...
You guys are all assuming facts not in evidence. CS appears not to give two hoots whether the color of some staff reflects the color of the community. CS appears to have asked that question in an attempt to cross-examine P40 about his views on that sort of color-matching, most likely for the purpose of collecting evidence proving P40 has a racial double-standard.
Here is me, jumping in to respond to a post that you directed towards bilby ( and others). Guess what? This is a discussion board and whoever so desires can chime in, as I’m doing now and as you did in your post.
I understand that you want to express your support for someone whose statements you agree with. It’s good to stick up for people or ideas you care about.
That’s one of the reasons a lot of people post in support of basic human rights for non-white, non-cis, not straight, persons other than male. Including plenty of white males. For some, it’s a case of basic fairness and equality or maybe equity. And some people just like change.
Others post opposing some of those ideas because they think policies are unfair or ineffective or counter productive.
That's not what's been going on here, though. That's a self-congratulatory myth progressivism trains its believers to tell themselves about their interactions with the infidel. What you and other progressives here have been posting in support of, and what others have posted in opposition to,
are not basic human rights. Where do you think you are, a same-sex-marriage thread? This is a thread about
Affirmative Action. I.e., it's a squabble over the merits of progressives' prevailing practice of putting their thumb on the scale when individuals are being compared for purposes of selecting candidates for jobs, slots in colleges, contracts and so forth, in order to make up for the disadvantages candidates in selected groups face as a result of the lingering effects of other thumb-on-the-scale actions that had been previously taken against those groups. Progressives classify groups as oppressed or oppressor, privileged or underrepresented, advantaged or disadvantaged, call it what you will, and are here advocating that decision-makers apply quotas or points or extra consideration or what have you, on behalf of candidates in the
selected groups -- the oppressed/underrepresented/disadvantaged groups. Having such extra considerations applied on ones behalf
is not a basic human right. Mathematically, it doesn't work
if all groups are selected. You can't put your thumb on the scale in favor of
everybody. When you apply a preference for one race/sex/caste, that means you're applying a preference against some other race/sex/caste. So that means if Affirmative Action is a right at all, whatever kind of right it is is not a
human right.
Human rights are by definition the rights of all
humans.
So a lot of people post in support of basic oppressed-caste rights for non-white, non-cis, not straight, persons other than male. Including plenty of white males. For some, it’s a case of basic fairness and equality or maybe equity to have rights for selected castes -- rights for which other castes need not apply. And some people just like change. (And, seeing as how such oppressed-caste rights have been the de facto law of the land for fifty-odd years, some people just don't like change.)
Others post opposing some of those ideas because they think policies are unfair or ineffective or counter productive, or
violate basic human rights.
This dynamic, inevitably, couples with the near-universal motivation of people everywhere to be the heroes of their own narratives, to cause people who were trained by their mythology to think of themselves as supporting basic human rights but find themselves actually arguing in support of oppressed-caste rights against opponents who are in fact supporting basic human rights, to spin false narratives about the debate. They invent false descriptions of their opponents' positions. They invent false descriptions
of their own positions. And they write revisionist histories of who said what, right there in the presence of the actual texts of the respective posts, texts which iidb helpfully keeps in plain view.
