> Your [sic] frustrated response at someone who would have the audacity to challenge your view reinforce the claim that it doesn't happen enough.
The problem here is that you're not challenging my views. You're just repeating a generic pro status quo argument, which comes up every time anybody suggests that there might be some better approach than the (historically racist, sexist) status quo. I have seen it a million times.
I'm not frustrated by the argument. I'm frustrated by the zillion buttinskis who aren't willing to take an actual stand, who try to claim they are being apolitical, but somehow only choose to be "apolitical" when jumping in to object to antiracist or antisexist changes to the status quo.
I'm frustrated by the cowardice. It's not clear that you believe in anything but yourself. You'll argue to protect a status quo that benefits you. But you won't dare do it under your own name, because that might not benefit you. You don't want to limit your "hiring options", while you work to retain the limit on hiring options for women and black people.
> the people like you have been successful in demonizing anyone who disagrees with you
I am not interested in demonizing people. But I will happily repudiate the notion that those who aren't white dudes aren't really people, aren't deserving of the same respect, consideration, and privileges that accrue to white men.
There's no cowardice involved, and the sooner you realize that, the sooner you'll be on a path to a rational discussion. The argument's validity isn't based on who says it, and continuing to harp on this point really shows the hoops you're willing to jump through to avoid making a rational point.
> You don't want to limit your "hiring options", while you work to retain the limit on hiring options for women and black people.
I'd hire women and black people for every single position if they're the best for the job. It's amazing how somehow Asian males have a significant presence and we're all the better for it! Somehow they pulled it off without your help, and I'm sure they're proud they didn't need to play the race card or invoke white guilt to get where they are. They're there because they were determined to be the best for their position, and they earned every bit of it.
But yeah, maybe I'm just racist because I don't doubt women or black people's ability to do the same.
If you want to talk about making it easier to account for white privilege, I'm all ears. But equating hiring people based on skillset to doing so based on genitalia or skin color is dishonest. It's condescending to even think we'd buy it. Make an honest argument for hiring someone based on gender / race and we'll take it seriously.
> But I will happily repudiate the notion that those who aren't white dudes aren't really people, aren't deserving of the same respect, consideration, and privileges that accrue to white men.
Nobody said this, and the gap between "people who think we should hire the best person for the job" and "people who think those who aren't white males aren't really people" is colossal.
If there's no cowardice involved, start posting this stuff under your real name. Until then, adieu. I have enough honest interlocutors to talk with; you and your hood will just have to keep each other company.
The problem here is that you're not challenging my views. You're just repeating a generic pro status quo argument, which comes up every time anybody suggests that there might be some better approach than the (historically racist, sexist) status quo. I have seen it a million times.
I'm not frustrated by the argument. I'm frustrated by the zillion buttinskis who aren't willing to take an actual stand, who try to claim they are being apolitical, but somehow only choose to be "apolitical" when jumping in to object to antiracist or antisexist changes to the status quo.
I'm frustrated by the cowardice. It's not clear that you believe in anything but yourself. You'll argue to protect a status quo that benefits you. But you won't dare do it under your own name, because that might not benefit you. You don't want to limit your "hiring options", while you work to retain the limit on hiring options for women and black people.
> the people like you have been successful in demonizing anyone who disagrees with you
I am not interested in demonizing people. But I will happily repudiate the notion that those who aren't white dudes aren't really people, aren't deserving of the same respect, consideration, and privileges that accrue to white men.