CreateDebate


Debate Info

Debate Score:17
Arguments:17
Total Votes:38
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Nasdaq plans to force listed Companies to affirmative action for LGBT people. (13)

Debate Creator

FromWithin(8241) pic



Nasdaq plans to force listed Companies to affirmative action for LGBT people.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/elanagross/2020/12/01/nasdaq-plans-to-require-listed-companies-to-follow-board-diversity-requirements/?sh=1f125dba7287

"Nasdaq on Tuesday announced it asked the Securities and Exchange Commission for permission to require companies listed on its United States stock exchange to increase board diversity by having at least one woman and one person who self-identifies as underrepresented or LGBTQ and to publish board diversity reports, which would make it the first major exchange to demand companies disclose more than the legal requirements."

"The companies will be mandated to publish board diversity data within a year of approval, to have at least one underrepresented or LGBTQ board member within two years and large companies must have at least two diverse directors in four years."

"Companies that don’t publicly disclose the data could be removed from the stock exchange and ones that fail to meet the diversity requirements will need to publish a reason." 

"Nasdaq CEO Adena Friedman told the New York Times it would be ideal for the SEC to adopt a similar rule because it would be applied to public companies and the private equity companies it regulates."

Here's the authoritarian Left once again forcing LGBT activism on all Companies! We are witnessing first hand what the Novel Nineteen Eighty-Four described. In the novel, Big Brother is a fictional character and symbol in George Orwell's dystopian 1949 novel Nineteen Eighty-Four. He is ostensibly the leader of Oceania, a totalitarian state wherein the ruling party Ingsoc wields total power "for its own sake" over the inhabitants. In the society that Orwell describes, every citizen is under constant surveillance by the authorities, mainly by telescreens (with the exception of the Proles). The people are constantly reminded of this by the slogan "Big Brother is watching you": a maxim that is ubiquitously on display.
In modern culture, the term "Big Brother" has entered the lexicon as a synonym for abuse of government power, particularly in respect to civil liberties.

If Companies do not tow Big Brother's mandates, they will be censored from the stock exchange! This is what Conservatives have been saying about these authoritarian Democrats for decades. This Big Brother Politcal correctness is no different then the sick racism we once witnessed when Black people were not allow in restaurants. In this case, Companies who do not flaunt the correct sexual orientation, will not be allowed on the stock exchange.

This is yet one more hideous example of affirmative action forced upon all Companies. If you're Company's Board of Directors does not include the political correct race, or sexual orientation, or gender, you will be run off the exchange.

You might notice that these Leftwing Big Brother control fanatics do not require Companies to have at least one Christian on their Board. Why not? If you are going to force these ludicrous LGBT quotas, then you must do so for all minorities, or Religions, or the latest letter in the LGBT alphabet.

Here's an idea... how about hiring the best person for the job rather than pushing PC agendas on all companies. If the best candidate is Gay, so be it! What happened to freedom?
Remember Hunter Biden getting put on the Board of a Ukranian business, with absolutely no experience? This is how it all works for the power elites!
Add New Argument
YIsRisenLord(1202)
1 point

What if someone if a Jewish, Christian, Muslim, or other religious person? Religious people, have the right to not to participate.

Support Dispute Clarify
↑ Hide Replies
Jace(5211)
0 points

correct. religious people are free not to do business with nasdaq inc. no one is forcing them to equivocate on their values for financial profit.

Support Dispute Clarify
FromWithin(8241)
-2 points
↑ Hide Replies
YIsRisenLord(1202)
1 point

Agreed. Now I actually do not as a centrist want to criminalize LGBT, but I am a Christian, so I believe it's a sin.

Support Dispute Clarify
↓ Show Replies
TrustedRevie(1)
1 point

Is truly outstanding and least expensive 5.1 home performance center under 10000 INR accessible on the lookout. It has a sum of 8 speakers; 5 in the front and 3 on the back. The sound is fresh and clear in any event, when you have a high volume or enormous bass melodies. The sub-woofer has a pounding bass yield that you can feel in your body while tuning in to music. The speakers are made of unadulterated polypropylene composite with a glossy dark completion. There are 2 full-range drivers, 1 top terminating tweeter, 2 forward looking woofers.

https://trustedreview.in/

Support Dispute Clarify
Mongele(643)
1 point

This proposed piece of ludicrous legislation is blatant ageism.

There is no provision shown for those who identify with a generation which is different to their biological age.

For instance, I'm 16 years old bit I identify as being 68 so why am I excluded from being eligible to take my place on the board of directors of the major listed corporations?

Support Dispute Clarify
Jace(5211)
0 points

the nasdaq stock exchange is privately owned. this is literally a company determining its own policies for itself you moron. companies which elect to participate in their listings must accept the terms and conditions which nasdaq inc determines for itself as an independent business venture. no one is forcing the other companies to use the services and they are welcome to opt out rather than equivocating on their principles for financial gain.

Support Dispute Clarify
↓ Show Replies
Gypsee(347)
0 points

I didn’t read the whole thing but I find it weird that who I have sex with should ever come up during a job interview. Sexuality is personal.

Gender on the other hand is expressed.

Now, what might need affirmative action is trans people. This is more visible and easy for someone to judge during an interview. A functioning society will just automatically choose the better qualified person. But statistics will support that companies tend to not hire the trans person. This is not something we can deny. And we all know why trans are not being hired : people are not comfortable with them.

so affirmative action could help break ice. But affirmative action can backfire when done incorrectly.

HELPFUL AFFIRMATIVE ACTION : between a transgender and cisgender who are both good for the job, you will hire the transgender

DESTRUCTIVE AFFIRMATIVE ACTION : between a transgender and cisgender where is transgender is not qualified AT ALL for the job, you will hire the transgender

Support Dispute Clarify
↑ Hide Replies
Jace(5211) Clarified
1 point

gender identity is distinct from gender presentation. furthermore, some transgender people "pass". so one does not always know whether the person they are speaking with is transgender.

hiring discrimination against visibly or openly transgender people is a part of the cause for under-representation. i honestly don't think it's the greatest one. greater vulnerability to parental abuse and neglect, homelessness rates among transgender youth, etc. are probably more significant. affirmative action comes rather far downstream from the unequal starting conditions.

Support Dispute Clarify
FromWithin(8241) Clarified
-3 points

Browse More Debates