• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Split Thread DEI in the US

Emily's Cat said:
On the other hand, Equal Opportunity is giving everyone $30 to get whatever pair of shoes in whatever style and size they want. And if someone decides they'd rather have a hat than a pair of shoes, well, that's their choice to make.

Equal Opportunity is a great thing.
Click to expand...
Yeah, you can't judge opportunity by outcomes. If Michael Jordan was my personal basketball coach and I practiced everyday for a year, I'd still be terrible at basketball.
 
Emily's Cat said:
:sdl: You're the one who just shared your desire to exclude people who hold views that diverge from your own... while simultaneously preaching the salvation of diversity, equity, and inclusion.
Click to expand...
He's also the guy who literally argued that discrimination isn't bad, if it's for the reasons he likes.
 
Trausti said:
The proponent of the view that DEI means inclusion for everyone should be able to provide evidence, at least one example, in support of that view. Still nothing.
Click to expand...
But Arth DOESN'T think it means inclusion for everyone. It's only inclusion of those that Arth has decided should be included.
arthwollipot said:
If we could just get rid of everybody who interprets DEI as reverse racism or whatever, the problem would be solved.
Click to expand...
That statement makes me feel unsafe. Clearly Arth wants to genocide people who don't agree with them. It's obvious, what else could "just get rid of" possibly mean? It's blatantly an incitement to murder.
 
SpuriusMaximus said:
He's also the guy who literally argued that discrimination isn't bad, if it's for the reasons he likes.
Click to expand...
You're hung up on my "liking" things rather than my finding logical and appropriate reasons for them. You're spinning it as a matter of taste, rather than a matter of rights.

You'd better correct that thinking if you want me to continue to engage.
 
arthwollipot said:
Those who equate DEI with discrimination only ever equate it with the bad side of discrimination, and therefore the whole thing is bad. Yes - some discrimination is good, when you're dealing with different groups where things affect them differently. African and Latin Americans trend on the poor side, with fewer opportunities and a history of the bad kind of discrimination. To treat these diverse groups equitably, you have to discriminate against people who are the same color or ethnicity as people who didn't face discrimination in the past and give them opportunities that they have historically been denied. That's not a Bad Thing - that's a Good Thing. It includes them in social and employment situations that they were historically less able to access, and makes those situations more diverse.
Click to expand...
Unless DEI is somehow creating more jobs out of thin air, someone is being discriminated AGAINST in order to give the extra support to those that you have decided have a skin color that needs more help.

Not that they actually need support, not that they as individuals are lacking in the skills to advance on their own merits. Nope. They have the skin color that you think is less capable and can only succeed if nice, noble, white males like you magnanimously grant them assistance.
 
arthwollipot said:
You're hung up on my "liking" things rather than my finding logical and appropriate reasons for them. You're spinning it as a matter of taste, rather than a matter of rights.

You'd better correct that thinking if you want me to continue to engage.
Click to expand...
I have presented my reasons several times. Also, you didn't just say you "like" discrimination -- which is suspiciously the exact same thing you accuse others of, just apparently it doesn't apply to you -- but argued that it's GOOD. LIKING the reasons to discriminate does not make that argument SOUND. There's a key difference. For example, someone liking racist arguments doesn't make their argument that it's good RIGHT.

You may disagree with my reasons, but I did. Of course, if you choose to not engage, so be it, I'm not the Inquisition, I can't force you to answer. Nor am I interested in that.
 
Last edited:
arthwollipot said:
You're hung up on my "liking" things rather than my finding logical and appropriate reasons for them. You're spinning it as a matter of taste, rather than a matter of rights.

You'd better correct that thinking if you want me to continue to engage.
Click to expand...
Well, sure. Why should it be okay to discriminate against someone because of their skin color? You raise historical mistreatment that a some people may have experienced. But everyone has ancestors who experienced historical mistreatment by some other group. The historical mistreatment discrimination excuse is just that, an ad hoc excuse to discriminate. Either discriminating based on race is wrong, or it isn't.
 
SpuriusMaximus said:
I have presented my reasons several times. Also, you didn't just say you "like" discrimination -- which is suspiciously the exact same thing you accuse others of, just apparently it doesn't apply to you -- but argued that it's GOOD. LIKING the reasons to discriminate does not make that argument SOUND. There's a key difference. For example, someone liking racist arguments doesn't make their argument that it's good RIGHT.

You may disagree with my reasons, but I did. Of course, if you choose to not engage, so be it, I'm not the Inquisition, I can't force you to answer. Nor am I interested in that.
Click to expand...

I argued that there are certain circumstances when discrimination is good. Remember, discrimination is defined as treating people differently, not treating people worse. The example I gave is Sickle Cell Disease, which disproportionately affects people of African descent. You should discriminate between ancestries when you're studying this particular disease.

You (and the white supremacist) are arguing that this means that I'm saying that discrimination against people of darker skin is objectively good in all circumstances. This is a filthy, malicious, ideologically motivated lie.
 
Emily's Cat said:
Unless DEI is somehow creating more jobs out of thin air, someone is being discriminated AGAINST in order to give the extra support to those that you have decided have a skin color that needs more help.
Click to expand...
Kinda the whole point of any equity image ever produced by its defendants. Like, in the one I posted, they're not producing an extra box for the short kid to stand on, they're literally taking one from another guy.
 
arthwollipot said:
I argued that there are certain circumstances when discrimination is good. Remember, discrimination is defined as treating people differently, not treating people worse. The example I gave is Sickle Cell Disease, which disproportionately affects people of African descent. You should discriminate between ancestries when you're studying this particular disease.
Click to expand...

Research is a whole different topic than employment opportunities. So that analogy is a ridiculous non-starter. If I gave more jobs to people with/without sickle cell disease, that's what we're talking about. Their having had a historical disadvantage is no indication of how good they are at their job or learning to do it. Being included or not in a medical study is not even remotely the same as the whole race being discriminated for employment or promotions. I mean, you can be excluded from a COVID contagion study if you already have the antibodies, but it doesn't mean an employer is even allowed to ask about that, much less discriminate based on it, unless it's a BFOQ like being a COVID ward nurse.
 
Last edited:
SpuriusMaximus said:
Research is a whole different topic than employment opportunities. So that analogy is a ridiculous non-starter. If I gave more jobs to people with/without sickle cell disease, that's what we're talking about. Their having had a historical disadvantage is no indication of how good they are at their job or learning to do it. Being included or not in a medical study is not even remotely the same as the whole race being discriminated for employment or promotions. I mean, you can be excluded from a COVID contagion study if you already have the antibodies, but it doesn't mean an employer is even allowed to ask about that, much less discriminate based on it, unless it's a BFOQ like being a COVID ward nurse.
Click to expand...
Well it's clear that you're focusing a lot more narrowly than I am. I wasn't exclusively referring to employment, because discrimination has effects way beyond just that.
 
arthwollipot said:
I argued that there are certain circumstances when discrimination is good. Remember, discrimination is defined as treating people differently, not treating people worse. The example I gave is Sickle Cell Disease, which disproportionately affects people of African descent. You should discriminate between ancestries when you're studying this particular disease.
Click to expand...
Discrimination against males in female intimate spaces, sports, and prisons really seems to get under your skin though. Even though the supermajority of females want it, and even though removal of that discrimination increases risk for a cohort that has historically and currently subject to a massively disproportionate share of sexual violence and intimate-partner murder and abuse.
arthwollipot said:
You (and the white supremacist) are arguing that this means that I'm saying that discrimination against people of darker skin is objectively good in all circumstances. This is a filthy, malicious, ideologically motivated lie.
Click to expand...
Nah, pal. We're observing that you say discriminating against people of lighter skin is good.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom