So they have something to run with. Address its limits; identify its consistency with your own plan; perhaps even suggest incongruence between their goal and their plan

"you're just wrong, bye" is a non-starter

And if the other side isn't interested in negotiating a compromise, you just cede ground for nothing.

You deserve a better back-and-forth than one with a dude that was mocking a Trump quote. Sorry.

I uh . . . just posted that as regards AA the social arguments against AA "uniformly presuppose harms that are not empirically, statistically, or logically either demonstrated or even implied," and your response is to suggest that while you agree that a hypothetical harm that you are positing is not a necessary consequence of AA, that it might be one as regards employers?

That is not a strong position in opposition to my characterizing non-legal arguments against AA as precisely what your argument is.

Let's explore that context. Your position here is that the economic impact of AA is something like this:

1. Less talented / capable minority / female person gets college degree (I disagree with these assumptions about this person).
2. That person enters job market.
3. That person, because of degree, "tricks" employer into hiring a less talented / capable person than employer would otherwise hire, or AA coerces employer into same (I disagree with this standard narrative; see also parenthetical in the second argument below).
4. That business suffers inefficiency because of the lesser performance of the new hire (I disagree with this conclusion as to the productivity of the employee and with regard to causality).

OR

1. Less talented / capable minority person enters job market having no specific educational training (I disagree with these assumptions about this person).
2. That person, because of AA, is hired over a more qualified applicant (this is not AA; that is bad hiring; this step presupposes an equivalently qualified person who is white and male will outperform the identically qualified minority or female employee, a position with which I disagree for numerous reasons).
3. Same as above.

And here's the thing - this is all feels and goal-oriented think tank stuff. Like so much of the racism in this country, its justifications are crystalline cathedrals to wanting it to be one way, when it's the other way. So of course I disparage and disregard bad takes based on nothing but agitprop. They're bad, and based on nothing meaningful. Like always. Like virtually every single thing any Republican politician has ever said during my entire life.

And here's the other thing: I am, in fact, not obligated to meet those positions on a level playing field. They're invalid, whether deeply felt or not. I give no ****s if things are deeply felt. I give ****s if they're valid and real.

Prove the risk is real, and I'm all ears. Until then, it's not even a position, rather it's just a feeling, and I don't respect those.

EDIT: Which is exactly how I feel about religious justifications for or defenses of anything, ever.

It isn't ceding ground, though. That's an inappropriate metaphor.

When you cede ground, you have lost something that you previously had.

If the argument is valid, then you didn't have anything to lose to begin with, so you don't lose anything by acknowledging it, other than the position of being unreasonable (read: refusing to see/acknowledge reason when presented).

also a large part of the point is figuring out how to share ground not to control it

if only for diversity's sake

Sharing ground with nonsense and intentional misrepresentation is not in any way even 1% of the point of sharing ground.

Formal logic has basically nothing to do with modern politics.

The critique attaches to quota programs generally.

Whether it's a school or an employer, the result cannot improve efficiency, only diminish it. Whether efficiency is the sole or even primary goal is another matter.

If the program only makes sense when two candidates are "equally qualified", I would ask which of us is being hypothetical.

It feeds an antagonistic sentiment. So let's separate it from its bathwater instead of turning away otherwise reasonable parties into the arms of bigots. The rug will have to be moved eventually, and I'm not interested to see what could be grown underneath it!

I know there is good in you. The Emperor hasn't driven it from you fully.

That is a fantastic Newsweek cover. Love it.

No, it's that a bad team is. They didn't want Hillary to even go to the Rust Belt FFS. Which was perhaps the single biggest reason she lost, and on it's own could have overcome Comey and Russia, as big as those were.

This. He was not only a way better candidate, he had a much better team.

If you do manage to get time for it sometime, I would really love to read your longer AA defense, especially as it relates to Asian Americans.

I appreciate your subsequent posts on it, but would still enjoy reading a thorough Hoya treatise on it. I think you are the best politics poster on this site and appreciate your analysis. [/fanboy]

she needed pennsylvania to win and went there a million times. she would have lost either way.

It's not at all clear that Hilldawg visiting a state increased her chances of winning it

she, barry, michelle and biden spent the entire campaign in pennsylvania and they lost that state

she isnt/wasnt a great politician tbh

I was thinking of WI and MI, I stand corrected on PA. I meant/would have written visiting with a jobs message and other things, but didn't think it was necessary in that short post. Not really interested in relitigating the campaign, but I think you get my main point, her team wasn't great. It was mainly a response to Riverman's post. You still want good advisors, pollsters, media people, etc, you just want them to be better than hers. But mainly, of course, you need to be a better candidate than Hillary.

Extremely bland politican combined with a power hungry campaign manager that wanted a bare bones campaign refusing to deploy celebrity/power broker/political figures in many states or until it was too late because he wanted complete control. Also autistically focused on granular voting/demographic data and would only deploy resources in narrow slices right before their primaries. just a horrific campaign.

Robby Mook shouldn't ever work in politics again, in other words.

I want a #LOCKMOOKUP shirt.

GET REKT PHARMABR0

lotta that going around BR0

its never getting old

No one likes this guy, which makes sense because he pretty much sucks in every way possible.

What's up with the Greg Norman comment?