Re:IBM Is Being Sued for Age Discrimination After Firing Tho...
by pathseeker on Tuesday September 18, 2018 @08:33PM
(#18020653)
>OP had set up an excluded middle between a conspiracy and an emergent behavior unrelated to bias.
Nobody said it was unrelated to biases except for you. What was being suggested is that it's not a conspiracy (a.k.a an explicit agreement) against older employees. Nobody is suggesting systematic biases don't exist, which is the strawman you are attacking.
>So am I, and that is also irrelevant. It simply doesn't matter whether you, I, or s/he are in that group.
It's relevant (to me at least) in discussions where you have opportunities to hear anecdotes from the victims. We aren't lawyers deliberating a case.
> I wasn't hostile to anyone, only to an argument that had no place in this discussion.
FFS, it's not an argument anyone was making. I don't know why you're being defensive because OP was not defending ageism or claiming that an age bias didn't exist. It was just a suggestion that it was a product of the complex layoff strategies rather than some backroom hand shake of "let's get rid of the olds".
>who presents facts that don't support your "perspective" on an objective question.
You didn't present any facts and I don't have a perspective to support on this matter. I just pointed out that you're attacking people you appear to largely agree with because you're not understanding what they are saying.
Nobody said it was unrelated to biases except for you. What was being suggested is that it's not a conspiracy (a.k.a an explicit agreement) against older employees. Nobody is suggesting systematic biases don't exist, which is the strawman you are attacking.
>So am I, and that is also irrelevant. It simply doesn't matter whether you, I, or s/he are in that group.
It's relevant (to me at least) in discussions where you have opportunities to hear anecdotes from the victims. We aren't lawyers deliberating a case.
> I wasn't hostile to anyone, only to an argument that had no place in this discussion.
FFS, it's not an argument anyone was making. I don't know why you're being defensive because OP was not defending ageism or claiming that an age bias didn't exist. It was just a suggestion that it was a product of the complex layoff strategies rather than some backroom hand shake of "let's get rid of the olds".
>who presents facts that don't support your "perspective" on an objective question.
You didn't present any facts and I don't have a perspective to support on this matter. I just pointed out that you're attacking people you appear to largely agree with because you're not understanding what they are saying.