Many Job Ads on Facebook Illegally Exclude Women, ACLU Says (nbcnews.com) 244
Facebook's advertising platform is being used by prospective employers to discriminate against women, according to a lawsuit filed Tuesday. From a report: The American Civil Liberties Union, joined by a labor union and a law firm that specializes in representing employees, has filed a written charge against Facebook with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the federal agency that enforces anti-discrimination laws in the workplace. The charge asks for an investigation of the social media company and an injunction against what it calls discriminatory practices at a company with a sizable influence over the U.S. labor market. It also claims Facebook's system violates anti-discrimination provisions of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The social network has faced sustained criticism for years that it fails to stop discriminatory ads of various kinds, from housing ads that exclude certain races to job ads targeted only at younger workers. In August, Facebook said it would remove 5,000 targeted advertising options from its platform in an effort to prevent discrimination.
Everything is "discriminatory" (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Everything is "discriminatory" (Score:5, Insightful)
You seem to be comparing this to advertisers who specific target ads in say ebony, or on BET. However it's not quite the same thing.
I think the housing example is the clearest example of where this is obviously wrong. There are strong laws against discrimination in housing and specifically not showing your ad to a segment of the population is clearly discriminatory.
Targeting is fine, exclusion isn't.
Re: (Score:2)
Writing "Confident programmers wanted. Must thrive on criticism. Expected to teambuild in daily FPS tournaments" and marking the ad "Only show to men"
Re: (Score:2)
Why not target both?
Re: (Score:3)
It seems fairly just on its face but say I have a product that is an oil for people with African phenotype hair. It would be crazy for me to be sued for targeting African Americans. What if I wanted sales people for my product? Shouldn't I be able to publish an ad that targets African Americans that will actually be able to successfully market it for me? A white chick with straight blonde hair probably isn't going to be my best salesperson.
I believe that certain allowances are made. It's ok to discriminate if that particular characteristic is paramount to the job. As an example, I grew up in Hawaii. The Polynesian Cultural Center can discriminate based on perceived race for performers (people don't fly thousands of miles and spend lots of money to see white blondes doing the Samoan slap dance, for example), but race cannot be a factor in hiring tour guides (but spoken languages can). I said perceived race because my sister (natural blonde) dy
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Everything is "discriminatory" (Score:4, Informative)
Hooters hires only female waitstaff, and requires them to be "slim and fit". They were sued, and won, since the appearance of their waitresses is critical to their business model. So the law makes reasonable exceptions.
Re: (Score:2)
but omg it's fat shaming! Everyone is beautiful! etc ad nauseum. Social Justice: it's a slippery slope all the way down.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When you say "market it for me", exactly what work are you expecting them to carry out? If it's modelling then okay, they need the right type of hair, and the law allows you to select people based on that genuine need. But if it's just counter sales or something then you have a harder time arguing that the blond won't be able to sell it, because that really depends on her sales skills and not her ability to use the product on herself.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm willing to bet there's a correlation between the attractiveness of the sales staff and sales stats for almost any product bought in-person.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
In this particular case above, the jobs are available to both men and women, both men and women are equally qualified, the law forbids discrimination, and yet the ads were targeted only to younger men. It's pretty hard to justify that.
Re:Everything is "discriminatory" (Score:5, Insightful)
Job wanted ads are not the same as advertising for consumer products and services. A job is not a product - they are two different things treated in very different ways by the legal system.
Re:Everything is "discriminatory" (Score:4, Insightful)
Job ads and housing ads are treated exactly the same. That's why this issue has come up in the past on that very subject (housing).
Civil Rights laws have rather loose "result based" standards that probably seem counter-intutitive to a lot of civil libertines.
You can't even avoid advertising to people. What constitutes that sort of thing isn't intuitive to a layman.
Even excluding convicted criminals can be a problem.
Re:Everything is "discriminatory" (Score:5, Insightful)
Job ads and housing ads are treated exactly the same. That's why this issue has come up in the past on that very subject (housing).
Yes, they're treated the same, which is to say that Facebook intentionally created a tool that enables discrimination. There shouldn't even be discriminatory options presented when you create an advertisement for a job or a rental, but that's how Facebook authored the tool.
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.businessinsider.com/how-can-hooters-hire-only-women-2015-9
Re: (Score:2)
The case didn't reach a final judgement, they settled out of court.
Re: (Score:2)
Civil Rights laws have rather loose "result based" standards that probably seem counter-intutitive to a lot of civil libertines.
That's one hell of a way to put it. There's nothing counter-intuitive about it at all. It's a retread of some of the most illiberal policies ever conceived.
Re: (Score:2)
Surprisingly, advertising and selling some consumer goods are in fact subject to nondiscrimination laws. That's not including financial products, for instance, which are clearly subject.
Re: (Score:2)
Really, it seems very straightforward for Facebook to exclude all targeted options from adds for protected categories: job, housing, most financial products, etc. Veyr obvious, very easy, very sketchy that they haven't done it yet.
Re: (Score:2)
And you think this is the case behind this article? Facebook only targets jobs to men only if these are stripper jobs? You're sure there were any other types of jobs which both men and women could do equally well that tried to advertise on Facebook but only to men?
Re:Everything is "discriminatory" (Score:5, Insightful)
I can't believe some people are really going to defend something like a job posting site offering the ability to employers to say "I only want men to know about this job." That's not a complicated case for discrimination. Newspapers and job posting websites like monster didn't offer protected class attribute targeting and employers didn't find this so economically burdensome as to not to advertise in them so it's pretty stupid to charge that this is something that employers need to be able to do as the cost of making the job market significantly less transparent for everybody.
Re:Everything is "discriminatory" (Score:4, Insightful)
I can't believe some people are really going to defend something like a job posting site offering the ability to employers to say "I only want men to know about this job."
Some people believe in freedom, including the freedom to choose how you target advertising that you are paying for. Other people believe it is a valid and reasonable function of the police power of the state to force people to spend their money against their wishes. Therein lies the dichotomy. Freedom or not freedom. Anti-freedom advocates know their position is morally inferior, which is why they expend a tremendous amount of energy exercising the mental gymnastics required to define "freedom" as requiring people to behave a certain way under penalty of imprisonment.
Re: (Score:3)
You're setting out a false dichotomy there. The freedom loving sexist can choose to not spend their money on advertising.
The state merely mandates that if they do spend their money on advertising, they need to obey the social contract inherent to operating within that jurisdiction.
That's not forcing them to spend any money at all. It's not denying them freedom either. You're just being silly.
Re: (Score:2)
The state merely mandates
lulz
Need to know Motivation (Score:2)
I can't believe some people are really going to defend something like a job posting site offering the ability to employers to say "I only want men to know about this job."
If that is what they are doing then there is absolutely no argument at all. However, I suspect that they are doing something more nuanced and, rather than just selecting "men-only" they are selecting to display the ads to people with certain interests and then selecting interests that are biased towards men.
This makes the situation a lot less clear. If the interest group targetted has an interest related to the job being advertized then this is reasonable discrimination regardless of the gender balance
Wired Article Provides Specific Details on Ads (Score:2)
One ad seeking a roofer, from a company called Enhanced Roofing and Remodeling, was targeted to men 23 to 50 in Silver Spring, Maryland, according to information from Facebook accompanying the ad. Another, from JK Moving, seeking drivers, targeted men age 21 to 55 who live or were recently in Maryland.
In both cases, they very specifically targeted not just gender (men) but age (21-55, 23-50). Doesn't seem like much nuance around it.
Re: (Score:2)
Newspapers and job posting websites like monster didn't offer protected class attribute targeting and employers didn't find this so economically burdensome as to not to advertise in them...
Wanna bet? The declining readership isn't what killed newspapers. The decline in advertising revenue is what killed them. And the reason for that was expense and ineffectiveness. Advertising is of dubious utility at the best of times. Newspaper advertising, with its lovely "egalitarian-ness" allowed your advertisement to reach millions of people you literally did not want to reach, and specifically, did not want to pay to reach. Reaching all of those extra totally useless eyeballs cost money. A LOT o
Re: (Score:3)
You mean like the mental gymnastics feminists use to excuse companies entirely run by women? How about colleges asking for white students to stay home for a day?
Of course, like you say, I will not get a straight answer from you on this because you are no different than the ones you target.
Strawman (Score:3, Insightful)
If I can risk strawmaning myself for a bit here, I think the problem is we've been too far removed from the worst of discrimination for too long. We forget too easily that women didn't used to vote, could be beaten and even raped with impunity, couldn't own property or were themselves property. What's crazy is there's large swaths of the world where all t
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting that they are complaining about gender discrimination now. Previously it was race and efforts to get Facebook to fix it didn't work out so well, as it's still going on. Historically white women have often been the first to benefit from greater equality so when there is a stubborn problem like this it makes sense to target gender first. Just a shame it has to happen at all.
Re: (Score:2)
If I can risk strawmaning myself for a bit here,
Risk level - 100% ;)
We forget too easily that women didn't used to vote, could be beaten and even raped with impunity, couldn't own property or were themselves property
Large time gap between some of this ... not to mention unevenly true in different times and places.
For example, one reason that pagan Rome hated Christians is that Christianity made women so uppity, considered them of equal worth, etc.
What's crazy is there's large swaths of the world where all this is still true and we turn a blind eye to it.
When "we" don't turn a blind eye to it, "progressives" call us "racists".
There's also a sizable minority of regressives who want to turn back the clock. Some (Jordon Peterson comes to mind) have pretty large followings and speak in pretty reasonable terms...
There is nobody in the US who advocates for women to be property, "raped with impunity", etc. Certainly not Jordon Peterson.
Well, nobody except the hordes from those "large swaths of
Re:Strawman (Score:5, Insightful)
>> Jordon Peterson comes to mind
So what you're saying is that you have seen hit pieces on Jordan Peterson, have no idea what he says, and are now using him in your vague argument advocating for social justice while completely ignoring the agency of women to make their own life choices.
Re: (Score:2)
The whole point of the laws Facebook is (accused of) violating is that women cannot make their own choices if there are a bunch of secret jobs they cannot choose to apply for because Facebook hide the job listings from them.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
We forget too easily that women didn't used to vote, could be beaten and even raped with impunity, couldn't own property or were themselves property. What's crazy is there's large swaths of the world where all this is still true and we turn a blind eye to it.
Right. Those places definitely need some Freedom! brought to them. Nothing says Freedom! like tanks in the streets.
It isn't "our" job to radically alter other people's cultures, especially because the only ways we know to do that which actually worked historically are brutally and indiscriminately violent. Those cultures will change from within, or not at all. Unless and until they acquire their own Susan B. Anthony's, there own Elizabeth Stanton's, there's nothing "we" can do. And there is no "we" her
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"The entire point of advertising is to reach those groups most likely to respond to your product."
Employment ads often are intended to reach those candidates most qualified, primarily, and secondarily most likely to respond.
Qualification cannot be, legally, determined by race, color, creed, national origin, sex, age, and a few other categories I've forgotten.
So you cannot legally restrict advertising based on these and other criteria. In fact, even location is a challenging criteria, as zip code or specific
Re: (Score:2)
So you cannot legally restrict advertising based on these and other criteria.
Yes, but suppose you advertize to those with an interest in car maintenance (which purely for the sake of this argument let's assume is a male-dominated group)? The effect is that you would be targetting the ad to a predominantly male group but is this illegal gender discrimination?
If you are doing this for a job working as a car mechanic this seems like a very reasonable thing to do. However, if your job is for an investment banker your motivation is likely to be illegal gender discrimination. This mak
Re: (Score:2)
If your criteria for determining the interest in 'car maintenance' includes any variables or factors that include sex (or gender), you've done it wrong.
I'm pretty sure that, if you actually did mean to state that interest in car maintenance could reasonably be assumed to be more prevalent among men than women, while interest in investment banking would not be reasonably assumed to be different between men and women, your primary and legal error is that first, these interests are not exclusively of interest
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This seems pretty nonsensical to me. The entire point of advertising is to reach those groups most likely to respond to your product. Life without discrimination isn't even really life.. you can't even acknowledge a difference between right and wrong, good or evil. It's like we're trying to unmake ourselves.
That is what happens when you allow the Legal Industrial Complex to convince every American that they're offended by every fucking thing, or should be.
And of course they should sue someone because of it.
This is exactly how we ended up here in the Land of the Perpetually Offended. The irony? We fight every day to retain Freedom of Speech, and yet we're working very quickly at the same time to utterly destroy it with this addiction to political correctness.
Re: (Score:2)
I think they may be overreaching to claim the targeting system itself is discriminatory (in a protected sense). As other's have said, if you're marketing a product only relevant to a specific group, it makes sense to target that group. No point marketting strong sunscreen to dark-skinned people, or feminine products to men.
What *is* a problem is using the targeting system to exclude groups that your specific product (jobs and housing) are legally forbidden from discriminating against.
Re: (Score:2)
This seems pretty nonsensical to me. If you don't get it why do you feel compelled to comment about it?
The entire point of advertising is to reach those groups most likely to respond to your product. Exclusion of a demographic of people is counter productive of trying to reach people who may respond to your product.
Life without discrimination isn't even really life.. you can't even acknowledge a difference between right and wrong, good or evil. It's like we're trying to unmake ourselves. As cultured humans,
Re: (Score:2)
You're switching the definition of "discrimination" halfway through your post. That's a lie.
And most advertising is discriminatory. But certain things (housing, jobs) are regulated because the goal isn't to "reach the (single person, not group) you want to sell to" It's to offer an opportunity. And, things like housing and jobs are considered to be important to be offered uniformly.
Re: (Score:2)
Has no one on /. heard of VPNs? Open proxies?
Re: (Score:2)
Except that for certain kinds of things, it is illegal to exclude certain groups.
You can't legally have a job ad or a listing for an apartment which say "men only" or "no black people". That is straight up against the law.
The law isn't as black and white as that for jobs. The Polynesian Cultural Center legally only highers performers which appear to be from the different Polynesian races - skin tone and hair color / texture are part of the job requirement (tourists don't travel thousands of miles to see a blonde guy from Boise, Idaho climbing the coconut tree without a ladder).
Also, apartments can be limited to just single women or just single men.
What Facebook has been doing is enabling certain kinds of targeted advertising which broke the law.
So, no, this isn't nonsensical, this is forcing Facebook to comply with a 50+ year old law which specifically precludes this kind of stuff.
Sorry, get over it and deal with it. You want to have your "whiny-white-men-only incel club", go ahead. But that doesn't mean it's legal for Facebook to sell you ad terms which enforce that.
I think Facebook introduced these discriminatory options for the opposite goal
Re: (Score:2)
Also, apartments can be limited to just single women or just single men.
You can discriminate for boarders, but not tenants. Boarders share living space, and generally have fewer rights than tenants. For instance, boarders are far easier to evict.
Re: (Score:3)
Let me try: it is fundamentally wrong that the number of women in computing has plummeted even as the number of women in other major technical professions–including law, accounting, medicine, and scientific research–has approached parity.
Says who? Women have been given the choice, and as it turns out, the more choices they have, the more likely they are to choose professions that align best with their life priorities, and computing doesn't. It is not your privilege to say what all women should want. Even if you are a woman, it's still not. You can only say what you want, not every other woman. The aggregate of all of those empowered, independent women making informed, free decisions is to freely choose—not computing. You have no
Re: (Score:2)
Let me try: it is fundamentally wrong that the number of women in computing has plummeted
Why? What's 'wrong' about it? Who the fuck are you to tell women they're making the wrong career choices?
Sexist shit.
Women are excluded from programming
No, they're not. Ignorant sexist shit.
Take the example of Craigslist (Score:2)
It's been a long time, maybe forever, since Craigslist accepted^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H permitted ads for firearms and most any accessory.
Craigslist has ended personals in the US, all done. Globally not so much yet, but it's inevitable.
A variety of Craigslist categories have been limited or removed. Their current US list of prohibitions:
weapons; firearms/guns and components; BB/pellet, stun, and spear guns; etc
ammunition, clips, cartridges, reloading materials, gunpowder, fireworks, explosives
offers, solicitation,
Re: (Score:2)
It's been a long time, maybe forever, since Craigslist permitted ads for firearms
But my guns are all girls. What am I supposed to do if I want to find a new home for Bessie?
Re: Take the example of Craigslist (Score:2)
And yet, you dare assume your guns' gender identity, even so far as to assume it is fixed. How DARE you, sir/madam/etc. How DARE you...
#metoo Blowback. (Score:2, Interesting)
Guys never accuse their boss of looking at them wrong for profit and career advancement.
Re:#metoo Blowback. (Score:5, Interesting)
This claim that mere accusations of being looked at "wrong" are enough for sexual harassment complaints is bogus. There needs to be a documented pattern of behaviour or a single well documented overt incident like groping in public.
Complaining about looks with no evidence will just get you on HR's shit list and passed over for promotion.
Re: (Score:2)
This claim that mere accusations of being looked at "wrong" are enough for sexual harassment complaints is bogus. There needs to be a documented pattern of behaviour
How can you document a pattern of behaviour if you do not have a mechanism for complaining about the instances of said behaviour? In other words, it is the repeated sexual harassment complaints that create the documented pattern of behaviour, which will eventually result in action being taken on those complaints. The threshold for action depends on the litigation sensitivity of the organization.
Complaining about looks with no evidence
How does one document "a look"?
Re: (Score:2)
That was my point. Your perception of a look is never going to be enough for any kind of complaint.
Re: (Score:2)
That was my point. Your perception of a look is never going to be enough for any kind of complaint.
My point was that you said "complaining ... without evidence". If the "look" is sufficiently suggestive or harassing in nature, then it does rise to the level of complaint, yet you think that "evidence" is required before someone can complain.
Let's say you poke your head out of your cubicle and stare at your coworker's ass every time she walks by, or every time you talk to her about anything you stare at her boobs instead of looking her in the eye. Or maybe you become especially clumsy in her presence and
Re: (Score:2)
If it's a pattern of behaviour like that then the way to deal with it is witnesses. Point it out to another colleague, ask them to observe.
My point was merely that this claim you will be destroyed with a sexual harassment claim merely for gazing in the direction of a women, as some people claim, is rubbish.
Re: (Score:2)
And given how rapidly the definition is expanding, and is already basically defined by the 'survivor', can you really have much confidence that we won't be down to a single look constituting sexual harassment any day now?
Just Curious (Score:3)
Is that really the case, or is a hypothetical to show intent? Because if it is true, those are usually jobs squarely in the argument of "you don't hear about women arguing to get THESE jobs", and would be pretty interesting to hear direct evidence to the contrary.
Problems will occur (Score:3)
ALCU didn't help my friend. Hate crimes ignored. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So much misunderstanding to unpack here:
First and foremost, the ACLU isn't a law enforcement body. Homicide is crime, so they have nothing to do with jail time. That's on the judge, the jury, and the rest of the penal system.
"Punk" isn't a protected class, so there is no civil rights issue. Punk includes all races, or at least it used to, so this can't be related to racism.
Raiding the venues might have First Amendment implications if the intent was to suppress punk music or culture. But if those venues had
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
True-ish. That's what they were set up to do, but they and you are defining "attacks on liberty" differently
If you convinced them that the cops were macing people because they were punks then the ACLU may have gotten involved. Because they care about the freedom to express yourself. But they aren't really involved in the "no police brutality" thing.
You can't have your cake and eat it too (Score:2)
Ads are targeted based on interest, what a user searches, clicks, etc. So when more males tend to view tech, code, game, and other based articles and groups and then those males receive targeted ads for jobs in the fields they show interest in, or invites to beta test a game they showed interest in, or discount on tickets to some gaming convention or concert for a band they show interest in, then that isn't discriminatory.
So the spammers went from general spam ads but corporations fussed and wanted targeted
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
If the magazine boasted that it had technological measures in place that ensured only men read *could* or *did* it, then you'd absolutely have a legal basis for discrimination.
Re: (Score:2)
If the magazine boasted that it had technological measures in place that ensured only men read *could* or *did* it, then you'd absolutely have a legal basis for discrimination.
Theoretically you could create an account and register as a male as a female. I'm not on facebook, but I know three of my family members are and they all use false names. (not false genders though).
Either way though- facebook ad to men only or advertising to a male magazine shows a preference to only advertise towards men. If the job is still open to women, I'm not convinced that is illegal, although I'm open to being convinced that it is if anyone has any examples where a court has decided that it is.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
In current climate, not hiring women in male dominated environment is not just right. It's mandatory. By hiring women, you open yourself to massive liability from potential "she had a meeting with a colleague with doors closed = #metoo" which can end a company's reputation, and with it, the company itself.
Unfortunate, but that's just the way it is today. Much of progress that was made in workplace gender equality was all but wiped out in last couple of years. We're back in the 90s or so.
Re: (Score:3)
So...companies should not hire women because men might try too hard to nail them?
Re: (Score:2)
The exact opposite. Men are horrified of women right now, because so much as an accusation from ubermensch ends untermensch's career. And many of the ubermesch have been systemically trained in education system to be hypersensitive to any attention from men they're not attracted to, meaning that just closing the door in one on one meeting in a room is grounds for a #metoo accusation and end of one's career.
Same does not apply in the other direction, hence the terror that women in workplace now inspire in an
Re: (Score:2)
Would it be illegal to advertise a job in a men's magazine? Probably not, even though you're more likely to only get men reading it.
I don't know whether this is really illegal, but it certainly "feels wrong".
That's the interesting thing about technology; it makes you be overt (at least to yourself, it may or may not be visible to others) about what you are doing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Would it be illegal to advertise a job in a men's magazine? Probably not, even though you're more likely to only get men reading it.
Have you ever left a men's magazine in view with women in the house? You'll be lucky if they don't take it home with them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
0. They can indeed choose what issues or even individual cases they want to intervene in.
1. The ACLU has no Constitutional duty.
Re: (Score:2)
Both of these arguments are utterly irrelevant to this discussion. It's obvious that they as a pressure group get to choose what they want to do. It's also obvious that they have a long standing history of protecting rights of everyone, down to actual nazis.
Not the modern "those that are left of Marx are nazis". Actual "gas the Jews" nazis.
And they obviously have no "constitutional duty", as they are not a government agency. Constitution is the legislation that binds government, not private entities.
Re: (Score:2)
The initial comment "ACLU discriminates a-plenty," highlighted the reality, that not all 'discrimination' is illegal or even improper.
Re: (Score:2)
Irrelevant went to mindless. Ok.
Re: (Score:2)
The ACLU still defends the rights of Nazis and white supremacists. And they're donations have been way up.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and... [vox.com]
Re: What about Discrimination by ACLU? (Score:2)
They did say something like they'd consider the potential for violence at a rally before suing for the group to get a permit. Makes sense with inciting violence as an exception to free speech (that exception being defined awfully narrowly, but their 1st amendment freedom includes not taking such cases anyway)
Re: (Score:2)
Well documented history vs AC whining. This is where you put some hard evidence on the table, or go back under your bridge.
Re: (Score:2)
"How is it right for an unelected minority.....?"
And thereby defining landlords.
Disclaimer - I AM a landlord.
Re: (Score:2)
Problem being that this discrimination exists on both ends. Rent to blacks, white flight starts. Don't rent to blacks, that's discrimination on the face of it.
We still haven't figured out the solution, but the fact that white flight in some form exists worldwide shows that problem is culturally agnostic and very hard to solve.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not very hard to imagine, as that has partially happened already. One of the key reasons for rise of working class populism across the West is in the fact that globalisation made city bourgeoisie realise that they have more commonality with bourgeoisie from other cities than with working class in their own countries.
Hence the globalisation being executed the way it went.
It's interesting that Leninist ideas of internationalism went almost exactly as it was outlined in the Soviet dogma as time passed,
Re:The word "discrimination" means "choice" (Score:5, Informative)
How is it right for an unelected minority to decide who everybody else must live with?
These laws were not put in place by an unelected minority. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964 [wikipedia.org] was a bill that passed Congress and was signed into law by the then-President of the United States Lyndon B. Johnson. The Civil Rights Act made it illegal within the United States to discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. According to Wikipedia, it It prohibits unequal application of voter registration requirements, racial segregation in schools, employment, and public accommodations. Additional laws including (but not limited to) the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, the Equal Pay Act of 1963, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 followed... check out https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/index.cfm [eeoc.gov] to see all of the laws enforced by the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
Duly elected representatives of the people of the United States have determined that these kinds of discrimination will not be tolerated.
Re: (Score:2)
It's conceivable that employers would use different recruiting techniques depending on their target demographic.
We post ads for women above urinals. Is that OK?
Re:Don't you love it, when (Score:5, Insightful)
Liberals happily "eat their own" because they have these things called morals and principles, rather than just simple party tribalism.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Liberals happily "eat their own" because they have these things called morals and principles, rather than just simple party tribalism.
The Oppression Olympics is all about tribalism, not morals.
Re: (Score:2)
Then explain why Al Franken, Harvey Weinstein and Louis C.K. weren't given a mulligan.
Re: (Score:2)
How long did it take for Weinstein to face the music? That started the #MeToo movement, and after that a comedian like Louis C.K. stood no chance.
Al Franken is an illustrative example, because there was initially a lot of pushback to prop him up. But this was during the time of the Roy Moore election, so eventually he fell because it was more politically expedient to drop him.
But what about Keith Ellison? Oh ho, different story here. He's deemed too important right now.
What about Roman Polanski? Remember ho
Re: (Score:2)
How long did it take for Weinstein to face the music? That started the #MeToo movement, and after that a comedian like Louis C.K. stood no chance.
So you're arguing that because this super-rich and powerful man's well-oiled rape factory was able to operate for a long time undiscovered, that's evidence of tribalism, rather than evidence of the effectiveness of a powerful, efficient, and well-funded rape factory?
Al Franken is an illustrative example, because there was initially a lot of pushback to prop him up. But this was during the time of the Roy Moore election, so eventually he fell because it was more politically expedient to drop him.
In other words, he was pushed out in line with their morals and prinicples, but this behavior ultimately benefitted democrats so it doesn't count? No it still does. Maybe you should get your guys to try this morals and principles thing sometime
Re: (Score:2)
operate for a long time undiscovered
It wasn't undiscovered. It was an open secret [duckduckgo.com].
In other words, he was pushed out in line with their morals and prinicples, but this behavior ultimately benefitted democrats so it doesn't count?
Why do you strawman instead of tackling the issue? You ignored the initial pushback. You ignored the context in which he was finally pushed out. It wasn't about morals, it was about what was politically expedient.
How is that an example of hypocrisy or tribalism? Trump [..]
What does Trump have to do with the behavior of the Democrats? Not only does Ellison have multiple accusations by women against him, he's also been associated [washingtonpost.com] with the Nation of Islam and Louis Farrakhan and an apologist [powerlineblog.com] for cop killers.
So? He's a fugitive hiding from US law enforcement. Hollywood nutballs aren't politicians.
But they are lib
Re: (Score:2)
That's an attempt to stretch the most generous interpretation of those words, on par with calling a rock a machine or an abacus a computer. Animals practice tribalism. Tribalism is basically savagery as a team sport.
Re: (Score:2)
While that sounds bad, it doesn't sound like the ACLU's mission. They tend to want to prevent unconstitutional actions by governmental actors, either in practice (the teacher who forces children to pray) or enshrined in law (a state law requiring students to pray.) While it's possible that the prosecutor was doing unconstitutional things, the best remedy seems like anti-corruption laws. In other words, if it's n