Age is a proxy in people’s minds for other things, usually maturity, gravitas and playing the social game. Not always but more often than not. Age is a quick if inexact proxy but you can prove it in other ways.
But it seems really inappropriate to say this here.
We are discussing the insidiousness of discrimination with the hope of socially being more conscious and finding ways to improve this.
It's kinda like going into a place with victims of racism and saying 'get over' and 'use your white voice/dress more white' when talking about the issue of racism. Or suggesting that racial discrimination is justified. It's out of place, even if the suggestion is coming from a good place of wanting the best for the other person.
P.S. I had a department with large numbers and strong growth on my side for leverage, that is why the CEO considered me in the first place. The numbers took a big hit after I left. If the board would have had more people in their 40s and less in their 70s-80s, I would likely have been accepted. Explaining to me that this is politics is a very pedantic in assuming I don't understand politics.
>P.S. I had a department with large numbers and strong growth on my side for leverage, that is why the CEO considered me in the first place. The numbers took a big hit after I left. If the board would have had more people in their 40s and less in their 70s-80s, I would likely have been accepted. Explaining to me that this is politics is a very pedantic in assuming I don't understand politics.
The fact you're talking about strong growth and large numbers is why I don't think you understand politics. That doesn't matter to the board. It's the foot in the door at best. Did you align politically with the board? Did they know it? Would you be a reliable pawn for them? Did they think they could work with you and get you to do what they wanted? Did you have strong support from other department heads? Did you have strong support from other in higher positions? Did you have any major opponents? Any secret opponents? Did you know of those opponents through your connections? I could go on but point being, that doing a good job is pretty low on the list of things which matters in politics.
One day I will know as much about my own life as you seem to believe you know about me.
Even if my particular case was not about ageism, we can agree it happens against the young unfairly, even if sometimes. Even if I'm too much of an asshole for it to happen to me.
So, my point stands: can you please explain to this self righteous, incivil person who deserves the discrimination he has experienced, why it is OK to discriminate against the young but not the old? Or are you going to admit to being a troll like you did on the other comment when I addressed your weak arguments?
So every car insurance and car rental company should be removed? After all, they all charge higher rates to young people irrespective of years actually driving. I mean, sure science says the human brain doesn't mature until mid 20s and sure young people have much higher rates of accidents. But, damn it, we should just wipe them all out anyway, right?
It is my experience that when people resort to sarcasm they have lost the argument and can't face it.
But I'll address what you are saying:
Insurance can charge people without using ageism.
Before, insurers found that black people needed to pay more. After all, they were barbaric said the insurers. Then it became illegal.
Insurance companies still exist. Doing away with barbaric old practices is a good thing and as has happened when women got the right to vote, or civil rights, or other major positive reforms, the world continued on without falling apart.
It's sad that even in a rationalist place like hacker news, ageism is still something that can be openly admitted to. At least racists and sexists generally have to hide their ignorance if they don't want to be shunned by society.
>It is my experience that when people resort to sarcasm they have lost the argument and can't face it.
Or they understand that this site is in the end entertainment. Sarcasm makes it more fun for both the writer and the other readers.
You're projecting how much you care about this issue onto me. Reality is, I don't care about it much at all, it's a mild intellectual diversion to me. You're hurt by this, you're infuriated by this, you're driven by this. I'm not.
1- Rational: Your original argument is flawed, you realize it and have changed but can't admit it
2- Irrational: You can't defend your argument since you haven't, but won't change
3- Plain Nasty: You are trolling.
I'm inclined to think 3, though most people don't use their real name when trolling.
Or 4. I don't care to argue those points because I find doing so to not be entertaining or insightful. I used to argue to the death and then I realized that in the end it brought neither joy nor enlightenment. So I don't anymore.
You're free to think you've won, I don't care. Although one piece of life advice for someone who seems to like arguing and seems to be good at it. People will often stop arguing with you because they find it tiring. You'll think you've won and pat yourself on the back. They'll think you didn't win. Instead they'll just think you're good at arguing (but still wrong), an a-hole and will dislike you silently from then on.
Normally I would have stopped responding by now but I find this side conversation insightful.
