Being wicked is a choice.
Good! If it is wicked to choose reason over self-interested folly, humanity over inhumanity, science over invention, inclusion over exclusion, I am wicked through and through and will continue to be so.
But you don't choose those things. Inventing the baseless strawmen you impute to your opponents is choosing folly over reason and invention over science. When you argue for racially discriminating against Asian Americans in order to make more positions available for African Americans, that's not choosing inclusion over exclusion. It's choosing inclusion of an African American over inclusion of an Asian American; and it's choosing exclusion of an Asian American over exclusion of an African American. In order to choose inclusion over exclusion you'd need to instead argue for increasing the number of available positions. Your implication that excluding an Asian American from a position doesn't count as exclusion because he's the same race as a bunch of completely different people who weren't denied positions, and including them somehow magically includes him by proxy, is folly, not reason, and it's invention, not science. And your claim that what you are trying to do to that Asian American qualifies as choosing "humanity over inhumanity"
dehumanizes him.
Anyone who ever wants to tell any student, for any reason, that they do not deserve a quality education, they can go ... themselves with the sharpest wooden stick they can find.
You will not be able to produce a quotation from any of your opponents here telling anybody they do not deserve a quality education. You are strawmanning your opponents -- your speciality.
The only people I've come across in this controversy who actually told students they do not deserve a quality education are the admissions officers at Harvard who systematically put into university records a lot of claims that individual Asian American applicants had personality defects that made them poorly suited for Harvard admission. Harvard adopted this practice to create a paper trail they could draw upon to downplay the degree to which they were making decisions based on race, in order to conceal the fact that they were running an illegal quota system instead of conscientiously sticking to the forms of racial discrimination authorized under Bakke. Of course they got sued; and of course they gave up that paper trail under discovery, so unavoidably it became possible for individual Asian American applicants to find out Harvard had claimed they had personality defects.
If their reason for doing so is anything as phenomenologically stupid as not liking that student's skin color, the language they pray in, or the number of zeroes in their parent's bank account, or any other such arbitrary condition of birth? They have my invitation to add a rusty nail to the stake first.
You have no reason to believe any of the people you are accusing of that actually do that, let alone for the reasons you list. (Heck, even a Harvard admissions officer who claimed an Asian American student didn't deserve a Harvard education didn't do it because he didn't like the student's skin color. It's quite unlikely the reason they systematically did it was because they didn't like Asians, and still more unlikely that Asians actually systematically have defective personalities. By far the most likely reason they put those explanations in their files is that they were simply lying about the personality defects, because lying was what they needed to do to cover up their illegal quota system.)
I am not embarrassed by my commitment to common decency.
You do not have a commitment to common decency. If you were actually committed to common decency you would not have written "Your belief that all Black professors are underqualified compared to whites is exactly what makes you regressive racist trash unprepared for life in this century". LP does not believe that all Black professors are underqualified compared to whites. You did not have a reason to believe what you said about him was true.
You made it up! Common decency requires not trumping up libelous accusations.
You should be embarrased by the company you keep and the ideas you consider worth defending.
The company I keep?!? You're keeping the exact same company.
As for the ideas I consider worth defending, let's review the bidding. In this thread I have so far defended the following ideas:
1. Doing math and logic correctly.
2. Not trumping up false accusations.
3. Bringing facts to the discussion.
4. American experience with DEI being relevant to Britain and therefore not a thread derail.
5. It being religious bigotry to set up strawmen against infidels for not having faith in one's dogma.
6. Indian-American spelling bee winners typically having spelled harder words than Anglo-American winners.
Which ideas that I defended do you feel I should be embarrassed to consider worth defending? If what you have in mind isn't on that list, quote me defending them.
And I'm certainly not going to sit here and pretend that anyone campaigning against "DEI hires" is ever either:
1. Not racist
You are sitting there and pretending that everyone campaigning against DEI is racist. What evidence do you have that this guy is racist? And which race is he prejudiced against?
or
2. Not associated with the regime of Donald John Trump, and his allies on the "Right" and the "Left", who have allowed him to legally seize power of an increasingly illegitimate state.
You know, DEI is a world-wide phenomenon. For instance, it's very big in India. They take their affirmative action straight there, with legally mandated quotas, none of this namby-pamby one-factor-among-many business the US nominally goes in for. In Bangalore there's a public employees' association that's agitating to stop the state government from ignoring Supreme Court decisions that put an upper limit on the degree to which local government can legally discriminate against people from "overrepresented" castes. The notion that these employees give a rat's ass about Donald Trump is laughable -- India has enough problems of its own without getting sucked in by our squabbles. The notion that they're doing it because they're racist is also laughable, since caste lines cut across skin tone differences. They're doing it for the obvious reason: because the Karnataka government puts an illegal glass ceiling on people from the "wrong" castes and the public employees would like to have some chance of promotion.
Because I refuse to pretend to be a ... moron in the name of "politeness". These parasitic thieves and assholes infesting the White House have betrayed the Constitution, their country, their neighbors, and their God, and they should all be in jail.
No doubt; but there are an awful lot of Trump threads on IIDB and this isn't one of them.
