisions your company will suffer and the market will take care of itself. I'm not a libertarian and I don't oppose all government regulation but I don't believe that the government needs to interfere all the damn time. Especially not this government considering it's run by incompetent fools and dishonest snakes.

 

[GoIrish41]

Which is almost verbatim my point. If you continually make poor hiring decisions your company will suffer and the market will take care of itself. I'm not a libertarian and I don't oppose all government regulation but I don't believe that the government needs to interfere all the damn time. Especially not this government considering it's run by incompetent fools and dishonest snakes.

I get your point, but that process could take a long time. It could also go unnoticed by the company because they aren't experiencing the effect, so they don't know what they are missing. In the meantime, Da'Rick is unemployed. To make matters worse, a huge segment of the country constantly calls him lazy and a freeloader because he doesn't have a job. So, he has a stupid name and nobody likes him. Poor Da'Rick. lol.

 

[IrishLax]

I submit that if you as a hiring official are that close minded and judgmental about a decision the actual potential employee does not even control, you are likely to miss out on a lot of incredible talent and be stuck with a bunch of guys named Joe who never bring any new ideas to the table that can benefit your bottom line. That is not a stupid name issue, that is a hiring official ignorance issue.

1. The entire premise here is that the two candidates are hypothetically equal in every respect save name. That is they are complete carbon copies of each other and identical in every single respect save what they choose to call themselves. So please explain to me how one has any more "potential" than the other?
2. It has been explained ad nauseam that you absolutely do have control over what you call yourself. This isn't even debatable.

 

[GoIrish41]

1. The entire premise here is that the two candidates are hypothetically equal in every respect save name. That is they are complete carbon copies of each other and identical in every single respect save what they choose to call themselves. So please explain to me how one has any more "potential" than the other?
2. It has been explained ad nauseam that you absolutely do have control over what you call yourself. This isn't even debatable.

Good lord, this is among the dumbest arguments I have ever been involved in on this board -- and that is saying something. But, I'm bored so I'll leap.

No two people are identical. While their qualifications may be, each person brings his own individuality to any situation, professional or otherwise. I'm saying, a person who was raised by parents with the creative flair to come up with an origninal name just may have a little more exposure to creativity than those boring fvckers who named their kid Joe. I've hired many people in my career, and I can tell you that you never learn everything about a candidate during the interview process. You always learn more after the hire. Sometimes you are pleasantly surprised and sometimes you feel like you were sold a bill of goods. There is more to a person than their professional credentials -- and there is certainly more to a person than a name.

So say our friend Da'Rick decides there may be a bunch of tight*sses working for the company he is about to interview with and he decides to deceive you all and tell you his name is just plain ole Rick. Interview goes well so your company decides to do a background check and you find out, hey, his name is DA'Rick. Does your stupid name rule disqualify him after he already impressed you. Has his savvy move of calling himself Rick put you in a bind? A person's name is a person's name. You suggesting that someone should change their name from Da'Rick or even Buttface demonstrates close-mindedness on your part. What negatives to you read into a name like Da'Rick anyway? Seriously, what would be your misgiving about a person with that name, or any other name for that matter.

 

[IrishLax]

Good lord, this is among the dumbest arguments I have ever been involved in on this board -- and that is saying something. But, I'm bored so I'll leap.

No two people are identical. While their qualifications may be, each person brings his own individuality to any situation, professional or otherwise. I'm saying, a person who was raised by parents with the creative flair to come up with an origninal name just may have a little more exposure to creativity than those boring fvckers who named their kid Joe. I've hired many people in my career, and I can tell you that you never learn everything about a candidate during the interview process. You always learn more after the hire. Sometimes you are pleasantly surprised and sometimes you feel like you were sold a bill of goods. There is more to a person than their professional credentials -- and there is certainly more to a person than a name.

So to clarify... what you're actually saying is: I reject your premise that the candidates are equal in every respect, and substitute my own premise where they are not equal.

But it gets better... you're also doing the REVERSE of what I've doing and weighting Da'Rick > Joe because that is "creative" and means his parents have "creative flair" and that somehow means he has had life experiences with "more exposure to creativity." Let's ignore how much completely unfounded and illogical inference is involved in these conclusions and accept your argument.

If we do, in summary, your entire argument is just as much discrimination as mine. You're discriminating against Joe because his name is "boring" unlike "creative" Da'Rick.

To quote your previous post: "If it is discrimination, how is there nothing wrong with that?"

Now you just look like a complete hypocrite and fool.

 

[IrishLax]

So say our friend Da'Rick decides there may be a bunch of tight*sses working for the company he is about to interview with and he decides to deceive you all and tell you his name is just plain ole Rick. Interview goes well so your company decides to do a background check and you find out, hey, his name is DA'Rick. Does your stupid name rule disqualify him after he already impressed you. Has his savvy move of calling himself Rick put you in a bind? A person's name is a person's name. You suggesting that someone should change their name from Da'Rick or even Buttface demonstrates close-mindedness on your part. What negatives to you read into a name like Da'Rick anyway? Seriously, what would be your misgiving about a person with that name, or any other name for that matter.

To the second part of this, if you actually bothered to read what I said, I in fact advocated this approach. Many, many times. This is in fact the general thesis for what I'm arguing for. So what is your point?

The fact that you think me potentially not wanting to hire someone named "Buttface" for a customer service or sales position is "close-minded" just shows you don't get it. You're not even using close to rational thought.

 

[GoIrish41]

So to clarify... what you're actually saying is: I reject your premise that the candidates are equal in every respect, and substitute my own premise where they are not equal.

But it gets better... you're also doing the REVERSE of what I've doing and weighting Da'Rick > Joe because that is "creative" and means his parents have "creative flair" and that somehow means he has had life experiences with "more exposure to creativity." Let's ignore how much completely unfounded and illogical inference is involved in these conclusions and accept your argument.

If we do, in summary, your entire argument is just as much discrimination as mine. You're discriminating against Joe because his name is "boring" unlike "creative" Da'Rick.

To quote your previous post: "If it is discrimination, how is there nothing wrong with that?"

Now you just look like a complete hypocrite and fool.

No, I'm not saying I hire Da'Rick 10 times out of 10 when he is competing with Joe. I'm saying that human condition is more complex than saying that these two candidates are absolutely identical in every way so your premise is just as nonsensical as your conclusion of hiring a guy because he has a "normal" name that you are comfortable with. I'm saying that it is absolutely dumb to suggest that because a guy's name is Joe he is always the better candidate. I'm saying that giving a seconds' thought to a what the person's name iis is beyond stupid. If I look like a fool for pointing out your unfounded and silly corrolation between what a person's name is and their qualifications to perform a job then I'm a fool. But, your hiring practices would not be acceptable where I work or any place that I have ever worked. Further, if that is your practice, I wouldn't want to work for you or your company because you kinda come off as a self-righteous, elitist, biggot and I deserve better than that.

 

[IrishLax]

No, I'm not saying I hire Da'Rick 10 times out of 10 when he is competing with Joe. I'm saying that human condition is more complex than saying that these two candidates are absolutely identical in every way so your premise is just as nonsensical as your conclusion that hiring a guy because he has a "normal" name that you are comfortable with.

This is just pure gold. The whole point of the thought experiment was that they are equal. Of course in practicality no two people can be identical, but that wasn't what was being discussed.

Now that you can't make any argument to support your hypocritical, illogical, and ridiculous position you want to change the parameters.

I'm saying that it is absolutely dumb to suggest that because a guy's name is Joe he is always the better candidate.

That's not what I said. I said everything else being equal, I'd hire someone named Joe over someone named Ransom or Buttface or Lemonjello or etc. for a customer service position. Why? That should be completely obvious. You want someone answering your phone saying "hello, this is Buttface, how can I help you?"

I'm saying that giving a seconds' thought to a what the person's name iis is beyond stupid. If I look like a fool for pointing out your unfounded and silly corrolation between what a person's name is and their qualifications to perform a job then I'm a fool.

You looked like a fool because you never had a leg to stand on, presented a hypocritical argument, and now continually try to change the parameters/premises since you can't defend your illogical and contradictory statements.

But, your hiring practices would not be acceptable where I work or any place that I have ever worked.

So you're telling me that if I was hiring for customer service that I SHOULD hire the guy named Buttface. And that your company and every company would rather the guy named Buttface answer the phones instead of a guy named Joe.

You are beyond hope if you think that. I feel sorry for the company that employs you.

Further, if that is your practice, I wouldn't want to work for you or your company because you kinda come off as a self-righteous, elitist, biggot and I deserve better than that.

I didn't know those were synonyms for using common sense. And don't worry, the ability to think logically and use deductive reasoning is pretty baseline for any engineering job, so we wouldn't have you anyways. Even if you were named Joe

 

[GoIrish41]

This is just pure gold. The whole point of the thought experiment was that they are equal. Of course in practicality no two people can be identical, but that wasn't what was being discussed.

Now that you can't make any argument to support your hypocritical, illogical, and ridiculous position you want to change the parameters.



That's not what I said. I said everything else being equal, I'd hire someone named Joe over someone named Ransom or Buttface or Lemonjello or etc. for a customer service position. Why? That should be completely obvious. You want someone answering your phone saying "hello, this is Buttface, how can I help you?"



You looked like a fool because you never had a leg to stand on, presented a hypocritical argument, and now continually try to change the parameters/premises since you can't defend your illogical and contradictory statements.



So you're telling me that if I was hiring for customer service that I SHOULD hire the guy named Buttface. And that your company and every company would rather the guy named Buttface answer the phones instead of a guy named Joe.

You are beyond hope if you think that. I feel sorry for the company that employs you.



I didn't know those were synonyms for using common sense. And don't worry, the ability to think logically and use deductive reasoning is pretty baseline for any engineering job, so we wouldn't have you anyways. Even if you were named Joe

What you actually said was say there are "two completely equal candidates." You didn't say they were clones or twins or that they looked alike or that they sounded the same. You were talking about their professional qualifications -- that they had the same education, experience, knowledge, skills, etc. So, who is really the one who is trying to escape the premise of the argument and make it something that it wasn't? When I suggest that there is more to it than professional qualifications and that when hiring someone you have to consider factors beyond them being two professionally equal candidates, you make it sound like I completely went off the reservation and as a result I have been illogical and made a disjointed, ridiculous argument. We both know that isn't true and that you were talking about professional qualifications, so I hope it made you feel better for a couple minutes to pretend you won the argument by backing me into some rhetorical or logic corner, but come on back to reality now.

Buttface is beyond silly, so lets just stay with Da'Rick (which I don't even find odd) and ask the same question you just asked me. You are saying that it is just common sense that a company would rather have their phones answered by a guy named Joe than a guy named Da'Rick. Why? Lets get to the essense of your point and stop trying to talk around it by using the most ridiculous examples of names we can think of. You know the discussion is not about the name Buttface or Lemonjello but about discriminaiton. So, tell me, why is it OK to discriminate against a guy named Da'Rick. Why would it be common sense that you'd rather have Joe answer your phones than Da'Rick? It is not completely obvious as you suggest it is. My thinking is that discrimination is not OK, but I want to hear your explaination about why it is.

 

[dshans]

There's a reason I stay away from threads such as this. They tend and trend toward the absurd.

Lax, I still can't shake my mental image of you as a vagrant shuffling around a Los Angeles airport. Should that be reason for me to hire IrishPat rather than you?

I assume that your attitude/opinions would preclude your hiring of Moon Unit or Dweezle Zappa even if their qualifications equalled or exceeded those of Joe Dirt or Jane Doe. Where do you draw the line? There was Zero Mostel, Zbigniew Kazimierz Brzezinski and Spiro Agnew to name a few.

Just what is it you want from an employee?

 

[IrishLax]

What you actually said was say there are "two completely equal candidates." You didn't say they were clones or twins or that they looked alike or that they sounded the same. You were talking about their professional qualifications -- that they had the same education, experience, knowledge, skills, etc. So, who is really the one who is trying to escape the premise of the argument and make it something that it wasn't?

You are? What does completely equal mean? Go look up the dictionary definition of equal. Or some synonyms of it. You're starting to introduce all kinds of new things about "look" or "sound" that were never in the original premise. Nice try, though.

Oh, and "look" and "sound" are OFTEN considered part of "professional qualifications"... how someone speaks and orally communicates is of paramount importance to most jobs. Are you debating this? Are you going to pretend "oral communication skills" isn't commonly listed on employee reviews? Or focused on for interview prep? Or one the single most important things for someone answering a phone? And are you going to pretend that "look" isn't important for many jobs? You think a law firm is going to hire someone with a facial tat and long unkempt hair over someone who is clean cut?

Your grasping at straws and doing so poorly.

Buttface is beyond silly, so lets just stay with Da'Rick (which I don't even find odd) and ask the same question you just asked me. You are saying that it is just common sense that a company would rather have their phones answered by a guy named Joe than a guy named Da'Rick. Why? Lets get to the essense of your point and stop trying to talk around it by using the most ridiculous examples of names we can think of. You know the discussion is not about the name Buttface or Lemonjello but about discriminaiton. So, tell me, why is it OK to discriminate against a guy named Da'Rick. Why would it be common sense that you'd rather have Joe answer your phones than Da'Rick? It is not completely obvious as you suggest it is. My thinking is that discrimination is not OK, but I want to hear your explaination about why it is.

Is it? That's what I originally listed (along with Lemonjello, Ransom, etc.). YOU were the one who tried to say it was OK. What about a name like Labia? Or Vagina? Or Megatron? There are people in the United States named all of those things. You're telling me on one hand that I was wrong, "elitist," "self-righteous," and "biggotted" for thinking there are some silly names that for some jobs I'd rather hire someone named Joe. But then you also said you'd hire Da'Rick over Joe because Joe would be less creative than Da'Rick. Get the f*ck out of here. You have so clearly contradicted yourself so many times it's beyond comical.

As for Da'Rick the ONLY reason that name was introduced (it wasn't in the original post or subsequent ones) was that Bluto said "what about ethnic names or family names?" and I said (paraphrasing) "I'm not talking about those, but you can't tell me something like Da'Rick is 'culture' but something like 'Ransom' isn't."

You say "You know the discussion is not about the name Buttface or Lemonjello but about discriminaiton." Can you not read? This is a quote from the OP:

It's no different for discriminating against someone for wearing a flip flops to an interview, having piercings, or a myriad of other superficial factors. If someone was named "Buttface" by their parents and didn't change it I'm sure they'd find getting callbacks difficult too.

NO OTHER NAMES WERE BROUGHT UP IN THE OP EXCEPT FOR "BUTTFACE." You keep trying so very hard to twist this to be about the premise you want instead of the actual premise that was raised because your contradictions and logical fallacies have been pointed out about a half dozen times now. Just quit it.

 

[IrishLax]

There's a reason I stay away from threads such as this. They tend and trend toward the absurd.

Lax, I still can't shake my mental image of you as a vagrant shuffling around a Los Angeles airport. Should that be reason for me to hire IrishPat rather than you?

I assume that your attitude/opinions would preclude your hiring of Moon Unit or Dweezle Zappa even if their qualifications equalled or exceeded those of Joe Dirt or Jane Doe. Where do you draw the line? There was Zero Mostel, Zbigniew Kazimierz Brzezinski and Spiro Agnew to name a few.

Just what is it you want from an employee?

Dshans for a grammar Nazi you should be better at reading comprehension. I'd hire the most qualified person every single time. The question is about two completely equal candidates.

 

[dshans]

Dshans for a grammar Nazi you should be better at reading comprehension. I'd hire the most qualified person every single time. The question is about two completely equal candidates.

My reading comprehension is not lacking. I've slogged through every post in this thread, as tedious as it's been at times.

The question remains: what distinguishes "the most qualified person" in your mind when deciding between "equal quality candidates?" Name? Tattoos? Hair length? Cuffs or no cuffs on trousers?

I am not not now, nor have I ever been a "Nazi" of any stripe, color or sort. The world we live in is objective. Observations, reactions and decision are subjective. Both are subject to review, commentary and revision.

Over and out, Roger Dodger.

 

[IrishLax]

My reading comprehension is not lacking. I've slogged through every post in this thread, as tedious as it's been at times.

The question remains: what distinguishes "the most qualified person" in your mind when deciding between "equal quality candidates?" Name? Tattoos? Hair length? Cuffs or no cuffs on trousers?

I am not not now, nor have I ever been a "Nazi" of any stripe, color or sort. The world we live in is objective. Observations, reactions and decision are subjective. Both are subject to review, commentary and revision.

Over and out, Roger Dodger.

The obvious answer is that it depends on the particulars of the situation and job. Running a place like the 9:30 Club in DC? I'll take the guy with tats and long hair every time. Need to do client relations for a Government contractor with a Marine Corps base? I'll take the clean cut, articulate, and respectful guy.

The problem I have is with hyper-PC people like GoIrish who refuse to acknowledge that there is a scenario where someone's name could/would/should be a detriment to their being hired... while simultaneously concluding that someone named Joe would be boring and not creative. Completely hypocritical, contradictory, and ridiculous.

 

[GoIrish41]

You are? What does completely equal mean? Go look up the dictionary definition of equal. Or some synonyms of it. You're starting to introduce all kinds of new things about "look" or "sound" that were never in the original premise. Nice try, though.

Oh, and "look" and "sound" are OFTEN considered part of "professional qualifications"... how someone speaks and orally communicates is of paramount importance to most jobs. Are you debating this? Are you going to pretend "oral communication skills" isn't commonly listed on employee reviews? Or focused on for interview prep? Or one the single most important things for someone answering a phone? And are you going to pretend that "look" isn't important for many jobs? You think a law firm is going to hire someone with a facial tat and long unkempt hair over someone who is clean cut?

Your grasping at straws and doing so poorly.



Is it? That's what I originally listed (along with Lemonjello, Ransom, etc.). YOU were the one who tried to say it was OK. What about a name like Labia? Or Vagina? Or Megatron? There are people in the United States named all of those things. You're telling me on one hand that I was wrong, "elitist," "self-righteous," and "biggotted" for thinking there are some silly names that for some jobs I'd rather hire someone named Joe. But then you also said you'd hire Da'Rick over Joe because Joe would be less creative than Da'Rick. Get the f*ck out of here. You have so clearly contradicted yourself so many times it's beyond comical.

As for Da'Rick the ONLY reason that name was introduced (it wasn't in the original post or subsequent ones) was that Bluto said "what about ethnic names or family names?" and I said (paraphrasing) "I'm not talking about those, but you can't tell me something like Da'Rick is 'culture' but something like 'Ransom' isn't."

You say "You know the discussion is not about the name Buttface or Lemonjello but about discriminaiton." Can you not read? This is a quote from the OP:


NO OTHER NAMES WERE BROUGHT UP IN THE OP EXCEPT FOR "BUTTFACE." You keep trying so very hard to twist this to be about the premise you want instead of the actual premise that was raised because your contradictions and logical fallacies have been pointed out about a half dozen times now. Just quit it.

Let's look at the definition then:

Equal:
adjective

1. being the same in quantity, size, degree, or value.

"add equal amounts of water and flour"

Flour and water are equal, but they are not the same thing


2. having the ability or resources to meet (a challenge).

"the players proved equal to the task"

Noun

1. a person or thing considered to be the same as another in status or quality.

"we all treat each other as equals"

In the phrase above, two entities treat each other as equals. It doesn't say they are the same, but they treat each other that way -- much like your two candidates you are interviewing for a job -- only they are not equal in your mind because you think one of their names is dumb

Verb

1. be the same as in number or amount.

"four plus six divided by two equals five"

Clearly four, six and two are not the same, but the combinaiton they are equal to five.

NONE of these definitions mean that everything is the same in every way because that is not what equal means. Equal means that when comparing two or more things, the pertinent characteristics of those things are objectively the same. You were talking about professional qualifications, and you are just being intellectually dishonest to suggest otherwise. So, we were comparing "equal" professional qualifications and not two clones with different names.

You are too busy arguing about the argument to defend your idiotic original point, which was that it is OK to descriminate because you don't like someone's name. Everything else is smoke and mirrors. For example, you keep saying I said I would hire Da'Rick and not Joe. I never said that and was simply illustrating that your "methodology" was flawed in letting the name of a candidate make the decision for you. With all of your posts on this topic, you have neglected to answer the simple question: Why is it OK for you to descriminate against Da'Rick, or LaQuan, or DeAngelo or Toby? I mean, what harm would come to your company if a guy not named Joe or Bob or Steve answered the phone? Feel free to dance around the subject, but that is the essence of this discussion and you are too worried about who is more rhetorically savvy and less concerned about explaining your utterly ridiculous position.

 

[IrishLax]

Let's look at the definition then:

Equal:
adjective

1. being the same in quantity, size, degree, or value.

"add equal amounts of water and flour"

Flour and water are equal, but they are not the same thing


2. having the ability or resources to meet (a challenge).

"the players proved equal to the task"

Noun

1. a person or thing considered to be the same as another in status or quality.

"we all treat each other as equals"

In the phrase above, two entities treat each other as equals. It doesn't say they are the same, but they treat each other that way -- much like your two candidates you are interviewing for a job -- only they are not equal in your mind because you think one of their names is dumb

Verb

1. be the same as in number or amount.

"four plus six divided by two equals five"

Clearly four, six and two are not the same, but the combinaiton they are equal to five.

NONE of these definitions mean that everything is the same in every way because that is not what equal means. Equal means that when comparing two or more things, the pertinent characteristics of those things are objectively the same. You were talking about professional qualifications, and you are just being intellectually dishonest to suggest otherwise. So, we were comparing "equal" professional qualifications and not two clones with different names.

You are too busy arguing about the argument to defend your idiotic original point, which was that it is OK to descriminate because you don't like someone's name.

I just don't know what is the funniest part of this. That you're trying to get on me for 'arguing about the argument,' or the ridiculous long form attempt to distort the definition of "equal" to mean what you want it to.

You are the one who starts "arguing the argument" in post #105 when you don't want to accept the premise of the two candidates being equal. Then in #110 you go completely off the reservation with "well, no two people can actually be equal, so..." ... I mean, I get why you resorted to this. You couldn't argue the actual original premise so you need to make the argument about something completely different.

The warping of the dictionary definition of equal is just... wow. You totally get where you erred on all of those bolded statements, right? And why they're ridiculous? Just in case you're not trolling...

"Flour and water are not equal"... yeah, no kidding. The adjective equal was used to describe ONE ASPECT of the chemicals compounds. It's unclear from your example, but it's referring to either the VOLUME or MASS of water being numerically equivalent to flour. If the two masses were equivalent in every respect, they would be the exact same. To bring this back to job applicants, being equivalent in experience would be ONE ASPECT... education, personality, recommendations, etc. would be other aspects that would need to be equivalent as well. Common freaking sense.

Your second example actually supports what I'm saying? If they're of the same quality in every aspect and one has a detrimental name, explain to me why it is wrong to hire the one who doesn't? I mean... one equal has to get the job, the other doesn't... so what's wrong with picking the one whose name I like better? At worst, it should be a wash. There is no logical argument that can be made that picking your favorite guy Buttface is either a more valid or correct decision.

Your numerical one... I don't even... what? What is the remote relevance?

Actually, maybe the funniest part is that you can't spell discriminate, but you're convinced you're the authority on it.

 

[IrishLax]

which was that it is OK to descriminate because you don't like someone's name. Everything else is smoke and mirrors. For example, you keep saying I said I would hire Da'Rick and not Joe. I never said that and was simply illustrating that your "methodology" was flawed in letting the name of a candidate make the decision for you. With all of your posts on this topic, you have neglected to answer the simple question: Why is it OK for you to descriminate against Da'Rick, or LaQuan, or DeAngelo or Toby? I mean, what harm would come to your company if a guy not named Joe or Bob or Steve answered the phone? Feel free to dance around the subject, but that is the essence of this discussion and you are too worried about who is more rhetorically savvy and less concerned about explaining your utterly ridiculous position.

I'm going to save the paragraphs and just make this short and sweet. Here are all the factually incorrect things you posted throughout this thread and haven't even tried to own up to:

1. That turning someone down for a job because they have an unpalatable name is illegal. That is factually incorrect. There are many forms of discrimination that are legally protected against, that is not one of them. I'm allowed to not hire someone named Ransom or Labia for customer service if I think their name doesn't represent my company well.
2. That your name is something you can't chose. That is factually incorrect. Literally billions of people in the world change their names legally during their life, and many more use nicknames, etc.
3. You said there was no basis to choose someone based on a name, and then turned around and said you wouldn't pick someone with a boring name like Joe because it somehow implies that they're less creative. This statement is in fact far more judgemental of a person for a name than ANYTHING I said... my entire premise is based on how someone's name might be perceived by OTHERS that they deal with (i.e. if you call up with a problem and customer service rep named Ransom answers the phone, they might be inclined at first blush to not take the person seriously), not that it says something about the inherent QUALITIES of the person.

I'm not letting you walk away from this colossal mound of crap that you posted by trying to change the premise of the whole argument. Own up to everything wrong with these statements, or forever be branded as worse than Irishpat.

 

[IrishLax]

With all of your posts on this topic, you have neglected to answer the simple question: Why is it OK for you to descriminate against Da'Rick, or LaQuan, or DeAngelo or Toby? I mean, what harm would come to your company if a guy not named Joe or Bob or Steve answered the phone? Feel free to dance around the subject, but that is the essence of this discussion and you are too worried about who is more rhetorically savvy and less concerned about explaining your utterly ridiculous position.

Finally, I'll play ball just this last time and then I'm done. I have, in fact, answered this question numerous times, but here it goes once more:

1. NEVER EVER was Da'Rick in the original argument, it was only brought in as a response to Bluto about what names can be considered "cultural." For 99.9% of jobs I'd have no problem with someone named Da'Rick, and would have no problem with someone named Da'Rick for 100% jobs if he was savvy enough that when dealing with specific clientelle he would use Rick or a pseudonym. The issue comes in with specific jobs... like phone sales to elderly white people in Alabama... where it is just common sense that there are a small amount of people that would have a negative reaction to a name like Da'Rick (or Ransom or any non-traditional name) over the phone and therefor a completely equal "Rick" would be more effective. It does not matter what race the man named Da'Rick is that is placing the calls, it's about the name.

2. I certainly never said anything about Laquon, Deangelo, or Toby. This is the central point of your BS that I just do not understand... you so clearly jumped into this feet first wanting to make it about race discrimination NOT name discrimination. I refuse even acknowledge this, because outside of the first post by Bluto used as a jumping off point, that's not what it has been about. From post #51 onward it is abundantly clear that I'm talking about all names independent of race... and I routinely bring up from the very beginning many examples of "white" names that would be potentially problematic.

3. My "utterly ridiculous position" has been pretty darn straight forward and consistent throughout. It's extremely easy to follow and is more or less common sense. How you can't even conceive that it might be beneficial to have customer service reps named Susan, Chris, and Mark for certain clientele over Ransom, Lemonjello, and Labia shows you aren't even trying.

 

[GoIrish41]

I just don't know what is the funniest part of this. That you're trying to get on me for 'arguing about the argument,' or the ridiculous long form attempt to distort the definition of "equal" to mean what you want it to.

You are the one who starts "arguing the argument" in post #105 when you don't want to accept the premise of the two candidates being equal. Then in #110 you go completely off the reservation with "well, no two people can actually be equal, so..." ... I mean, I get why you resorted to this. You couldn't argue the actual original premise so you need to make the argument about something completely different.

The warping of the dictionary definition of equal is just... wow. You totally get where you erred on all of those bolded statements, right? And why they're ridiculous? Just in case you're not trolling...

"Flour and water are not equal"... yeah, no kidding. The adjective equal was used to describe ONE ASPECT of the chemicals compounds. It's unclear from your example, but it's referring to either the VOLUME or MASS of water being numerically equivalent to flour. If the two masses were equivalent in every respect, they would be the exact same. To bring this back to job applicants, being equivalent in experience would be ONE ASPECT... education, personality, recommendations, etc. would be other aspects that would need to be equivalent as well. Common freaking sense.

Your second example actually supports what I'm saying? If they're of the same quality in every aspect and one has a detrimental name, explain to me why it is wrong to hire the one who doesn't? I mean... one equal has to get the job, the other doesn't... so what's wrong with picking the one whose name I like better? At worst, it should be a wash. There is no logical argument that can be made that picking your favorite guy Buttface is either a more valid or correct decision.

Your numerical one... I don't even... what? What is the remote relevance?

Actually, maybe the funniest part is that you can't spell discriminate, but you're convinced you're the authority on it.

You are a silly person. I'm not trying to distort the meaning of anything. The word means what it means. I don't know why you can't acknowledge that you weren't talking about job qualifications, which would have made complete sense in the context of the converstion. What you are trying to pretend you were talking about was two identical twins applying for the same job, and the parents decided to call one son Joe and the other something ridiculous. That is the only way two people might even come close to being the same in every respect. You are trying to make it sound as though you meant one person was a carbon copy of another person and you are too stubborn to acknowledge that isn't what you meant. I'm borded with this stupid conversation and with your dumb idea about why it is OK to discriminate against people that YOU think have stupid names. Someday when you are facing a lawsuit for discriminatiion because a name on a resume gave you some sort of God-like insight into a person's character, you can look back on this thread and realize that you could have avoided the trouble you face.

 

[GoIrish41]

Finally, I'll play ball just this last time and then I'm done. I have, in fact, answered this question numerous times, but here it goes once more:

1. NEVER EVER was Da'Rick in the original argument, it was only brought in as a response to Bluto about what names can be considered "cultural." For 99.9% of jobs I'd have no problem with someone named Da'Rick, and would have no problem with someone named Da'Rick for 100% jobs if he was savvy enough that when dealing with specific clientelle he would use Rick or a pseudonym. The issue comes in with specific jobs... like phone sales to elderly white people in Alabama... where it is just common sense that there are a small amount of people that would have a negative reaction to a name like Da'Rick (or Ransom or any non-traditional name) over the phone and therefor a completely equal "Rick" would be more effective. It does not matter what race the man named Da'Rick is that is placing the calls, it's about the name.


2. I certainly never said anything about Laquon, Deangelo, or Toby. This is the central point of your BS that I just do not understand... you so clearly jumped into this feet first wanting to make it about race discrimination NOT name discrimination. I refuse even acknowledge this, because outside of the first post by Bluto used as a jumping off point, that's not what it has been about. From post #51 onward it is abundantly clear that I'm talking about all names independent of race... and I routinely bring up from the very beginning many examples of "white" names that would be potentially problematic.

3. My "utterly ridiculous position" has been pretty darn straight forward and consistent throughout. It's extremely easy to follow and is more or less common sense. How you can't even conceive that it might be beneficial to have customer service reps named Susan, Chris, and Mark for certain clientele over Ransom, Lemonjello, and Labia shows you aren't even trying.

That is racial discrimination. And THAT is the point. You are saying you are picking a diffent guy because YOU THINK it will offend the racial sensibilities of customers. THAT is illegal.