The link: http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/departments/elearning/?page=BizEthicsQuiz&Quizid=188>1=7004
This “quiz” is pretty friggin fabulous. I didn't really realize it was a quiz when I took it, I figured it'd just give me some sort of feedback like “you're an internally validated worker, you value blah blah blah over bloo bloo bloo.” But no. It fully “scored” me on my ethics. And it scored me a 3/10 which is pretty fucking insulting, considering that a third of the questions are purely opinions, a third don't give you enough information to answer them “correctly,” and the remaining third are gay, PC brainwashing.
The one that really sticks out for me, is the one where you're not allowed to base your hiring decision on whether or not a woman might be “starting a family” in the near future. Deciding not to hire a candidate because she (or he) is planning to have a family violates antidiscrimination laws. "It's impossible to know if the other candidate might be planning to leave in six months as well," suggests Jenn Crenshaw. This really packages up a lot of ridiculousness into one, small place.
First off, don't give me this “(or he)” crap. Being pregnant is what women do, not men. Men can go home, and fawn over their children, and “be sensitive,” and take male maternity leave from their government jobs, or whatever the fuck they want to do, but that doesn't make them women. They don't gain a bunch of weight, throw up every morning, experience raging hormonal shifts, and then eventually squeeze an entire human being out of their downstairs. Listen closely to me, liberals: Men and women are not the same. Your legalistic attempts at beating that reality out of my head will never succeed. “Equal” does not mean “same,” you fucking pirates.
Second, let's review what “discrimination” means. Here's an example of discrimination: Two people are interviewing for a job. One says that he wants to take a job for the next year, before his Christian mission to Africa. The other says that she wants to work for a year, then leave to have a family. The first person is leaving in a year, so I won't hire them for a job that needs a longterm worker. The second person is also leaving in a year, but I have to pretend I don't know that, because she's going to have a family, and women are functionally identical, in my idiot, liberal programmed mind. How about, no? How about I'm not going to hire somebody who won't be around long enough to do the job I need done, and I don't give a goddamn what their reason is?
Antidiscrimination laws are fucking ridiculous, an embarassing symptom of a society that thinks all its ills can be solved via litigation. Some people are racists. Some people are mysoginists. Some people love all the bunnies and puppies and hippies of the town. That's called “diversity,” liberals. Raise your kids how you like, try to convince David Duke to love blacks, do whatever you want to, but stop writing laws that say I have to pretend somebody didn't just tell me something that disqualifies them from a position I am hiring for. This is especially true when your fuckhead laws aren't really enforceable. There's no way you can really prove what I'm basing my decision on. I'm not allowed to discriminate against a woman, cause she's gonna leave in a year to have a kid? Ok, then “she seemed flat in the interview, we need somebody more fiery for the job.“ Or better yet, “she was [some random quality that describes her] and we really need somebody who is [some random quality that describes the other candidate].“
Here's the thing, liberals. It's one thing to try to do something you can't do. It's another thing to try to do something you shouldn't do. But when you try to do something you both can't and shouldn't do, that's retarded, and you need to stop.
Lastly: "It's impossible to know if the other candidate might be planning to leave in six months as well," suggests Jenn Crenshaw. That's so cute. That's the best you can come up with, Jenn? You're giving me my politcally correct mind-programming, and that's the best you can do? Let's do another example, Jenn: Fifteen people are applying for a job, and I ask them all the standard interview question, “have you ever read a single online interviewing guide?“ Only, I don't say that, I ask it in the more widely used form, “tell me your biggest weakness or area of improvement?” The correct answer, as we all know, is something like “well, I think I probably push myself too hard, and try to take on too much work. I just want to see everything get done to my high standards, and sometimes that leads to overworking myself.” So, let's say that 14 of the 15 applicants say that, and then the 15th says “well, shit. I guess the biggest problem I have is that I smoke crack rocks. Pretty much all the time, I'm thinking about where I'm gonna get more crack rocks, and how excited I am to smoke them.” Now, tell me Jenn. Is it “impossible to know if the other candidates might be planning to go score some crack rocks?” Or can I actually go on the applicants actual fucking interview answers? There's a reason we conduct job interviews, Jenn. It's so that we can see if people are a good match for the job. Sure, they might be lying, or withholding useful information. That's why the company has people who do interviews as part of their job. They're supposed to get a read on that. If the 14 applicants who didn't admit to smoking rocks were all shaking, itchy, and kept stuffing office supplies into their pockets, I expect my interviewer to note that.