Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Plain racist

Page 2 of 12 [ 179 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 12  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,795
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

28 Jan 2022, 3:24 am

cyberdad wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Reagan put the first woman on the Supreme court. Did that make Ronny sexist?


Ye Olde double standard


Of course it is. The same people don't seem to have a problem with Bush putting Clarence Thomas on the court, specifically because he was black.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


r00tb33r
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 May 2016
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,778

28 Jan 2022, 4:39 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
Reagan put the first woman on the Supreme court. Did that make Ronny sexist?

Only if he said he did it for the gender.


_________________
Enjoy the silence.


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,795
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

28 Jan 2022, 5:11 am

r00tb33r wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Reagan put the first woman on the Supreme court. Did that make Ronny sexist?

Only if he said he did it for the gender.


As a matter of fact, he did:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/ ... 3a5e76865/


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,998
Location: Melbourne, Australia

31 Jan 2022, 12:33 am

It is good to see that the country isn't as racist or sexist as its President:

Quote:
A new ABC News/Ipsos poll finds that a plurality of Americans view the Supreme Court as motivated by partisanship, while President Joe Biden's campaign trail vow to select a Black woman to fill a high-court vacancy without reviewing all potential candidates evokes a sharply negative reaction from voters.

The ABC News/Ipsos poll, which was conducted by Ipsos in partnership with ABC News using Ipsos' KnowledgePanel, comes days after the most senior member of the Supreme Court, Justice Stephen G. Breyer, announced his retirement at the end of the current term. Breyer's announcement provides Biden the opportunity to change the demographic makeup of the conservative-leaning bench.

During the spring 2020 presidential primaries, days before his set of big wins on Super Tuesday, Biden pledged to nominate the first Black woman to the Supreme Court, if elected. Now, with the chance to do so, just over three-quarters of Americans (76%) want Biden to consider "all possible nominees." Just 23% want him to automatically follow through on his history-making commitment that the White House seems keen on seeing through. At a ceremony honoring the retiring justice, Biden told reporters he is able to honor his promise without compromising on quality.

"The person I will nominate will be someone with extraordinary qualifications, character, experience and integrity. And that person will be the first Black woman ever nominated to the United States Supreme Court," Biden said. "It's long overdue in my view. I made that commitment during the campaign for president, and I will keep that commitment."

Although the poll's sample size was not large enough to break out results for Black people, only a little more than 1 in 4 nonwhite Americans (28%) wish for Biden to consider only Black women for the vacancy. Democrats are more supportive of Biden's vow (46%) than Americans as a whole, but still a majority of Democrats (54%) also prefer that Biden consider all possible nominees.

Source: https://abcnews.go.com/US/majority-americans-biden-nominees-supreme-court-vacancy-poll/story?id=82553398



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,795
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

31 Jan 2022, 12:37 am

Brictoria wrote:
It is good to see that the country isn't as racist or sexist as its President:
Quote:
A new ABC News/Ipsos poll finds that a plurality of Americans view the Supreme Court as motivated by partisanship, while President Joe Biden's campaign trail vow to select a Black woman to fill a high-court vacancy without reviewing all potential candidates evokes a sharply negative reaction from voters.

The ABC News/Ipsos poll, which was conducted by Ipsos in partnership with ABC News using Ipsos' KnowledgePanel, comes days after the most senior member of the Supreme Court, Justice Stephen G. Breyer, announced his retirement at the end of the current term. Breyer's announcement provides Biden the opportunity to change the demographic makeup of the conservative-leaning bench.

During the spring 2020 presidential primaries, days before his set of big wins on Super Tuesday, Biden pledged to nominate the first Black woman to the Supreme Court, if elected. Now, with the chance to do so, just over three-quarters of Americans (76%) want Biden to consider "all possible nominees." Just 23% want him to automatically follow through on his history-making commitment that the White House seems keen on seeing through. At a ceremony honoring the retiring justice, Biden told reporters he is able to honor his promise without compromising on quality.

"The person I will nominate will be someone with extraordinary qualifications, character, experience and integrity. And that person will be the first Black woman ever nominated to the United States Supreme Court," Biden said. "It's long overdue in my view. I made that commitment during the campaign for president, and I will keep that commitment."

Although the poll's sample size was not large enough to break out results for Black people, only a little more than 1 in 4 nonwhite Americans (28%) wish for Biden to consider only Black women for the vacancy. Democrats are more supportive of Biden's vow (46%) than Americans as a whole, but still a majority of Democrats (54%) also prefer that Biden consider all possible nominees.

Source: https://abcnews.go.com/US/majority-americans-biden-nominees-supreme-court-vacancy-poll/story?id=82553398


How does that make Biden racist or sexist?


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,284

31 Jan 2022, 12:43 am

Ye Olde Rorshach's inkblot test :lol:



Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,577
Location: Seattle-ish

31 Jan 2022, 2:21 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
How does that make Biden racist or sexist?


Because he's disqualifying potential justices based not on their qualifications or opinions, but rather what's in their pants and what color it is.


_________________
“The totally convinced and the totally stupid have too much in common for the resemblance to be accidental.”
-- Robert Anton Wilson


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,795
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

31 Jan 2022, 2:32 am

Dox47 wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
How does that make Biden racist or sexist?


Because he's disqualifying potential justices based not on their qualifications or opinions, but rather what's in their pants and what color it is.


The same could be said about all the other Presidents who hadn't chosen black judges in the past.
Was Reagan sexist for choosing Sandra Day O'Conner only because she was a woman?


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,998
Location: Melbourne, Australia

31 Jan 2022, 2:55 am

Dox47 wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
How does that make Biden racist or sexist?


Because he's disqualifying potential justices based not on their qualifications or opinions, but rather what's in their pants and what color it is.


It would be interesting to know if those who don't see the stated claim that the President intended to pick a "Black, female" as being racist\sexist would be equally happy to see businesses advertise positions where "Only white males need apply"... Or whether they hold double standards, and so racism\sexism which they approve of\participate in is considered "good" by them, while they feign outrage at "racism"\"sexism" in the community...



Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,577
Location: Seattle-ish

31 Jan 2022, 3:02 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
The same could be said about all the other Presidents who hadn't chosen black judges in the past.
Was Reagan sexist for choosing Sandra Day O'Conner only because she was a woman?


Only if they explicitly said they were picking their judges based on race and sex, as Biden has. And yes, it was also bad when Reagan did it, though I'm not sure he ran on it as a campaign pledge like Biden did.


_________________
“The totally convinced and the totally stupid have too much in common for the resemblance to be accidental.”
-- Robert Anton Wilson


And So It Goes
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2019
Gender: Male
Posts: 547

31 Jan 2022, 3:47 am

Positive Discrimination seems to be more common than ever these days.

However, nearly 30 years ago, someone positively discriminated an old friend of mine over me. I was chosen to do something instead of them at school, because I'm Autistic. I make this point, as these kinds of discrimination have never been novel to me, having experiencing the many facets of it.

I'm aware that racism and ableism are two completely different kettles of fish, but the principles and context are similar.

It would be preferable to choose someone on a meritorical basis instead of as a token, or box-ticking, quota filling statistic.

Sadly, it's something I doubt will ever change, or will perhaps get worse.


_________________
"I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up where I intended to be."

"And I've embraced the calamity, with a detachment and a passive disinterest."

"I hear voices...But I ignore them and just carry on killing."


And So It Goes
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2019
Gender: Male
Posts: 547

31 Jan 2022, 4:46 am

LiverpoolAspergian wrote:
I liked it when you spoke about a meritocracy, perhaps you could delve into it a bit more?


It's simply this basic principle which sounds like an exam question:

Take two people aiming for the same job, and they are both at the interview stage:

Person A is not suited for the job, but are of a social status preferable to the company's optics.

Person B is the opposite.

Do you choose Person A, because they tick more boxes worthy of public favour? Knowing they could potentially be not suited for the job? Or do you choose Person B who is right for the job, but in the eyes of the public, adds yet another person who appears to be the same as the rest, inferring no room for equality or diversity and further implying a degree of nepotism?

It's a double edged sword.

Then you have the choice of if Person A and Person B are both suited for the job, with one of them in a preferred/underepresented social status.

It also depends on the company. If it's predominately populated by white males etc. then it's logical to make room for diversity and equality if said candidates are suitable for the job in the first place.

Dichotomies and binary thinking don't ever seem to be exclusive to autistic people. :lol:


_________________
"I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up where I intended to be."

"And I've embraced the calamity, with a detachment and a passive disinterest."

"I hear voices...But I ignore them and just carry on killing."


cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,284

31 Jan 2022, 4:54 am

And So It Goes wrote:
It would be preferable to choose someone on a meritorical basis instead of as a token, or box-ticking, quota filling statistic.


There's not a shred of evidence that the black female supreme court nominees aren't meritorious picks, It seems odd for people to judge the nominees without knowing whom they are or their background?

On the other hand, Brett Kavanaugh was not an appropriate pick based on his track record but was quite evidently appealing for political reasons rather than merit. Right wingers defended his appointment to death,



munstead
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2022
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 845
Location: Standing behind you

31 Jan 2022, 4:59 am

"Plain Racist" bad.
"Racist with salt and pepper and a side of fries" marginally better?

###
soz, weird humour :o



And So It Goes
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2019
Gender: Male
Posts: 547

31 Jan 2022, 4:59 am

munstead wrote:
"Plain Racist" bad.
"Racist with salt and pepper and a side of fries" marginally better?

###
soz, weird humour :o


Would you like lies with that? :lol:


_________________
"I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up where I intended to be."

"And I've embraced the calamity, with a detachment and a passive disinterest."

"I hear voices...But I ignore them and just carry on killing."


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,795
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

31 Jan 2022, 5:06 am

Dox47 wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
The same could be said about all the other Presidents who hadn't chosen black judges in the past.
Was Reagan sexist for choosing Sandra Day O'Conner only because she was a woman?


Only if they explicitly said they were picking their judges based on race and sex, as Biden has. And yes, it was also bad when Reagan did it, though I'm not sure he ran on it as a campaign pledge like Biden did.


It certainly had seemed Reagan had, as he had had a rocky relationship with women regarding his stint as California governor. So he made that promise to show what a swell guy he was with the ladies.
A funny thing happens when so called "affirmative action" and quotas are condemned, and talk about hiring only the best becomes policy. Rarely are people of color or women hired on. Talk as they may about giving everyone an equal chance, those in authority pretty much stick with people who look like them, or are of the same sex, when it comes to filling positions.
And who says a black female judge can't competently sit on the court? Probably would be a lot more competent than Amy Barret, who's an evangelical crackpot with limited experience on the bench.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer