Title VII specifically doesn’t require specific targets. The OFCCP doesn’t require specific targets (a.k.a. quotas). Where are you getting the requirement for specific targets from your cite?
In the phrase “if it were equally widespread”, “widespread” refers to the magnitude of a property of the things being compared, whether it’s high or low. It doesn’t imply that the property exceeds some threshold, as it would in a phrase like “it is widespread”.
Similarly, “the feather and the sheet of paper are equally heavy” doesn’t imply that either the feather or the sheet of paper are “heavy” in any absolute sense, only that they have about the same weight.
If you can find two schools that are as high profile and influential in the field of high school athletics as the FAA and Google are in their fields, sure.
The FAA is responsible for all air traffic control in the United States, so its discriminatory practices affected literally every opportunity to do that kind of work. Google is the 5th largest US company by market cap, and its employment practices, from hiring process to insurance benefits to workplace decor, have been closely copied by several others in the top 10.
So, I’m no sports expert, but I think that might be difficult to fit into your high school athletics analogy. Maybe the equivalent would be something like: every single high school baseball team in the US, plus a high school basketball team so prominent and successful that its name was the first word out of everyone’s mouth in any discussion of high school basketball and its practices had been studied/copied by most other successful teams.
Google has had plenty of contracts with state and federal governments, so they may have been subject to that sort of requirement too (at least to the extent any government contractor was, which seems to be in dispute).
Tragically, the recruiters and hiring managers at Google never got that message. They were quite convinced that their commitment to diversity required active, direct intervention to raise and lower the hire rate of particular demographics. If only you’d been there to straighten them out!
In other words. no matter what keep it vague and never quantify.
Couldn’t be bothered to read the three paragraphs I wrote after that, huh?
Funny.
A guy gets shushed for talking loudly in a theater and protests, “But those people over there are talking too!”
The usher replies, “If they were being as loud as you, I’d tell them to stop, too.”
The guy, now a sound engineer: “Alright, but at what exact decibel level does talking become shush-worthy? I demand a peer-reviewed study.”
I did, you equivocated on the word widespread.
“The FAA is responsible for all air traffic control in the United States.”
“Google is the 5th largest US company by market cap.”
“every single high school baseball team in the US, plus a high school basketball team so prominent and successful that its name was the first word out of everyone’s mouth in any discussion of high school basketball and its practices had been studied/copied by most other successful teams.”
A guy gets shushed for talking loudly in a theater and protests, “But those people over there are talking too!”
The usher replies, “If they were being as loud as you, I’d tell them to stop, too.”
The guy, now a sound engineer: “Alright, but at what exact decibel level does talking become shush-worthy? I demand a peer-reviewed study.”
The usher replies, “However loud you’re being, that’s too loud.”
The guy adjusts his fedora and says with a smirk, “You equivocated on the word ‘loud.’”
…and?
That’s how widespread it is. @Mijin believes that isn’t very widespread in an absolute sense; I’m not arguing that it is. My point is that the analogy merely assumes it’s equally widespread, not that it’s widespread in any absolute sense.
That’s not equivocation.
In that example we could say that talking in the theater is widespread but talking loudly is not.
Because that’s what “widespread” commonly means.
What is the total number of companies in the US that Google is one of?
What word would you prefer that I use to mean “the property of occurring with some degree of frequency or prevalence or extent, whether low or high”, such that we might compare two things by saying they’re “equally [some word besides ‘widespread’]”?
I’m happy to use that word if it’ll put this ridiculous grasping pedantry to rest. But I’m about done indulging this attempted derailment.
If it’s occurring with a low frequency then it can’t be widespread by the most common understanding of the fucking word.
What word would you prefer that I use
With all due respect, you are cordially invited to either put up or shut up.
No, how about you find 25 examples that are not the FAA or Google?
If this is widespread then that number should be more than easy.
I’m sorry that the concept of words being used to indicate a degree of something, without commenting on where that degree falls on an absolute scale, is so confusing for you. That must have been quite a hindrance in school.
Science teacher: “Who knows how big an atom is? crowmanyclouds, how about you?”
crowmanyclouds: “An atom isn’t big by the most common understanding of the fucking word! Stop equivocating!”
No, that would be me doing the equivocating. I’m changing the meaning of the word “big” in your example, not the teacher.
I’m glad you noticed. You’re right, the teacher in that example wasn’t equivocating at all, was she? She used the word “big” to refer to the size of the atom, without commenting on whether an atom can be considered “big” on any absolute scale.
In other words, she used an extremely common and familiar linguistic construct to ask “what size” with the words “how big”, and the student in that example obviously knew better and was just being a smartass.
Now apply that insight to this thread.
One company out of thousands(?) and every single high school baseball team in the US do not share the same common understanding of the usage of the word “widespread”?
Science teacher: “If an atom were as big as a skyscraper, how big would its nucleus be?”
crowmanyclouds: “A .1 nm atom and a 500 foot skyscraper don’t share the same common understanding of the usage of the word ‘big!’ Stop equivocating!”
That isn’t an equivocation so why the fuck would I call it one?
These examples are making it clear that you do not understand what the Fallacy of Equivocation actually is.
The same reason you’re calling what I said an equivocation. Dehydration? Temporary inability to admit you misread something, secondary to a bruised ego? I can’t say for sure, but I hope you make a speedy recovery.
With all due respect, I don’t think I’m the one whose lack of understanding is being revealed here.
If any phrase means the opposite of what it actually says, it is “With all due respect.”