Racism? Or Simply Preference? Who Is Right Here?

[deleted464787]

Do you not understand the words you are putting into a sentence. Why would a lesser qualified applicant find his or her way into a candidate pool ? Please explain your logic behind this.

Hypothetical scenario:

An employer is looking to fill a position. A company quota mandates that the applicant MUST have the characteristic of "B."

Let "X" represent the MORE qualified applicants.
Let "Y" represent the LESSER qualified applicants.

Let "A" represent a characteristic that is completely unrelated to qualifications.
Let "B" represent a characteristic that is completely unrelated to qualifications.

The employer has 5 people that applied with the following representations:

1) XA
2) XA
3) XA
4) XA
5) YB

Because the quota MANDATES that someone with characteristic B must be chosen, the employer MUST choose to hire person 5, the and ignore the 4 qualified candidates.
___________________________

Now heres the problem....

You are saying that me and James believe that ALL POC fit into the category of "YB", which isnt true at all. There are plenty of "XB's" out there.... but in this hypothetical scenario, none applied. What happens then?

 

[Nigel Atkinson]

No it doesn’t. But nice obfuscation there. They both insinuate that POC are the unqualified candidates. Words mean things.

Hypothetical scenario:

An employer is looking to fill a position. A company quota mandates that the applicant MUST have the characteristic of "B."

Let "X" represent the MORE qualified applicants.
Let "Y" represent the LESSER qualified applicants.

Let "A" represent a characteristic that is completely unrelated to qualifications.
Let "B" represent a characteristic that is completely unrelated to qualifications.

The employer has 5 people that applied with the following representations:

1) XA
2) XA
3) XA
4) XA
5) YB

Because the quota MANDATES that someone with characteristic B must be chosen, the employer MUST choose to hire person 5, the and ignore the 4 qualified candidates.
___________________________

Now heres the problem....

You are saying that me and James believe that ALL POC fit into the category of "YB", which isnt true at all. There are plenty of "XB's" out there.... but in this hypothetical scenario, none applied. What happens then?

except that’s not how it works at all.

 

[deleted464787]

No it doesn’t. But nice obfuscation there. They both insinuate that POC are the unqualified candidates. Words mean things.

No, but seriously. You show a lack of understanding in the basic syllogistic forms. I suggest you do some research on what that is. Heres a good starting point for you:

List of valid argument forms - Wikipedia

 

[deleted464787]

except that’s not how it works at all.

You know, thats the crux of our disagreement here then. You should use THAT as your main arguing point, rather than trying to construct this narrative that me and James believe all POC are unqualified to work (which we never said at all). At least then, maybe this debate can finally go somewhere.

So focussing on that... if thats not how it works, then please, educate me, in your own words--how exactly does it work?

Because when I read mandates that say "You must have at least 1 woman on your board." or "You must have at least 1 minority on your board." I get a little skeptical of the whole thing.

 

[firsttimecaller]

Do you not understand the words you are putting into a sentence. Why would a lesser qualified applicant find his or her way into a candidate pool ? Please explain your logic behind this.

Seriously?

Do you really think all applicants are equal?

Some are great, some are good, some are ok, some are terrible.

For various reasons, you'll take a look at the good and even ok groups.

Therefore, there are cases where a pool will consist of great, good and possibly even an ok will sneak in.

 

[Nigel Atkinson]

No, but seriously. You show a lack of understanding in the basic syllogistic forms. I suggest you do some research on what that is. Heres a good starting point for you:

List of valid argument forms - Wikipedia

Did you ever read that I posted ? It can really help you understand the basics of affirmative action. You’re lack of basic English is doing you a disservice here. You aren’t understanding the words you’re using.

 

[Nigel Atkinson]

You know, thats the crux of our disagreement here then. You should use THAT as your main arguing point, rather than trying to construct this narrative that me and James believe all POC are unqualified to work (which we never said at all). At least then, maybe this debate can finally go somewhere.

So focussing on that... if thats not how it works, then please, educate me, in your own words--how exactly does it work?

Because when I read mandates that say "You must have at least 1 woman on your board." or "You must have at least 1 minority on your board." I get a little skeptical of the whole thing.

How many times have I explained this to you. What you put in comes out. You can’t hide it. You have literally said it multiple times that a qualified person could be overlooked for a lesser qualified person. Do you understand what that means ? Do you know what that implies ? Are you familiar with the topic at hand ? You’re suggesting that the minority candidate pool is not qualified. But why would a company extend an invitation for a job interview to an unqualified individual ? Did you miss the part were qualifications are prioritized above all ? You have yet to answer these questions. Maybe you simply don’t understand.

 

[deleted464787]

Did you ever read that I posted ? It can really help you understand the basics of affirmative action. You’re lack of basic English is doing you a disservice here. You aren’t understanding the words you’re using.

Im saying more qualified applicants COULD be passed up.

You say Im saying more qualified applicants WILL be passed up.

You are also saying that COULD and WILL insinuate the same thing.

Please correct me if any of the 3 statements above are false. And if so, please amend it so I can understand exactly what youre saying.

 

[Nigel Atkinson]

Seriously?

Do you really think all applicants are equal?

Some are great, some are good, some are ok, some are terrible.

For various reasons, you'll take a look at the good and even ok groups.

Therefore, there are cases where a pool will consist of great, good and possibly even an ok will sneak in.

You think an okay group would sneak in ? How ? And how would that okay group be apart of affirmative action ?

 

[deleted464787]

You’re suggesting that the minority candidate pool is not qualified.

/facepalm

If Im telling you thats NOT what Im suggesting, why do you keep saying that IS what Im suggesting? Who the fuck are you arguing with?

 

[deleted464787]

You think an okay group would sneak in ? How ? And how would that okay group be apart of affirmative action ?

Not just "ok" people sneak in. Completely unqualified people can even sneak in. No hiring system is perfect in catching everything.

Ive seen complete idiots of ALL races not only get invited to interviews, but actually LAND JOBS before.

And it would be part of affirmative action if a person of color (who happens to be unqualified) got the job over qualified people, simply because of the color of his skin.

 

[Nigel Atkinson]

Im saying more qualified applicants COULD be passed up.

You say Im saying more qualified applicants WILL be passed up.

You are also saying that COULD and WILL insinuate the same thing.

Please correct me if any of the 3 statements above are false. And if so, please amend it so I can understand exactly what youre saying.

You seem to believe that changing will to could will change the meaning of the sentence. It doesn’t. Do seriously not get that or are you being intentionally obtuse? They both have the same meaning used in that manner.

 

[firsttimecaller]

You think an okay group would sneak in ? How ?

All kinds of things.

Let's say there are 5 main qualifications.

Great candidate hits all 5.

Good candidate hits 3 or 4.

Ok candidate only hits 1 or 2, but it's a really important one that not all the Good have.

Or perhaps simply Ok candidate is having sex with the right people

And how would that okay group be apart of affirmative action ?

You are conflating 2 separate points.

Why you can have lesser candidates in an applicant pool has nothing to do with why the winning candidate is chosen.

 

[Nigel Atkinson]

/facepalm

If Im telling you thats NOT what Im suggesting, why do you keep saying that IS what Im suggesting? Who the fuck are you arguing with?

then you need to rephrase your sentence. Using the same words don’t change the meaning. Smh

 

[Nigel Atkinson]

Not just "ok" people sneak in. Completely unqualified people can even sneak in. No hiring system is perfect in catching everything.

Ive seen complete idiots of ALL races not only get invited to interviews, but actually LAND JOBS before.

And it would be part of affirmative action if a person of color (who happens to be unqualified) got the job over qualified people, simply because of the color of his skin.

You really believe a person of color who doesn’t have the qualifications for a position would be able to be hired and be able to obtain a interview because of Affirmative action and would be hired over a person who is qualified because of the color of their skin ?

 

[deleted464787]

You really believe a person of color who doesn’t have the qualifications for a position would be able to be hired and be able to obtain a interview because of Affirmative action and would be hired over a person who is qualified because of the color of their skin ?

Yes.

Or at the very least, a LESSER qualified person might get hired over a MORE qualified person, simply on the basis of skin color.

 

[Nigel Atkinson]

All kinds of things.

Let's say there are 5 main qualifications.

Great candidate hits all 5.

Good candidate hits 3 or 4.

Ok candidate only hits 1 or 2, but it's a really important one that not all the Good have.

Or perhaps simply Ok candidate is having sex with the right people




You are conflating 2 separate points.

Why you can have lesser candidates in an applicant pool has nothing to do with why the winning candidate is chosen.

That’s because that’s what’s y’all are implying

 

[deleted464787]

You seem to believe that changing will to could will change the meaning of the sentence. It doesn’t. Do seriously not get that or are you being intentionally obtuse? They both have the same meaning used in that manner.

Could vs. Would – What’s the Difference? - Writing Explained
May, Might, Must - Modals of Certainty

Do better, Nigel.

 

[Nigel Atkinson]

Yes.

Or at the very least, a LESSER qualified person might get hired over a MORE qualified person, simply on the basis of skin color.

SMH why would they be unqualified and why would they be hired over a qualified candidate ? You don’t think those people could be qualified ?

 

[deleted464787]

That’s because that’s what’s y’all are implying

Im going to start a strawman count for the year 2021, and see if Nigel can keep his count under 1000 for the year. Thats a little less than 3 per day, so it might be possible. Im gonna be generous and start with this one as number 1, since its not fair to use retroactive strawmen.

For purposes of this experiment, I will define strawmen specifically as "saying something that someone else didnt say, and then arguing against THAT rather than the actual statement." Here we go!

Strawman Count: 1