Plain racist

Page 6 of 12 [ 179 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 ... 12 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

01 Feb 2022, 4:14 pm

Dox47 wrote:

cyberdad wrote:

still waiting for somebody to demonstrate the nominees aren't deserving?

Diogenes....lantern..

There isn't a nominee yet for anyone to claim isn't deserving, that's not the claim being made. What has been said is that by announcing in advance that he's only considering black women, Biden has made it clear that he's not making his choice based on who's the best judge period, but instead who's the best black female judge, putting race and gender ahead of legal acumen. Maybe the best judge for the job is a black woman, but because Biden said that race and sex are the most important factors for his choice, we'll never really know that, there will always be the question of "would she be the nominee if she weren't a black woman?", which is both cruel to his nominee, and bad politics from Biden, who really should know better.

Our vice president is an excellent example of this very phenomenon, a lackluster and unpopular politician who absolutely no one believes would be VP if it weren't for her race and gender, a mediocrity elevated far beyond her competence due to stupid identity politics, who even the DNC is panicking about due to her unpopularity and ineffectiveness. They keep talking about putting her on the court, not because she'd be a good justice but because they can't figure out a better way to get rid of her before 2024, and they think picking a new VP would fire up the base. Now, that plan happens to be DoA as she's not interested and she couldn't cast the tie-breaking vote to confirm herself or her replacement, but the fact that it's being talked about a lot in Democratic circles should tell you something.

This is an unpopular sentiment but I think a lot of top leadership jobs go to people who aren't exactly the product of rigorous selective processes. In this context this includes other supreme court nominees.

Adding the additional criteria of race/gender does limit the pool of talent but this is about representation and there's a lot of retrospective work to be done in America to rectify the old glass ceilings put in place by white men who didn't want women or PoC in positions of responsibility till virtually the 1980s.

txfz1
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 13 Dec 2021
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,411
Location: US

01 Feb 2022, 5:08 pm

cyberdad wrote:

Biden had a chance to rectify the glass ceiling way back when but he voted to use the filibuster on Janice Rogers Brown. The hearings for Miguel Estrada were really bad as his wife committed suicide in 2001.

Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

01 Feb 2022, 6:02 pm

Dox47 wrote:

Kraichgauer wrote:

The implication was, it's the people with power to fill positions who justify racial prejudice with: "just looking for qualified people."
I was pretty sure that fact was recognized.

Again, that's not even close to what you said, there was no implication of "people with power" in what you posted, which in case you've forgotten was:

Kraichgauer wrote:

What I'm arguing is: most people who say they want the most qualified person tend to use that argument when they don't want a black woman to fill the post. I tried to keep from saying it outright, but it's essentially the truth.

What words in those two sentences limit your claim solely to decision makers? "Most people who say..." isn't "people with the power to make the decision". I know non-fiction isn't your forte, but seeing as how your own words are quite clear (and well documented), I'd suggest a retraction and correction, it's going to be a lot less painful than doubling down will be.

The people who fill posts such as Supreme Court seats are in power in a way that ordinary people are not. That is the implication. I referred to.
While it was not meant in any way as a compliment, I'll still accept it as your endorsement of my fiction writing prowess.

_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,998
Location: Melbourne, Australia

01 Feb 2022, 6:55 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:

Dox47 wrote:

Kraichgauer wrote:

The implication was, it's the people with power to fill positions who justify racial prejudice with: "just looking for qualified people."
I was pretty sure that fact was recognized.

Again, that's not even close to what you said, there was no implication of "people with power" in what you posted, which in case you've forgotten was:

Kraichgauer wrote:

In the middle of a discussion where people are pointing out the racist and sexist actions behind someone declaring that they will choose a person for a role based on their race and sex, with those people indicating that the most qualified person for the role should be who was selected, you came out and stated that "most people who say they want the most qualified person...".

In the context of the discussion where you made such a comment, with no qualifier attached or implied, that remark comes across as an explicit attack on the integrity of every person who believes in meritocracy over selection for racist\sexist motives (76% of the US population, according to surveys posted in the thread).

Off Topic

Interestingly, the announcement that a "black female" would be selected is in contravention of the U.S.A.'s racial discrimination laws, too...

Quote:

Race/Color Discrimination

Race discrimination involves treating someone (an applicant or employee) unfavorably because he/she is of a certain race

[...]

Race/Color Discrimination & Work Situations

The law forbids discrimination when it comes to any aspect of employment, including hiring, firing, pay, job assignments, promotions, layoff, training, fringe benefits, and any other term or condition of employment.

Source: https://www.eeoc.gov/racecolor-discrimination

cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

01 Feb 2022, 7:29 pm

txfz1 wrote:

cyberdad wrote:

Again the article link refers to Obama (not Biden) blocking Janice Rogers.

But, yeah, it doesn't pardon Obama's actions. From the perspective of PoC Biden's decision is better late than never,

cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

01 Feb 2022, 7:37 pm

Brictoria wrote:

In the context of the discussion where you made such a comment, with no qualifier attached or implied, that remark comes across as an explicit attack on the integrity of every person who believes in meritocracy over selection for racist\sexist motives (76% of the US population, according to surveys posted in the thread).

The law forbids discrimination when it comes to any aspect of employment, including hiring, firing, pay, job assignments, promotions, layoff, training, fringe benefits, and any other term or condition of employment.

Source: https://www.eeoc.gov/racecolor-discrimination

Interesting nobody in the republican party is hiring lawyers to follow your lead Brictoria? Perhaps Biden's decision doesn't breach discriminations laws after all.

Secondly even if Biden is limiting his choice to nominate a black female, the process in selecting a candidate for the supreme court to replace Stephen Bryer appears to be merit based, with the best black female candidate to be selected for the post. That seems merit based to me?

it might have escaped your notice but the current make up of the supreme court is 3 liberal justices and 6 conservative (the latter ratio was manipulated by Trump's machinations). Both Breyer and Biden want to ensure the current ratio is at least maintained to provide balance,

Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,998
Location: Melbourne, Australia

01 Feb 2022, 7:41 pm

Off Topic

For anyone still suffering from an inability to copy/paste into a Google search and receive a wealth of information about Mr Biden and Janice Rogers Brown, here is a link to help you out:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/02/01/biden-black-woman-janice-rogers-brown/

You're welcome.

cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

01 Feb 2022, 8:00 pm

Brictoria wrote:

Off Topic

Perhaps you should have posted this link in the first place, It would save you having to make snide remarks to cover up your botched information.

txfz1
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 13 Dec 2021
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,411
Location: US

01 Feb 2022, 8:03 pm

cyberdad wrote:

txfz1 wrote:

cyberdad wrote:

Again the article link refers to Obama (not Biden) blocking Janice Rogers.

But, yeah, it doesn't pardon Obama's actions. From the perspective of PoC Biden's decision is better late than never,

No, Biden voted nay.

Senate vote

cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

01 Feb 2022, 8:11 pm

I think to be fair to Biden, the whole democrat party made a decision in unison to filibuster Janice Brown's nomination by Bush. They had their reasons and it was political. It has nothing to do with Biden wanting to shaft black people because he's racist (as some here are trying to insinuate) and covering it up.

All politicians (whether left or right) do things and then reverse their policies based on strategic/political imperatives, That's why they are called politicians.

Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,998
Location: Melbourne, Australia

01 Feb 2022, 8:19 pm

cyberdad wrote:

Brictoria wrote:

Off Topic

Perhaps you should have posted this link in the first place, It would save you having to make snide remarks to cover up your botched information.

It's no good attacking others for your inability to conduct such a simple search...

As to the accusation of "snide remarks" - Feel free to adress them to the source of the post which I used as a template (and which appears to have the backing of a moderator) - There's no difference between the substantive content\wording of this and the source template (only topic and link changed, with "bonus" links removed), so this is no more "snide" than the source... Maybe you should talk to them about thier use\endorsement of such "snide remarks" if you feel they are problematic?

cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

01 Feb 2022, 8:28 pm

You are complicating a simple botch up by posting links to threads that have nothing to do with the current thread.

Not really interested in entering a side-show to the main event.

Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,998
Location: Melbourne, Australia

01 Feb 2022, 8:43 pm

cyberdad wrote:

You are complicating a simple botch up by posting links to threads that have nothing to do with the current thread.

Not really interested in entering a side-show to the main event.

I, personally, wouldn't have called an inability to do a simple google search a "botch up",, but if that's how you wish to describe it, I won't argue the point.

DW_a_mom
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 22 Feb 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,689
Location: Northern California

01 Feb 2022, 9:04 pm

You do all realize that there is no single "most qualified person" for the role? That the choice has always been highly subjective and fraught with both politics and symbolism?

We've often ended up with less than fully qualified candidates making the cut because the personal agenda of the president making the appointment often falls higher in priority than qualifications.

It's never been a meritocracy. And even if it was, figuring out who is "the" most qualified would be impossible; it's a matter of personal opinion and priority.

Ultimately, what we have a is large pool of qualified candidates that includes a huge variety of beliefs, races, upbringing and temperament. The only hope would be that a president pick from that pool. In my opinion, the pool is more than large enough to include multiple black women.

So, to me as a woman, to suggest we can't have both a meritorious choice AND a black female feels both racist and misogynistic.

While I would prefer a president not limit himself in what seems to be a clear form of pandering, it isn't like the promise means he'll be putting a "lesser" candidate onto the court.

_________________
Mom to an amazing young adult AS son, plus an also amazing non-AS daughter. Most likely part of the "Broader Autism Phenotype" (some traits).

txfz1
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 13 Dec 2021
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,411
Location: US

01 Feb 2022, 10:05 pm

cyberdad wrote:

No, Biden has a racist past and I am amazed how the tolerant left is willing to overlook it, including the amoral dishonesty of just being a politician. If it was about glass ceilings, he would have voted yay. Hiring someone based on race and gender is illegal, racist, and sexist.

Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

01 Feb 2022, 10:50 pm

Brictoria wrote:

Kraichgauer wrote:

Dox47 wrote:

Kraichgauer wrote:

The implication was, it's the people with power to fill positions who justify racial prejudice with: "just looking for qualified people."
I was pretty sure that fact was recognized.

Again, that's not even close to what you said, there was no implication of "people with power" in what you posted, which in case you've forgotten was:

Kraichgauer wrote:

Off Topic

Interestingly, the announcement that a "black female" would be selected is in contravention of the U.S.A.'s racial discrimination laws, too...

Quote:

Source: https://www.eeoc.gov/racecolor-discrimination

There is nothing racist or sexist about making postings more inclusive.
Racists have made the argument over and over that such inclusion of discriminated against minorities is racism, even though they seem to be the ones outraged that white men aren't getting 100% of said posts.

_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Page 6 of 12 [ 179 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 ... 12 Next

Jump to:

Plain racist Post Reply New Topic

Plain racist