The wealthy Quaker drivers thing threw me. I know it's an exaggeration but is there a large enough wealthy Quaker driver population drivers ubers for this to be a concern?
I highly doubt that there is. I'm just saying that if you can discriminate on drivers based on protected characteristic Y and data suggesting that characteristic Y is more/less dangerous, then you should be able to discriminate on protected characteristic X based on similar data, or both characteristics X and Y, or characteristics X, Y, Z, U and W.
If characteristic X was race, religion or sexuality, I think people would be extremely opposed to this, and not even entertain the idea that this would be acceptable.
You don't have to dance around it. That's exactly what's happening. The people here who are saying it's okay to discriminate against men because "they" commit sexual assaults at a higher rate, those same people would (rightly) lose their minds if anyone suggest that we should discriminate against African Americans if they were to commit some violent crime at a higher rate.
We need to call a spade a spade here. This is blindly terrible logic. It's crass sex discrimination, and it's affect people's ability to find employment, and it's almost certainly against the law.
Deciding we can just start discriminating against an entire class of people in employment or housing, just because their is a subset of that class committing crimes is a civil rights violation.
People need to stop treating this like it's somehow okay because it's men.
I wouldn't usually have responded, but "treating a question as an attack or criticism" is a particular bugbear of mine. We can't grow, learn, or understand one another if questions are by-default treated with hostility or defensiveness.
I could play devils advocate and say that it’s bad for poor students because if authors are not fairly compensated then these authors won’t write textbooks and if they don’t then future students won’t benefit from having the textbooks.
I mean yeah, getting your work published just means that you can sue if someone steals it (often the case with those university presidents that they plagiarized work from undergrads or those who otherwise couldn't fight back). But if publishers stop making money off academic texts, then they won't be inclined to fight those battles. Then again, a lot of the money comes from university library subscriptions to entire catalogues of texts including books and articles, so either something you want to access is already in your ecosystem or it isn't.
When my courses had profs who had written the book, they'd have the school book store print and bind them to booklets, and sell them for close enough to cost, and also put up a download link for the pdf
Well when you get sick from the weird bacteria after buying tattoo ink on Amazon you can go Amazon Health to get better. It's the snake that keeps eating itself.
reply