|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On January 30 2022 00:53 brian wrote:
this is a trip. you don’t see what’s happened here?
Yeah - I see I linked several one-liners that state exactly what my point is, on posts that were already short enough that they should not need summary, and that point being still either misread or deliberately mischaracterized. I don't have anything more to add other than to express disappointment that this seems to be the norm.
In any case, I've made my point and have nothing more to add. Read - or skim - said point over the last few posts if you wish.
|
|
|
I mean, if the choice is suddenly boiled down to Bernie Sanders or Sarah Palin, it's obvious who would do better on women's rights. Fortunately Biden isn't choosing from Bernie Sanders and Sarah Palin, he's choosing from among the most qualified judicial candidates in the country, and simply said that while he's at it, he's going to choose a black woman. I don't get what's so weird about that. Do I have the wrong idea, and there's actually only one black woman in America who qualifies? And she sucks? Like, in the same breath that he announced it would be a black woman, he also said that their qualifications and integrity come first. So again, if he does what he says he's going to do, what exactly is the problem? The straw man keeps emerging that race and sex are the only factors at play here, but is that true?
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On January 30 2022 02:57 NewSunshine wrote:
I mean, if the choice is suddenly boiled down to Bernie Sanders or Sarah Palin, it's obvious who would do better on women's rights. Fortunately Biden isn't choosing from Bernie Sanders and Sarah Palin, he's choosing from among the most qualified judicial candidates in the country, and simply said that while he's at it, he's going to choose a black woman. I don't get what's so weird about that. Do I have the wrong idea, and there's actually only one black woman in America who qualifies? And she sucks? Like, in the same breath that he announced it would be a black woman, he also said that their qualifications and integrity come first. So again, if he does what he says he's going to do, what exactly is the problem? The straw man keeps emerging that race and sex are the only factors at play here, but is that true?
Sanders vs Palin is a crude example which pits one person who is generally on the left-leaning side of things (that the identitarians tend to be on) but without the identity check-box, versus someone on the opposite side but with the right identity. Purpose is to show that the identity is not an absolute, that there can be other factors that matter more in the end, even if you would rate the identity as an important factor. And though this isn't the actual choice (hell, I dunno without looking if either or both even have the legal education, let alone the experience to be considered for SCJ), it suggests that maybe treating the identity as a must-have might not be the right way to proceed.
Several individuals, myself included, have put forth arguments for how you might equitably balance these considerations. I do tire of repeating points, so I will simply offer, "read the last few pages" if you're interested in considering those. Bottom line, there is sympathy for meeting the identities of interest to be a preference but that for it to be an absolute is deeply problematic.
I reject the notion that "it doesn't matter that he said it because qualifications will come first." In part, because saying "I will only hire black women" necessarily precludes qualifications coming first, even if being a black woman would be considered an important qualification, unless that really is the only qualification of interest (which would itself mean that the president's priorities are deeply backwards). Furthermore, it seems like an argument for "discrimination doesn't matter as long as the result is the same" which in just about any other context the same people cheering on Biden's a priori announcement of discrimination would find objectionable.
|
From my lurking post, it seems the biggest issue is that he said it. I would assume that qualifications, integrity, etc is de facto. Not even worth mentioning. Adding that a black woman is preferred doesn't negate the other criteria. It adds another one. And if by some stroke there isn't a black woman that ticks all of the boxes besides being black, then someone else should/would be considered. But I doubt there aren't any black women qualified.
Him saying it out loud is what it getting a lot of people upset. By bringing race into it and forcing people to confront it, is making a lot of people uncomfortable. Deal with it. Either he nominates a more than qualified black person or he doesn't. Either way, it's happening. Stop pretending that being a black woman is the only criteria being looked at. Your repressed prejudice is showing.
|
never mind i can’t get into it. sorry for the empty post.
|
On January 30 2022 03:27 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2022 02:57 NewSunshine wrote:
I mean, if the choice is suddenly boiled down to Bernie Sanders or Sarah Palin, it's obvious who would do better on women's rights. Fortunately Biden isn't choosing from Bernie Sanders and Sarah Palin, he's choosing from among the most qualified judicial candidates in the country, and simply said that while he's at it, he's going to choose a black woman. I don't get what's so weird about that. Do I have the wrong idea, and there's actually only one black woman in America who qualifies? And she sucks? Like, in the same breath that he announced it would be a black woman, he also said that their qualifications and integrity come first. So again, if he does what he says he's going to do, what exactly is the problem? The straw man keeps emerging that race and sex are the only factors at play here, but is that true? Sanders vs Palin is a crude example which pits one person who is generally on the left-leaning side of things (that the identitarians tend to be on) but without the identity check-box, versus someone on the opposite side but with the right identity.
That's exactly the problem with your example though, and why it doesn't address what was originally said. You need to control for political leanings - compare a progressive, feminist woman vs. a progressive, feminist man. If they're equally qualified in every other way and have generally identical platforms, and the only difference is their sex, then it's reasonable to think that the person with the relevant sex (woman) will have more relevant experiences with womanhood than the person who's a man. The idea is that the lived experiences can add a little more to the already great resume. Bernie Sanders is great for women's rights, but you know who could hypothetically be even a tiny bit better than him? A hypothetical female Bernie Sanders.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On January 30 2022 03:59 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
You need to control for political leanings - compare a progressive, feminist woman vs. a progressive, feminist man. If they're equally qualified in every other way and have generally identical platforms, and the only difference is their sex, then it's reasonable to think that the person with the relevant sex (woman) will have more relevant experiences with womanhood than the person who's a man. The idea is that the lived experiences can add a little more to the already great resume. Bernie Sanders is great for women's rights, but you know who could hypothetically be even a tiny bit better than him? A hypothetical female Bernie Sanders.
Huh. Almost as if, you might want to...
1. balance some criteria of desirable traits
2. in as way that isn't a priori exclusionary based on discrimination
3. but that would generally favor the URM candidate all else held equal.
|
On January 30 2022 04:17 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2022 03:59 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
You need to control for political leanings - compare a progressive, feminist woman vs. a progressive, feminist man. If they're equally qualified in every other way and have generally identical platforms, and the only difference is their sex, then it's reasonable to think that the person with the relevant sex (woman) will have more relevant experiences with womanhood than the person who's a man. The idea is that the lived experiences can add a little more to the already great resume. Bernie Sanders is great for women's rights, but you know who could hypothetically be even a tiny bit better than him? A hypothetical female Bernie Sanders. Huh. Almost as if, you might want to... 1. balance some criteria of desirable traits2. in as way that isn't a priori exclusionary based on discrimination3. but that would generally favor the URM candidate all else held equal. I wonder if that at all came up in the discussion so far.
How is it our fault that your rebuttals haven't grown to account for what has already been talked about? How many pages are we deep into this discussion, yet you still think that bringing up Sarah Palin is a reasonable counterpoint? Everyone else is comparing a qualified Black woman to a qualified person who isn't Black or female, and you're still stuck on comparing a qualified (or unqualified) Black woman to someone else who's unqualified.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On January 30 2022 04:22 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2022 04:17 LegalLord wrote:On January 30 2022 03:59 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
You need to control for political leanings - compare a progressive, feminist woman vs. a progressive, feminist man. If they're equally qualified in every other way and have generally identical platforms, and the only difference is their sex, then it's reasonable to think that the person with the relevant sex (woman) will have more relevant experiences with womanhood than the person who's a man. The idea is that the lived experiences can add a little more to the already great resume. Bernie Sanders is great for women's rights, but you know who could hypothetically be even a tiny bit better than him? A hypothetical female Bernie Sanders. Huh. Almost as if, you might want to... 1. balance some criteria of desirable traits2. in as way that isn't a priori exclusionary based on discrimination3. but that would generally favor the URM candidate all else held equal. I wonder if that at all came up in the discussion so far. How is it our fault that your rebuttals haven't grown to account for what has already been talked about? How many pages are we deep into this discussion, yet you still think that bringing up Sarah Palin is a reasonable counterpoint? Everyone else is comparing a qualified Black woman to a qualified person who isn't Black or female, and you're still stuck on comparing a qualified (or unqualified) Black woman to someone else who's unqualified.
The analogy, while crude, proves a point: that the absolute limitation doesn't make sense. In the context of last page's discussion, such a thing was relevant. And evidently it did need to be said given that it ties back well to what was discussed before and reinforces said points by providing a counterexample to the merits of an absolute limitation.
How is it anyone's fault but your own that you fail to see that exactly what you are saying needs to be addressed, was addressed, by several individuals who believe that addressing said concerns still don't lead to "I will only consider a black woman" being the right approach? It was laid out clearly, to such an extent that there's no need to do anything more but link back to previous posts, and yet fails to be acknowledged.
|
Did anyone say that their identity is an absolute though? Because I don't remember that ever being a thing. You talk about balancing the different considerations of a candidate, as though you bring something new to the table by saying so. I just don't think that's true, and I don't think anyone ever said Biden should just select a black woman who was minding her own business and doing nothing related to judicial work to suddenly be a new Supreme Court Justice, just because she's a black woman. Nobody said that, because it's patently ridiculous.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On January 30 2022 03:40 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
From my lurking post, it seems the biggest issue is that he said it.
Giving this one a bit of thought, I don't think that's true, even if it is a somewhat subtler point. A diversity preference for public office is one of those things that's definitely relevant, but that is controversial to state explicitly. But the case of making a straight a priori exclusion is a stronger problem.
I would characterize it as the difference between employer X telling black employee Y "I'm firing you because you're not a good fit" when the real reason is because Y is black, versus employer X saying "I'm firing you because you're black." It's not really about "quiet part out loud" as some people are deeply fond of repeating, but it sure makes it easier not to have to speculate if they announce their reason for doing something bad.
|
|
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On January 30 2022 04:39 NewSunshine wrote:
Did anyone say that their identity is an absolute though? Because I don't remember that ever being a thing.
Is there another way to interpret "the next SCJ will be a black woman" other than as an absolute? Biden did say those words.
You can assume in context or by charitability that general competence is a given, but "first black woman" is definitely an absolute that isn't open to subjectivity or interpretation, and that's where the problem is.
The actual original promise for context, with I suppose the reiteration of being more recent. You can judge that yourself.
|
|
|
Yes, yes there are other ways to interpret that statement. There's a thing called context, and saying it will be a black woman, in context, gives you other ways of understanding what Biden means when he says what he does. JimmiC quoted him for you above, if it helps.
|
On January 30 2022 04:41 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2022 03:40 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
From my lurking post, it seems the biggest issue is that he said it. Giving this one a bit of thought, I don't think that's true, even if it is a somewhat subtler point. A diversity preference for public office is one of those things that's definitely relevant, but that is controversial to state explicitly. But the case of making a straight a priori exclusion is a stronger problem. I would characterize it as the difference between employer X telling black employee Y "I'm firing you because you're not a good fit" when the real reason is because Y is black, versus employer X saying "I'm firing you because you're black." It's not really about "quiet part out loud" as some people are deeply fond of repeating, but it sure makes it easier not to have to speculate if they announce their reason for doing something bad.
So what is the reason this has been discussed to death? I've read everyone's reasonings in the thread and it just seems to be going in circles. He made the announcement. It doesn't make anything else less susceptible to scrutiny. It adds more if anything. That black woman nominated is going to be crucified worse than bret k and we can probably come to the conclusion she's just as if not more qualified. Your example of the employer and employee is spot on. That happened to me at the architecture firm I worked for.
That quiet part out loud is what it is. He wants to nominate a black woman. I honestly don't get why that is so bothersome. It doesn't exclude as much as include, as many people as possible. As was stated before I think, if it wasn't stated, then it would be assumed an old white male was next to be nominated. Biden nixed that speculation. It'll be a black woman if she's qualified. End of story. I don't think we need to beat the horse further into submission. The soul left anime style about 3 pages back.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On January 30 2022 04:51 NewSunshine wrote:
Yes, yes there are other ways to interpret that statement. There's a thing called context, and saying it will be a black woman, in context, gives you other ways of understanding what Biden means when he says what he does. JimmiC quoted him for you above, if it helps.
See the edit for the original, during-campaign promise as well. Not that it changes much, because the later one still makes an absolute exclusion in better coated language, but it's a little more blatant in the during-campaign instance.
On January 30 2022 04:52 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
So what is the reason this has been discussed to death? I've read everyone's reasonings in the thread and it just seems to be going in circles.
I would rank "lack of reading comprehension" as one of the top reasons for this. Mix that with a tendency towards uncharitability and addressing a controversial topic, and you have an excellent formula for long discussions that go in circles.
|
On January 30 2022 04:32 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2022 04:22 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On January 30 2022 04:17 LegalLord wrote:On January 30 2022 03:59 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
You need to control for political leanings - compare a progressive, feminist woman vs. a progressive, feminist man. If they're equally qualified in every other way and have generally identical platforms, and the only difference is their sex, then it's reasonable to think that the person with the relevant sex (woman) will have more relevant experiences with womanhood than the person who's a man. The idea is that the lived experiences can add a little more to the already great resume. Bernie Sanders is great for women's rights, but you know who could hypothetically be even a tiny bit better than him? A hypothetical female Bernie Sanders. Huh. Almost as if, you might want to... 1. balance some criteria of desirable traits2. in as way that isn't a priori exclusionary based on discrimination3. but that would generally favor the URM candidate all else held equal. I wonder if that at all came up in the discussion so far. How is it our fault that your rebuttals haven't grown to account for what has already been talked about? How many pages are we deep into this discussion, yet you still think that bringing up Sarah Palin is a reasonable counterpoint? Everyone else is comparing a qualified Black woman to a qualified person who isn't Black or female, and you're still stuck on comparing a qualified (or unqualified) Black woman to someone else who's unqualified. The analogy, while crude, proves a point: that the absolute limitation doesn't make sense. In the context of last page's discussion, such a thing was relevant. And evidently it did need to be said given that it ties back well to what was discussed before and reinforces said points by providing a counterexample to the merits of an absolute limitation. How is it anyone's fault but your own that you fail to see that exactly what you are saying needs to be addressed, was addressed, by several individuals who believe that addressing said concerns still don't lead to "I will only consider a black woman" being the right approach? It was laid out clearly, to such an extent that there's no need to do anything more but link back to previous posts, and yet fails to be acknowledged.
The analogy isn't just crude; it's inaccurate. This is why we're still trying to explain to you that adding "Black woman" to the list of SCJ criteria doesn't remove "being a qualified, credentialed, experienced judge", and that Sarah Palin isn't even remotely relevant to this conversation. She's not qualified in the first place, so she wouldn't even make it into the pool of qualified candidates where she'd be removed from that short-list for not being Black.
Back on p.3455 of this thread, you thought that including diversity came at the expense of other qualifications. Now it's p.3464, and we're still trying to explain to you the same thing: that's not necessarily true.
|
On January 30 2022 04:43 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2022 04:32 LegalLord wrote:On January 30 2022 04:22 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On January 30 2022 04:17 LegalLord wrote:On January 30 2022 03:59 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
You need to control for political leanings - compare a progressive, feminist woman vs. a progressive, feminist man. If they're equally qualified in every other way and have generally identical platforms, and the only difference is their sex, then it's reasonable to think that the person with the relevant sex (woman) will have more relevant experiences with womanhood than the person who's a man. The idea is that the lived experiences can add a little more to the already great resume. Bernie Sanders is great for women's rights, but you know who could hypothetically be even a tiny bit better than him? A hypothetical female Bernie Sanders. Huh. Almost as if, you might want to... 1. balance some criteria of desirable traits2. in as way that isn't a priori exclusionary based on discrimination3. but that would generally favor the URM candidate all else held equal. I wonder if that at all came up in the discussion so far. How is it our fault that your rebuttals haven't grown to account for what has already been talked about? How many pages are we deep into this discussion, yet you still think that bringing up Sarah Palin is a reasonable counterpoint? Everyone else is comparing a qualified Black woman to a qualified person who isn't Black or female, and you're still stuck on comparing a qualified (or unqualified) Black woman to someone else who's unqualified. The analogy, while crude, proves a point: that the absolute limitation doesn't make sense. In the context of last page's discussion, such a thing was relevant. And evidently it did need to be said given that it ties back well to what was discussed before and reinforces said points by providing a counterexample to the merits of an absolute limitation. How is it anyone's fault but your own that you fail to see that exactly what you are saying needs to be addressed, was addressed, by several individuals who believe that addressing said concerns still don't lead to "I will only consider a black woman" being the right approach? It was laid out clearly, to such an extent that there's no need to do anything more but link back to previous posts, and yet fails to be acknowledged. He did not say that, he said the below, it is your strawman and clearly shows your bias that you are stuck to it. WOW! He said it will be a Black woman who HAS "extraordinary qualifications, character, experience and integrity". He knows who it is and he has already picked them. Dude, yikes. Show nested quote +"The person I will nominate will be someone of 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. "I made that commitment during the campaign for president, and I will keep that commitment."
Hmm, it sounds to me like nominating someone of extraordinary qualifications, character, experience, and integrity are also pretty important to Joe Biden. Funny how all of that isn't just ignored, but explicitly denied, by people who just want to quote mine "Black woman" and criticize him for also caring about diversity. It's not even an awkward gaff made by Biden that could be made fun of; either someone dislikes Biden, they don't think diversity matters at all, or they're sexist/racist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
