Split Thread DEI in the US

[Emily's Cat]

Well, it did create a whole DEI industry out of thin air.

Fair point.

 

[arthwollipot]

Wait, you're saying equity is like communism? You know, to each according to their needs? Well, THAT sure worked out great, didn't it?

It's a joke, son.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

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.

Well, I (and I think most of us) were. So you're just saying you were just doing some hand waving, bla, bla, bla, look at the other thing over there. I'm under no obligation to chase your red herring.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

It's a joke, son.

Answer... or don't. But I don't care about browbeating.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Wait, you're saying equity is like communism? You know, to each according to their needs? Well, THAT sure worked out great, didn't it?

Didn't you know? Communism is the absolute best economic and government system that has never, ever, ever been tried! All of those countries that said they tried it, well, that wasn't True Communism, and that's why it was responsible for some 80 million deaths.

 

[Emily's Cat]

It's a joke, son.

You're not funny, gramps.

ETA: I see no good reason to assume that you have any seniority in age or wisdom over anyone here.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Ah communism. The utopian daydream of the envious and shortsighted.

More like the utopian dream of an already privileged guy, living off the fortune of his friend, trying to solve the problems of those he had noting in common with and probably never even understood. So, you know, a modern "progressive" before that was mainstream

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Didn't you know? Communism is the absolute best economic and government system that has never, ever, ever been tried! All of those countries that said they tried it, well, that wasn't True Communism, and that's why it was responsible for some 80 million deaths.

Slight detour: pure communism was actually tried by Lenin after the communist revolution. No money, just to each according to their needs, from each according to their means. It sucked hairy ass if your were a peasant. You had most of your harvest confiscated (according to your means) and got a hoe (according to your needs.) It was an absolute catastrophe. It's what caused him to switch to the NEP (New Economic Policy) just 3 years later. (Which switched not only back to money, but basically to semi-fascism.)

And note that unlike Stalin, Lenin wasn't trying to genocide some people by famine. He genuinely tried to implement Marxism to the letter. It still went south faster than ducks in autumn.

So those who say it's never been tried, are more full of crap than a septic tank. It HAS been tried in all earnest. And it was a complete disaster.

(Sorry, history geek.)

 

[d4m10n]

He's also the guy who literally argued that discrimination isn't bad, if it's for the reasons he likes.

Doesn't literally everyone believe that though? If I say it's okay for women's rugby to keep out male players, that is an example of sex-based discrimination for reasons which I find acceptable. If I say it's okay for the Congressional Black Caucus to avoid appointing European American leaders, etc. you get the idea.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Doesn't literally everyone believe that though? If I say it's okay for women's rugby to keep out male players, that is an example of sex-based discrimination for reasons which I find acceptable. If I say it's okay for the Congressional Black Caucus to avoid appointing European American leaders, etc. you get the idea.

Maybe, but that's not based on representation. Nobody is arguing that based on thinking that women are underrepresented in sports or that that they've been barred from it. Just that males have an innate biological advantage over females.

I mean, I'm willing to accept the analogy for the scope of this exercise, if you really want me to, but that would literally imply that blacks are too stupid to compete fairly for a professor job or even entrance to college. (You know, having a biological disadvantage, just like females vs males in sports.) Are you SURE you want to go the Cofnas route on this? I wouldn't, but you do you, I guess.

Plus, women's sports and men's sports are SEPARATE. You SURE you want to chase that analogy down the rabbit hole? Because that leads us right back to "separate but equal." You know, just like women's sports are. I wouldn't touch that with YOUR dick, but, again, you do you.

 

[d4m10n]

Are you SURE you want to go the Cofnas route on this?

Do you really imagine that was a reasonable conclusion to land on given that I was pointing out that people have different reasons for justifying discrimination?

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Do you really imagine that was a reasonable conclusion to land on given that I was pointing out that people have different reasons for justifying discrimination?

No, I'm just saying that your analogy has NOTHING to do with what we were discussing, making it a false analogy. To be a valid one it would have to share the main relevant attribute. Otherwise it's just irrelevant stuff. "Irrelevant other thing X is right" doesn't mean Y is justified too. It's like saying, 'it's ok to discriminate against someone who stole from the company, so that means it's ok to discriminate against someone who may or may not have had some historical racial advantage.' I offered two possible (ridiculous) common things, but otherwise your analogy is fully irrelevant. So that's me taking the very roundabout and verbose way to say that.

 

[arthwollipot]

I wouldn't touch that with YOUR dick, but, again, you do you.

Classy.

 

[d4m10n]

I'm just saying that your analogy has NOTHING to do with what we were discussing, making it a false analogy.

Who said it was any kind of analogy?

I was pointing out that anyone here could be the one who'd "literally argue…discrimination isn't bad," if done for reasons considered adequate. No one here is willing to argue that we must never sort people by sex, race, age, etc.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Who said it was any kind of analogy?

I was pointing out that anyone here could be the one who'd "literally argue…discrimination isn't bad," if done for reasons considered adequate. No one here is willing to argue that we must never sort people by sex, race, age, etc.

Yeah, ok, it's still saying "X is (or could be) right" so "Y is (or could be) justified too." Maybe not an analogy, but still basically just a nitpick sidenote to what we were discussing. I'll give you credit for that, but it doesn't change the discussion much.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Classy.

I couldn't give less of a crap about whether you find a flourish of speech classy or not if I were the ancient god of constipation

Address the point... or don't.

 

[d4m10n]

Maybe not an analogy, but still basically just a nitpick sidenote to what we were discussing.

I respectfully disagree. Once you admit that everyone has their own justifications by sorting people based on immutable characteristics, then you can move on to discussing why you find some reasons acceptable which others reject, and vice-versa.

 

[jt512]

Who said it was any kind of analogy?

I was pointing out that anyone here could be the one who'd "literally argue…discrimination isn't bad," if done for reasons considered adequate. No one here is willing to argue that we must never sort people by sex, race, age, etc.

You are using the word "discriminate" in two different senses. Per Merriam-Webster:

1. to unfairly treat a person or group differently from other people or groups on a class or categorical basis (such as race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation)

2. a. to make a distinction

(1) is universally bad almost by definition.
(2) is obviously not.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

I respectfully disagree. Once you admit that everyone has their own justifications by sorting people based on immutable characteristics, then you can move on to discussing why you find some reasons acceptable which others reject, and vice-versa.

Granted, but he was arguing for discriminating for or against people based on some characteristics that aren't actually relevant to their performance in any way, and damning people discriminating for or against people also based on the exact same characteristics, just not in the way he likes. Even going by your example for the scope of this exercise, it's like trying to be both for and against sex discrimination and for the same reasons at that. It's like trying to be an egalitarian incel, just you side with female incels. (They exist. It was a woman who started it all and coined the term) So it still doesn't change my point by much. One can't have both.

 

[d4m10n]

You are using the word "discriminate" in two different senses. Per Merriam-Webster:

1. to unfairly treat a person or group differently from other people or groups on a class or categorical basis (such as race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation)

2. a. to make a distinction

(1) is universally bad almost by definition.
(2) is obviously not.

I was quoting the word from post #1,143 where it had to be used in the second sense rather than the first, unless the post was intended to assume unfairness without bothering to make an argument about it.

If that post was actually intended to argue that arthwollipot openly favors unfair treatment, then it was even more poorly considered than I'd first supposed.