"You're mugging yourself then. ...meritocracy_is_bad_it_leads_to_massive_entrenched_inequality.html"
Ok, let's rock.
If I understand that article correctly, its argument is based on equating establishing equality with the provision of charity. I fail to see how the end result of that is "mugging myself." Not only that, I find this whole premise problematic - to borrow one of your lot's buzzwords - on several fronts.
First of all, equality of opportunity is not equality of outcome. I believe in equality of opportunity; the principle that every one deserves a fair go, and a helping hand on an individual basis if they're struggling, but how they use that to help themselves or not is up to them. On the other hand, equality of outcome is not only unjust in increasing the burden on those who do help themselves, it is patronising and demeaning to the very "minorities" you are claiming to support, because by giving them a "leg up" based on their putative lack of privilege, you are saying they aren't capable of making the grade on their own. It's like setting quotas for women in STEM overriding the required qualifications: doing that is tantamount to stating that women aren't as smart as men, so the entry requirements for them should be lowered so the poor dumb bimboes can get in and make up the numbers. If that in itself isn't sexism and misogyny, what is?
And before you try to call out that last argument as a strawman, consider this: If a specific number of positions have to be set aside in a given field for women and/or blacks, and the entry requirements do remain constant, if the number of female or black applicants is less than the number of places set aside for them, one of three possible things has to happen: 1) those places remain vacant (unlikely because that's a waste of institute resources); 2) those places are filled by whites and/or males (which denies the quota altogether); and 3) women and blacks whose qualifications don't meet the entry requirements are now considered for those places (vis a vis my original argument.)
Second, the article talks about the fact that we help blind people and amputees because they need help, despite their lack of "merit" in seeing or walking. But this is false equivalence. Being blind or crippled is a genuine setback, and organisations exist to provide the assistance these people need to participate in society - organisations I'm more than happy to support, I might add. But being female or black or gay isn't such an impediment; to imply that it is, is to engage in the very sexism and racism you people claim so desperately to want eliminated. If you want people to treat everyone as human beings, you first need to stop telegraphing the arbitrary labels and differences you use to separate everyone into "victim" and "oppressor" groups.
Third, all this PC puff about gender and race privilege and inequality is really a divide-and-conquer distraction implemented by the ruling classes to keep everyone from focusing on the only real cause of privilege: wealth and class. People don't give you favours and preferential treatment because you're white and/or male; they give them to you because you're rich and powerful. A wealthy and powerful black woman like Oprah Winfrey or Whoopi Goldberg packs a damn sight more privilege than the drunken white male derro sitting sacked-out in the gutter. The main reason all this gender/race politics has been accelerated in recent years, probably has much to do with popular uprisings like the Occupy movement coming very close to exposing the massive and ever-increasing wealth gap dividing our society. That's your privilege, right there. Notice how the Occupy movement started out being about the "99% and the 1%", before it became inundated by feminists, gay rights activists, black rights protestors, and the like, which shattered it? Perfect divide and conquer.
So what you people don't realise when you push this gender/race privilege stuff is that you're playing right into the hands of the ruling class, distracting and disunifying the masses from addressing wealth inequality, which affects everyone regardless of gender or race.
Finally, let's get back to why my employing people on merit isn't mugging myself: I'm not running a charity. I support certain charities, yes, but my business isn't one, and as it stands, can't afford to be one. I'm not in the business of virtue-signalling for diversity, I'm in the business of developing web applications, publishing and marketing solutions for small to medium enterprises. Employing Aboriginal genderqueer women with no training or experience doesn't make my business any money; employing human beings, of whatever "kind," capable of maintaining web applications and designing brochures and books does. Then I can use some of that money to help out people who need help.
Mugging myself would be employing a load of deadweight for appearances and quotas over people who can actually do the jobs I need done.