If you truly do choose the best person for the job then you end up with the best person for the job.
I see no problem with that outcome regardless of their sex, sexuality or ethnicity.
Every talk show host is not a straight white man, is it?
I don’t trust large corporations in a society dominated for centuries by straight, white men using every means as possible to preserve their power to “truly” do this. And if you do, then you are fooling yourself.
Then the solution is to put hiring practices in place that ensure the best candidate gets the job. The solution is not to implement identity-based quotas.
Excluded middle.
Also, we don’t get to implement the hiring practices. We only get to judge the results. And one reliable factor is counting how overrepresented straight, white men continue to be.
Furthermore, your arguments seem to be based on the fallacy of the “one best candidate.” There’s no such thing. There are many people who can do the job now, just as there had been in the past. Only in the past (well, the present, really), straight, white men got over represented. It’s fair to underrepresent them for a few centuries going forward.
None so blind as the “colorblind”
If you’ve never seen Klepper’s work with crowds of Trump supporters, you have missed out on some genuinely genius television. I’m not sure he’s a good behind-the-desk kind of guy but as a field correspondent he’s one of the best.
So over-representation of any group is always evidence of unfairly discriminatory hiring practices?
So you think the best answer to past discrimination is present and future discrimination?
That doesn’t sound like a workable solution, that sounds like revenge.
It isn’t me who is suggesting racist hiring policies, non-discriminatory hiring policies are the middle.
It’s you who is suggesting them. Yes. Disingenuously something isn’t happening isn’t the same thing as them not happening.
“We have thoroughly investigated ourselves and found that we are blameless” doesn’t fool anyone who doesn’t want to be fooled.
You are flat our wrong, as usual. Quote me where I am suggesting using discriminatory hiring practcies.
You are suggesting we continue to allow them, by pretending it’s not happening.
This is the real world, not your made up fantasy alt-history.
You are clearly confused, remember what I wrote here? i.e. the opposite of your ignorant claim.
I can accept that discriminatory hiring practices have been used and have never suggested otherwise.
I’m suggesting we work to get rid of them, not supplant them by even more discrimination.
This is what I’m saying is in practice exactly what I described as “We gave thoroughly investigated ourselves and found that we are blameless”
Determining the best candidate for a 2022 talk show host must by definition include considerations of “sex, sexuality [and] ethnicity.” Because the 2022 audience takes those into consideration. Not doing so as a television network executive would be criminal negligence.
The Hollywood Reporter says that Trevor Noah’s announcement was a surprise to executives. The article says, “Noah in June extended his option to remain at the center of The Daily Show for another two years. Sources note he also had an option for another year that would have taken him through the 2024-25 season.”
I blame Dua Lipa.
I have seen and enjoyed Klepper’s interviews with various supporters of dubious things. But not interviewing celebrities or discussing politics with knowledgeable people. He does a great Tom Green, making people who believe silly things look sillier.
I have no idea who you are referring to here, nor what that has to do with any opinion that I hold.
So if a host’s ethnicity, sex or sexuality were not attractive to an audience those executives would be criminally negligent?