Fair enough, I don't disagree with your choice to defend what you believe in ( and i doubt you care about my opinion on that anyway, i wouldn't if the situation were reversed ).
Your wording implies you believe that had you chosen differently you would be a coward, are you implying that all people who don't choose as you did are cowards, or is this specific to your choice ?
What is it you believe in?
From the link you provided, Assuming they haven't changed it yet.
also friends.
See, now that's a more thorough explanation of your position.
I disagree with pretty much all of your assertions (though the witch hunt stuff can be true sometimes) , but at least i know I'm disagreeing with an opinion formed using the whole of the information provided.
This “context” added doesn’t move my post a centimeter IMO.
It shows you read the initial information in it's entirety and still came to the conclusion you did.
That removes the possibility of responses such as "Did you even read the initial tweet?".
Well... it should remove that possibility, in practice it just means you can safely ignore those responses because clearly the people making those responses haven't read your response in it's entirety.
If all he said was literally "i approve of this pick for this position" you'd be correct.
What actually happened was he approved of the pick and also claimed the republicans are now actually the party that stands for the "little guy".
Then followed up with a non apology that claimed what he said was not intended to be a "political statement".
by all means, argue that you think there's a fuss over nothing, but if you leave important context out seemingly because it doesn't suit your narrative it weakens your argument substantially.
I provided you with a very basic example in which your "mathematical impossibility" breaks down.
So far you've stated that there were only two possible interpretations of a statement and then followed up with "mathematical impossibility".
You are correct though, you can't reason with someone who didn't use reason to get to their conclusions.
Saves me some time, good luck.
I’m afraid that fighting oppression and restoring the past oppressed to a level playing field involves finding if actual individuals did indeed suffer from oppression and compensating them for it in some way, a far more difficult task than taking the Fascist’s shortcut of presuming that everybody from a specific race, gender or sexual orientation are equally worthy or unworthy.
Wait...so you're belief system around this is that the only way to address past injustices to a group or demographics is to find out which specific individuals were impacted and help only them ?
That's delusional, not in an ad hominem kind of way but in a literal "no basis in reality" way.
You don't seem to understand what fascism means so all the arguments based on a faulty interpretation are going to be faulty.
Real question though
Because it is literally Mathematically impossible for such a process to be improved to a point where there is full fairness of treatment for all
I'd be genuinely interested to see how you got here , because the anecdotal pseudo-explanation isn't an actual explanation.
There's so many faulty assumptions in there it's difficult to take any conclusion you get to seriously.
You're assuming that prejudice only applies to one side of this argument, If you start off with two groups:
Group A : 20
Group B : 10
Then Taking 5 from A and moving it to B isn't prejudice against A.
That's not even a very accurate example because it assumes a closed system with only 2 distinct groups.
It seems your argument is that group B might not all be as affected, ok, so let's do that one:
Say we do the same thing here and move 5 from Group A to Group B
Do that for any number of sub-groups, down to an individual person.
It seems your understanding of mathematics is about as grounded as your idea of fascism so i don't think you're going to see how what you're saying doesn't work.
You can’t Prejudice your way into stopping Prejudiced treatment, not Ideologically and not even Mathematically.
You certainly can't stop prejudice if you don't understand what it means and when/where it applies.
It's difficult to see whether or not a mathematical solution can be found if you don't understand the practical applications of it.
Having lived and worked in both The Netherlands and Britain, I’ve seen actual American-style quotas systems in Britain that explicitly priviledged a specific gender (rather than what you describe, which is a system meant to remove any and all discrimination, even if subconscious), and the result was pretty bad, both because the worst professionals around there were from that gender and clearly only got the job due to quotas and at the same time competent professionals that happen to have that gender were not taken as seriously and were kinda second class professionals even though they did not at all deserve it.
Again with this, the systems aren't design to remove discrimination, they are design to counteract the discrimination that already exists.
The difference between equality vs equity.
Though bullshit hires based solely on quota's do exist, I'm not pretending that doesn't happen.
In fact, that specific place, which is the only one I ever worked in with an American style quota system, was the most sexist place I ever worked in, in my entire career (which spans over 2 decades) - people would not say sexist things (lest HR punish them), all the while they would definitelly have different competence expectations and even levels of how seriously they took people as professionals depending on people’s gender. Meanwhile the people that got in via quotas tended to be the kind that would play the system rather than do the job, which often made the whole environment even more sexist.
Those quota systems aren't specifically American, but they have certainly gone all-out in recent times.
Sounds like a bad workplace, implementing processes badly. Is that a reflection on the idea as a whole ?
Interestingly, IT in The Netherlands was way less sexist in a natural way than almost all places I worked in Britain, with almost always more well balanced gender-wise teams and were - at least that I noticed - nobody assuming anything in professional terms based on people’s gender or sexual orientation.
As i said in my other reply, because the Netherlands is better at this in general. It's not better because it doesn't have the same systems, it's better because it doesn't need them in the same way(or at all).
Such systems are meant to removed descrimination
emphasis mine.
They actually don't do a terrible job either, but it's not a blanket removal of bias.
More pertinent is that they only apply to the initial hiring phase, a lot of jobs have built in probation periods.
In addition, those systems do nothing at all to prevent workplace discrimination once the candidate has started.
As for the rest of your statement, that's missing quite a few important points.
Your phrasing of “let’s keep treating people differently depending on the genetics they were born with” is itself incredibly misleading in it's omissions.
Bigotry does exist yes, but most of these systems are supposed to be in place to counteract the inherent conscious and unconscious bias in the system, it's closer to "Let's try and lessen some of the harmful treatment people are already facing due to perceived differences".
The difference between countries your seeing isn't solely due to the perceived ineffectuality of the systems you are talking about, there is a huge difference in culture, economics, population and history that has a significant impact on how much these systems can help.
Let's take a completely inoffensive analogy and say that both Britain and the Netherlands are dumpster(skip) fires.
The Netherlands is a very small 30L skip full of paper that is also on fire.
Britain is three of those large skips you get delivered on a truck(lorry) , all piled up on top of each other, filled with wood, doused in accelerant and set alight.
The anti-discrimination system is 3 full buckets of water.
Three buckets on the Netherlands will probably solve the problem.
Three buckets on Britain will do nothing but engender some metaphysical disdain from the fire.
I'm not defending the systems here, i'm saying you are presenting a situation in a way that doesn't align with reality and then complaining that the results don't match what you expect.
If you've got nothing to hide you don't have to worry ?
edit : For clarification, i consider "If you've got nothing to hide you don't have to worry" to be a naive argument, at best, in any privacy conversation, but I'm not averse to a well-reasoned argument to the contrary.
The wording here was unclear, what i mean to ask was:
"do you believe If you've got nothing to hide you don't have to worry ?"