Thread by @CentristStacy

The thing that bothers me most in this still-ongoing Mark Cuban/DEI saga is that rather than picking a particular principle or premise to defend (even a bad one), he just keeps moving the goalposts. I've seen him argue all of the following four points (see next tweet):

https://twitter.com/TheRabbitHole84/status/1748220547262275755

1. DEI doesn't lead to discrimination; it just expands the applicant pool
2. Private companies can do what they want, so it's ok if they favor certain groups
3. DEI isn't in conflict with merit-based hiring
4. Hiring is *always* subjective; who's to say what merit even means?

This sort of behavior in arguments actually bothers me more than when people stick to a consistent but wrong position. It reminds me of @Rationalist69's former bio, which sums up so many Twitter arguments: "Right when you think you have the answers, I change the questions."

Lest I be accused of strawmanning, here are screenshots of Cuban arguing points 1-4 I mentioned:

1. DEI isn't about discrimination; it just expands the applicant pool to include more qualified candidates

2. Private companies can do what they want, so demographic preferences are ok

3. DEI isn't in conflict with merit-based hiring

4. Who's to say what merit-based hiring is? Is it even real?

I think the "motivated incoherence" here comes from the fact that Cuban wants to defend both of the following positions:
1. DEI simply expands recruitment rather than leading to racial discrimination.
2. To the extent that DEI does lead to racial discrimination, it is justified.

In other words, he's trying to make an "it's not happening, but it's good that it is" argument. I think these arguments lead to a lot of motivated incoherence and goalpost-shifting to draw attention away from the contradiction at the heart of the position being defended.