Well that wasn't what was said. It was said that demographic quotas were a good faith attempt to address an undeniable problem. That you mistake the two concepts speaks to the limits of your intelligence. That you don't understand that something you don't like can be sought in good faith speaks to the limits of your desire to understand.
You could be right that I am making a mistake here. Perhaps you'd be so kind as to explain the difference between demographic quotas being a "good faith response", and "good faith demographic quotas".
In any case, it should have been pretty clear that I was stating that I don't think of demographic quotas as being pursued in good faith, and that the idea that they could be described as such is laughable.
There was no context that was disregarded.
You cut and ignored the actual point of my post ("employment quotas are disgusting") and focused on isolating and inventing the intent of the question that introduced it.
You're trying to pass off a stupid statement as meaning something else, despite having no grounds to do so (even you're not trying to present actual context), instead of owning up to your brain fart.
That you only seem able to argue with me when you fabricate the intended implication of my words doesn't really say anything good about your position in the fight you decided to pick.
Then, when realizing how transparent that is, you instead resort to calling my analogy "race baiting" in hopes of deflecting the conversation away from the logic of the analogy itself, which you still haven't attacked.....at all.
Again, if you have to invent my intent, your position is weak.
I called it race baiting because within one line, you resorted to "wah! White males!" I didn't confront the 'logic' of the post because if that's how you start the discussion, why would I?
I have no problem conceding the fact that historical and leftover discrimination probably impacts the reported numbers. I do have a problem with the idea that current discrimination is a major factor. The residual impact of historical discrimination is working itself out, and I doubt it'll take a thousand years to do so - another of your ridiculous projections of intent that has made yourposts very difficult to take seriously.
For all I (or likely anyone reading this) can tell, you completely agree with my posts, but are too proud to admit it. But it's undeniable that you can't proffer an actual disagreement.
What I am too proud to admit to is the disingenuous implication that
It's hard to agree or disagree with the nonsense that you opened with. You made sarcastic implications but failed to really commit to anything, which is the only reason you're able to make the following claim:
You also don't seem to understand what a strawman argument is. You really should have taken the out I gave you with the "language barrier" bit, instead of wildly referring to logical fallacies.
Because the strawman I am referring to is the sarcastic and extreme misrepresentation of my position that you opened with. Are you so stupid as to say that a strawman is not a misrepresentation of someone's position?
You'll need to explain what this means. I could very easily infer what you're saying and attack what I think is the implicit argument, but you'd then accuse me of "strawmanning" and refuse to articulate what you meant. That's the entire playbook for dog whistle arguments.
You put shit in, you get shit out.
You put shit into your response to me, and you got shit back.
The bracketed bit is pointing to the idea that demographic quotas are shit and will probably return shitty results.
Now you're switching your argument again.
But, nevertheless, the burden is on you to support this statement.
Oh shit, sorry. I am at work and mildly distracted. Started going off nonsensically there.
The core of this'll be covered later in your post, I'm sure. So, I'll tackle it then.
You don't seem to disagree that disproportionate representation of men versus women is probably in part due to lingering persistence of historical inequalities, and not any merit-based metric that is inherent to sex (at least you haven't made an argument to the contrary).
Ftfy.
And this policy mandates redressing that admittedly-arbitrary disparity. So it is very basically practical and sensible. As far as "pragmatic" goes, that's a matter argument.
Again, I do not think that demographic quotas are practical or sensible.
So....still can't form an actual criticism of the analogy? You still haven't attacked it once. You just cry "racebaiting!!!!" and expect that to punctuate the argument and allow you to strut away.
There's no good reason to confront the analogy, as it was based on a false premise.
You started with "Wah! White men!" and concluded with:
"Smh, women and racial minorities are so incompetent and whiny, amirite."
That's race-baiting nonsense and not worth more than the dismissal it received.
Yes, there are a myriad of factors, but the presence of these factors does nothing to support you argument that a back-end solution is thus most appropriate.
I thought I didn't have an argument?
Could you please elaborate upon this "back-end solution" you say I'm arguing for?
Pointing to the many mitigating factors in an effort to paint the issue as hopelessly opaque is not a tactic of which I am fond.
I am not trying to paint the issue as hopelessly opaque. I am painting demographic quotas as disgusting and not really a solution.
But that "standard talking point" is without merit, as metrics on "preferences and personal choices" do not validate the existing disparities (at least in the United States). While women make up only 15% of corporate directors, 35-40% of MBA graduates are women.
Most corporate directors are also in their sixties. You don't think that that might have an impact? Or do you think that men and women's ambitions, states of mind, etc run parallel as they age?
From what I can recall (and I may be way off) women maintain a better handle on many of their cognitive faculties than men as they age, so capability is unlikely to be holding them back, but they also experience a greater sense of fulfillment and self-actualisation as they get older.
Maybe fulfilled people are less likely to have an interest in sitting on a board of directors?
Also, the fact that you say I'd "jump straight into the assumption of discrimination," when I explicitly said and then restated that conscious discrimination was not the primary issue, is telling of your bad faith. Only being able to conceptualize discrimination, and not being able to understand the natural replication of inequity through social relations (as I stated twice) is your problem, not mine.
Conscious or unconscious - the assumption was one of discrimination and its wildly disproportionate effect. I've acknowledge social relations and their possibly discriminatory effect. So, apparently, neither of us has that problem.
My assertion stands though. You jumped straight to assumptions of discrimination.
Why do you space out these quotes so much.
Do I? Not really paying a lot of attention to the formatting.
Is it distracting?
And you still don't get what a straw man argument means. I have laid out very clear arguments, and you're still refusing to rely on any one argument of your own.
You opened with a straw man and have been arguing with him ever since.
Seeing as your argument is based on the premise that I think "women and racial minorities are so incompetent and whiny" there isn't really much for me to argue in defense of.
In all honesty, you haven't really made much of an argument at all. We've been sort of insulting each other, I guess, but otherwise your argument is basically summed as "I don't think demographic quotas are such a bad thing, even if they're not perfect in the long-term."
That's not really an argument. It's a statement of belief.
And my belief, as stated in the ignored bit of my first post is that "employment quotas are disgusting". "Demographic quotas" would have been more accurate and I'd apologise for my lack of precision, if you'd cared enough to argue with my actual point rather than whining about the lead-up to it.
Your sarcastic rant might have been making an argument, but I really didn't and don't care too much since it has very little to do with any belief I hold or have expressed. So if you want someone to argue that with, go find someone.
I do not think that expecting a 50-50 gender split in board members is a realistic expectation. Nor do I think that historical discrimination is the leading cause of the current disparity.
I would like some evidence other than 'well, roughly half all people are women, and that representation isn't reflected in high power positions.'
Glad to see you aren't drawing from their talking points consciously. But you'd likely have bought them hook, line, and sinker, and you're co-opting the logic.
I am? Please tell me how, 'cos I think you're closer to employing apartheid logic than I am.
Is this just your method of arguing? Making vague statements that can be clearly construed in only one way, and then going "ahhh golly jee that's not what I meant" later, without clarifying what you were trying to say in the first place?
Dude. Sorry, but if you could not read, "Lol. Yup, because discriminatory hiring practices based on arbitrary circumstances of birth have never done damage before." as being sarcastic, then you're fucking stupid. Especially when you consider that I've been saying the exact opposite from my first post in this thread.
Look at where I live, you idiot. Of course I am going to be opposed to discriminatory hiring practices. Look at what they've done to my country over the course of the past 70-odd years.
Hell, just look at the context in which I made the statement.
Seriously. This back-and-forth is kinda fun, but this issue here seems incredibly blind on your part, and it serves as an illustration of my criticism of the mindset from which you are arguing. You're going out of your way to find devils. Your bias blinds you and makes you very difficult to take too seriously.