In Sweden, when 60% of college students were women, they stopped affirmative action because it would benefit men, and women sued for discrimination when affirmative action worked against them. [1]

There's no point at which feminists stop looking out for women at the expense of men.

1: https://www.thelocal.se/20100112/24330

When everyone stops thinking about quotas and focuses on empowering everyone and proceeding entirely based on qualifications.

Yes, this is how it should be done. Actually, if I ran a company, I would go further. There would be no affirmative action or quota nonsense. Best person for the job, that is all. I care only about ability, work ethic, and whether they are a fit for the team/company. Anyone whose resume was being forwarded would have the name and any other gender/age/race info removed by HR before sending. And for anyone who came in for an interview but we passed on I would require the written, documented reason just to have for record-keeping. That way, HR could periodically go in and retroactively analyze to see if there was any sort of bias (intentional or not) or other funny business going on.

That's how you maximize your productivity and efficiency and, by extension, profit. It also motivates people because they know they are much closer to a true meritocracy.

That's what 95% of the companies in the world already do, because they're struggling to find qualified talent (at their price point - because not every company is SV-rich).

Only the companies with enough profit margins can afford to concern themselves with this inclusion/empowerment drivel, because they can hire "fluff" employees to boost their diversity or whatever other metrics they want to use to make them feel good about themselves.

I agree, simply because humans will always tend to like anything that is familiar and similar.

So never, then.

Nobody does that calculus except people who want to see more $MY_GROUP and then yell that they are underrepresented.

If we take your premise as true, it seems like you'd still be wrong. Anyone who doesn't want to get "yelled" at is going to want to do that calculus (conference organizers, the aforementioned CEO, etc).

By definition if my premise is true I'm not wrong (because it's true) :)

Fair enough on calling me out for that; I was aware it wasn't technically correct when I said it but thought it got my point across well enough in the absence of a better way to phrase it.

My point was that even if the model you described in that sentence part is broadly correct, the "nobody" part is inconsistent with the rest of the model because at some level people respondent to public opinion must care about the those "yelling:.