You've been looking in the wrong direction, the dangers are coming from the Left - read OP

Flaneur OBrien

I was watching The Handmaid's Tale and the following line seems so pertinent:

“Better never means better for everyone... It always means worse, for some.”

In this case, quotas make the world a more equitable place, better for almost everyone but makes it worse for straight white males that have been at the top of the table for far too long.

A long overdue reset is happening and I believe that's a good thing.

I also enjoy more equity for more people being classed as a "danger from the left".

Cordell

Yes forced equity is a grave danger, 35 years later Eastern Europe is still not done recovering after being forced into socio-economic systems built on forced equity (for most) and top of the table (for few).

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122649497#Comment_122649497

How do you mean "forced equity"?

I could be totally wrong here (and correct me if I am) but the argument is pro forced equal representation, not pro forced equality?

Because Easten Europe never had equal representaion - it had NO representation for most people. And surely you're not interpreting forced equity as taking everything away from everyone and thus, everyone having nothing forces them to be equal….?

Cordell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122649570#Comment_122649570

There was no forced equal representation based on race because it wasn't the case, but there was forced representation based on background - people from what was then considered middle class background were shoved aside to make room for people from the working class background, ending up with people with little or no education getting at the top of the table.

If you have watched the Chernobyl series, it's the shoe factory worker who drinks a shot while laughing in the face of the physicist who recommended evacuation - that is 100% accurate and that is the danger of forced equity. That was reality, it has been tried before, and it failed spectacularly.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122649771#Comment_122649771

Still a bit confusing: by forced representation, I interpret it as forced diversity, with every ethnic group being represented in an overall democratically elected parliament - which has NEVER been tried in Eastern Europe.

You're arguing forced equity - as in everyone gets the same regardless of representation - and then putting it down to class rather than ethnicity.

Cordell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122649897#Comment_122649897

It's the same thing, in both cases you end up with people taking positions based on their background or ethnicity rather than on merit. Forced diversity was tried in the Eastern Europe, but it was based on socio-economic background rather than race or ethnicity. It didn't work out well.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122650144#Comment_122650144

So i was wrong and he wasn't endoring elected quotas, gotcha. Thanks.

nolivesmatter

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122649315#Comment_122649315

You're just shouting into the void now.

Flaneur OBrien

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122650760#Comment_122650760

Well used to that on this thread in case you hadn't noticed.

whatever.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122648122#Comment_122648122

You just denied and then confirmed what I said.

You need to read the constitution, the number of tds can increase or decrease it is not a fixed amount, those represented are not represented based on a characteristic or lack thereof and have freedom to live and vote in any constituency they like

A quota reserves a particular amount (on a board, in a parliament) for a particular group and excludes others, they are restrictive and discriminatory. This very basis was confirmed in the US Supreme Court recently with regard to race based college admissions

I'm not trying to be disagreeable but you are making a false equivalency

Quotas are based on (artificial) fixed amounts and exclude

Our constitution does not have fixed amounts and does not exclude anyone.

Some would go further and say it was specifically devised to be anti-(quota) gerrymandering which was the way people of different faiths had their representation "quotaised" and thus artifically restricted and discriminated against

Igotadose

So, disagreement on how TDs are allocated is a danger from the left? A danger would be burning down buildings because of rumours of asylum seekers being housed there. Or protesting in 'solidarity' of terrorist organizations like Hezbollah or Hamas. Those are dangers. Not the allocation of TDs.

Cordell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122655259#Comment_122655259

They are all dangers. In this particular case, allocating TDs instead of electing them through a fair democratic process is the thin end of the wedge. We should not have TDs allocated by race or gender, that's the literal definition of racism and sexism.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122655494#Comment_122655494

It's not a danger because it's an impractical idea that's never going to be implimented. Much like meritocracy.

Backstreet Moyes

I think it's fair to say their are dangers from the left and right and common sense is lost.

If I was an immigrant living here legally and working then I would very much fear the far right.

If I was a women then I would be far more worried about the far left.

Both are horrible groups of people but both are loud and obnoxious and ordinary people get caught up in between the culture wars.

Cordell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122655986#Comment_122655986

I have seen it implemented in my country of origin, it didn't do anything for the minority it was supposed to represent, it only kept them from voting candidates that for better or worse were doing things for everyone. We ended up with TDs that had their seat guaranteed and unsurprisingly lots of them either did absolutely nothing but used that guaranteed seat for personal gain.

Meritocracy works, you are good you get through the party ranks, you get support and you get elected. And this principle applies everywhere, you need to deserve your position, you need to get it, not have it handed to you simply because you happens to be of certain background.

On a side note, I'm so happy to see that during this harder economic environment DEI departments are slashed and DEI "champions" are now #opentowork.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122656084#Comment_122656084

In that case, I'd have to ask what your country of origin is (assuming you mean it was implemented on a national level as a form of government).

I didn't mean to say meritocracy didn't work, I meant it was impractical; and I say that for three reasons: 1) on what grounds are people qualified or merited to hold positions?; 2) who makes the appointments?; 3) it assumes the most merited people for a position actually want the job (what happens if they all turn it down?)

What you describe here is bascially democracy - which is what we have.

Cordell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122656116#Comment_122656116

I don't want to say exactly which one, I'll just tell you the TL;DR version: the voting system has special rules for parties that are founded on a ethnic minority base rather than ideology, and these rules all but guarantee that these parties get a predictable number seats.

On the other section: meritocracy has been proven to work, and DEI hires or appointees like Ebun Joseph have proven themselves to be incompetent grifters.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122656141#Comment_122656141

Ok - again, you'll have to correct me if I'm wrong but: we're talking about a country that allocated positions of government to people who were not democratically elected and based purely on race or gender…? I'm not going to force you to say, but if that's the case I can't accept that as a valid point because I've never heard of it ever happening and I can't debate what I can't research. (Not saying I don't accept it ever happened - just that it's not really something we can debate)

You're still arguing democracy though, not meritocracy.

Ebun Joseph destroys your argument.

We're talking about a person who holds a PHD in Equality Studies, has lectured on the subject in top Irish universities and was hired to advise on the topic of Diversity, Equality and Inclusion. This IS meritocracy. She IS qualified.

You may not like her personally or her viewpoints, but that's irrelevant - the appointment was based on merit.

You endorsed meritocracy, you highlighted an act of meritocracy and now you're claiming that said act of meritocracy was an act of "incompetent grifters" without ANY factual evidence, purely because you personally don't like it - thereby highlighting my point: meritocracy is impractical. As I said: who gets to appoint? And on what grounds? And there will still be disagreements over the quality of appointments and general direction of the society.

Edited to remove a point that was, on reflection, a bit too personal

Cordell

We're talking about a person who holds a PHD in Equality Studies, has lectured on the subject in top Irish universities and was hired to advise on the topic of Diversity, Equality and Inclusion. This IS meritocracy. She IS qualified

Thanks, this made me laugh :)

we're talking about a country that allocated positions of government to people who were not democratically elected

Not quite, the positions are in the parliament and they are gained through a skewed democratic process where these candidates have special and more forgiving rules. Their party will not be at all in the parliament if not for the special rules that only apply to ethnic minorities.

Igotadose

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122655992#Comment_122655992

Why should women fear the left, let alone the far left?

Cordell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122656239#Comment_122656239

No one should be fearing left or right, there is nothing to fear, just disagreements. And everyone should fear the far left and the far right.

Igotadose

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122656296#Comment_122656296

My question was to Backstreet, not sure what they're on about. But, as long as you're chiming in, why should women particularly fear the far left, versus 'everyone'?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122656237#Comment_122656237

It might make you laugh, but it is factual. Point to an inaccurate statement in that paragraph.

Your response is also purely a personal attack on me though, which leads me to think your only endorsements for a meritocracy are ad hominems and you haven't really studied this and aren't in a position to discuss its pros and cons.

Your country of original sounds like a flawed democracy with a fuckload of nepotism and corruption rather than race/gender based equity appointments (which could be anywhere is the Western world on those criteria!) but again - I can't debate without knowing where it is and specific examples of said appointments.

Just to add: I wouldn't be in favour of appointments based on race or gender either, but then you can't assume that every appointment of a ethnic minority or woman is autoatically an equity appointment without evidence.

Cordell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122656318#Comment_122656318

Everyone, not women in particular, although them being more vulnerable they can be suffering more. If you think that banned abortion and contraceptives and forced medical checks are something that can only happen under far right regimes, you may be surprised to find out that they did happen under far left regimes.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122656337#Comment_122656337

Your response is also purely a personal attack on me though

My apologies, not my intention but I will always laugh at people holding PhD in Equality Studies.

Your country of original sounds like a flawed democracy with a fuckload of nepotism and corruption

That's precisely what it is and it got there as a consequence of the dangers we talked before, mainly group identity and forced equity over good old meritocracy.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122656398#Comment_122656398

Apologies accepted, but again, you can laugh as much as you like - facts are the qualification exists and she has it. To deny either is to deny meritocracy. Beyond that, you haven't actually made any point here.

You can't say you favour meritocracy and then laugh at specifc quantifiers of merit. As I asked before: if you want a meritocracy you first have to decided what is merit and who gets to appoint?

Cordell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122656475#Comment_122656475

But I can deny that there is any merit in having a PhD in Equality Studies. Not all PhDs are equal, and a PhD in a STEM field has much more merit associated to it than a PhD in mickey mouse studies.

Backstreet Moyes

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122656239#Comment_122656239

Pushing for biological men to compete in women sports.

Pushing for biological men to have access to women safe spaces such as shelters and prisons.

Pushing to reduce women to terms such as birthing person.

Basically trying to take back equal rights that women fought for and erase terminology around women.

That's before going into cheering on an influx of people from countries where women are second class citizens.

Then coverups like in Rotherham to stop the far right from getting the details, protecting innocent victims is not the top priority.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122656742#Comment_122656742

You can and you're welcome to do so, but you haven't. Dismissing something as "mickey mouse studies" is meaningless without an argument. As is the idea of you personally choosing to not recognise a particular branch of science.

Why do YOU get to choose what is and isn't a valid qualificaton? Are you qualified to do so?

I really don't think that a meritocracy is what you want here.

Igotadose

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122656798#Comment_122656798

But, lack of health care and abortion rights, positions pushed hard today by the right and far right, are far more threatening and a danger than what you describe. Women today are dying in the US like happened here in Ireland due to loss of abortion rights, the Amber Thurman story reads like Savita Halappanavars almost exactly. It's a clear and present danger.

And the other day, you seemed to miss the point about 'patriarchy.' It's preference given to men, in Ireland it's white men. Better job opportunities, higher pay, more opportunities, because they're men. It's a patriarchy. If 50% of the society is women, 50% of CEO's should be women, 50% of board members in corporations, 50% of tenured University professors, etc.

It's not the case though, not even close.

Cordell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122656817#Comment_122656817

branch of science

You made me laugh again :)

I really don't think that a meritocracy is not what you want here.

That's your right, just as it's my right to disregard mickey mouse degrees.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122656945#Comment_122656945

If 50% of the society is women, 50% of CEO's should be women, 50% of board members in corporations, 50% of tenured University professors, etc.

Why? And if they're not, why force it? This is a far left view that was proven to be a failure.