| Forum Index > General Forum |
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 | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
BIDEN: Yes, thank you. Number one, I agree with -- with the question of the -- the underlying premise of Amy's question. Number one, I committed that if I'm elected president, have an opportunity to appoint someone to the courts, will be -- I'll appoint the first black woman to the courts. It's required that they have representation now. It's long overdue. Search for as much context as you want in the linked transcript. But that line, he's pretty clear about. | ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28674 Posts
On January 30 2022 03:59 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: 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. That's the thing though. Why is your female Bernie Sanders hypothetical? Bernie is a very rare breed - a guy who has consistently been championing the same causes for 50 years. And then he happens to be a white male. It's not a given that a similar person with a different identity actually exists. I'm absolutely not saying this is the case - but what IF the person most suitable for the supreme court seat, who has most consistently and skillfully championed the causes I and other likeminded people want championed (which includes 'stuff important to black women'), happens to not be a black woman? Like, of course, this might just be my ignorance speaking, but I don't know of a politician in the US that I like as much as I like Bernie Sanders. To me, if there was an equivalent of a 'politician's supreme court', out of all American politicians I am familiar with, he'd be my first pick. Doesn't really matter that he's a white guy, he's the most qualified. Again - not saying this is the case, but isn't it conceivable that the same could apply for justices? Picture that all the American justices are given stats, like if they're athletes in a sporting game or whatever. Everyone has a score ranging from 0-100 based on whatever skillsets we're looking for in a justice, where diversity might be such a score. What I'm suggesting is that instead of giving every non-black non-woman a default -100 score before their other points are tallied, we give black women +5 points instead. Presumably, there are several that would get 96 points from the get-go, bringing their total with the black woman bonus to an unbeatable 101 points. This might well (probably is?) just be what has happened - that they've already mapped out the candidates and they saw that there are some black women that are equal to the other top candidates, so they're going with them because of the diversity bonus. That's entirely fair to me - and seemingly, to everybody else that have been involved in this discussion. But there is the question of how to frame it, and my own impression is that now, whomever the nominee ends up being, she'll be regarded as a diversity hire rather than the most competent candidate because it was already stated that she's only in competition with other black women. I'll totally grant that many people would have argued that this was the case even if they nominated a black woman without explicitly stating that they were going to nominate a black woman. But this does give more fuel to the outraged-about-identity-politics-group - and not all people who to some degree feel that identity politics are given too much importance in the US are irredeemable racists. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44375 Posts
On January 30 2022 05:03 Liquid`Drone wrote: That's the thing though. Why is your female Bernie Sanders hypothetical? Bernie is a very rare breed - a guy who has consistently been championing the same causes for 50 years. And then he happens to be a white male. It's not a given that a similar person with a different identity actually exists. I'm absolutely not saying this is the case - but what IF the person most suitable for the supreme court seat, who has most consistently and skillfully championed the causes I and other likeminded people want championed (which includes 'stuff important to black women'), happens to not be a black woman? There are plenty of pro-women female progressives; I worded it that way to control for other variables, like being as unqualified as Sarah Palin, because the earlier comparison (Sanders vs Palin) had additional differences that made the situation problematic. It apparently needed to be clarified and streamlined, again, that we're talking about qualified people. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23250 Posts
When he first said "I’m looking forward to making sure there’s a Black woman on the Supreme Court" at a primary debate it was abundantly clear to me that it was a cynical political ploy, not a sincere (or well educated) advocacy for Black women's issues. I find the charade around this pathetic. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Dan HH
Romania9122 Posts
On January 30 2022 04:59 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: 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. I think no matter how many other qualifiers are put in place, people of identity X aren't virtually interchangeable. Biden's 1st choice and 2nd choice would accrue different voting records if given the chance. I have no reason to believe that the person whose voting record would most resemble his 1st pick's voting record would necessarily also be a black woman. I know that's not the goal, I'm illustrating the philosophical difference between our perspectives on identity and representation in the hopes that you can treat it as such instead of trying to guess what's wrong with us or what our ulterior motives might be. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44375 Posts
On January 30 2022 05:03 Liquid`Drone wrote: Picture that all the American justices are given stats, like if they're athletes in a sporting game or whatever. Everyone has a score ranging from 0-100 based on whatever skillsets we're looking for in a justice, where diversity might be such a score. What I'm suggesting is that instead of giving every non-black non-woman a default -100 score before their other points are tallied, we give black women +5 points instead. Presumably, there are several that would get 96 points from the get-go, bringing their total with the black woman bonus to an unbeatable 101 points. This might well (probably is?) just be what has happened - that they've already mapped out the candidates and they saw that there are some black women that are equal to the other top candidates, so they're going with them because of the diversity bonus. That's entirely fair to me - and seemingly, to everybody else that have been involved in this discussion. But there is the question of how to frame it, and my own impression is that now, whomever the nominee ends up being, she'll be regarded as a diversity hire rather than the most competent candidate because it was already stated that she's only in competition with other black women. I'll totally grant that many people would have argued that this was the case even if they nominated a black woman without explicitly stating that they were going to nominate a black woman. But this does give more fuel to the outraged-about-identity-politics-group - and not all people who to some degree feel that identity politics are given too much importance in the US are irredeemable racists. I understand the difference between your +5 and -100 comparison, where people who aren't Black women still have a chance at becoming SCJ if they're great and if Black women are all mediocre (although historically, it appears that diverse candidates were the ones who started with the auto-loss of 100 points). I don't think these things can be quantified quite as clearly, in practice, though. I think the reality of the situation is that the diversity part ends up being a tiebreaker; we know there are qualified individuals with all different identities, who would make it on the short-list of potentially-great SCJs. This has always been the case, long before Biden was ever president. I think he's just been transparent about what his tiebreaker criterion is, and he's certainly justified that specific criterion too (it wasn't some arbitrary, irrelevant "I want to pick someone who has a last name that starts with Q" condition). Also, even if Biden said nothing, we still know that half the country would consider the SCJ to be merely an unqualified diversity hire. Not only do I think his transparency doesn't change much in how people view his eventual SCJ, but I would argue that shining a light on the importance of diversity and proper representation is actually a good thing, especially since it's already, axiomatically established that he's not sacrificing other judicial qualifications in his selection. | ||
|
Zambrah
United States7312 Posts
That being said I think his statement was fine, confirmed a commitment to integrity, etc. etc. alongside the diversity, but I feel like diversity could be sold as something done for practical reasons rather than the quota mentality that affirmative action and the like has become associated with. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44375 Posts
On January 30 2022 05:14 GreenHorizons wrote: Considering Biden's pick of Kamala Harris for VP I think he's demonstrated that he's prioritizing (in the crudest sense) electoral considerations over advancing Black women's issues. When he first said "I’m looking forward to making sure there’s a Black woman on the Supreme Court" at a primary debate it was abundantly clear to me that it was a cynical political ploy, not a sincere (or well educated) advocacy for Black women's issues. I find the charade around this pathetic. Prioritizing winning the election is kind of important, since if you don't win the election, you certainly can't advance any policy positions  On the other hand, now that he's president, he has the power to decide the identity of his qualified SCJ pick, so clearly he still cares about advancing diversity and representation. He ran on several things, including diversity, and actually kept his campaign promise about promoting diversity. That's not the worst thing ever. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Dan HH
Romania9122 Posts
On January 30 2022 06:06 JimmiC wrote: If the SCJ's were all from NY and Biden made the exact same statement at nomination and now but instead of Black Woman said "not from NY" no one would be mad because everyone would understand that having all the SCJ from only one part of the country would not be a good idea. People would get that people from NY do not have the same experiences and so on from people in the rest of the country. They would also understand why people else where wouldn't see it as fair and understand that there are great qualified people else where and that if all are from NY there is a bias unconscious or not. Surely you see why you would have to replace "not from NY" to "from [insert a specific state that isn't NY]" for this to be analogous. Although in that case people would assume it's a hint for a particular person rather than a commitment to that particular state. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23250 Posts
On January 30 2022 05:51 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Prioritizing winning the election is kind of important, since if you don't win the election, you certainly can't advance any policy positions On the other hand, now that he's president, he has the power to decide the identity of his qualified SCJ pick, so clearly he still cares about advancing diversity and representation. He ran on several things, including diversity, and actually kept his campaign promise about promoting diversity. That's not the worst thing ever. I understand the liberal interpretation of what is happening. My point has been that it is clearly a cynical political ploy that isn't reflective of any substantial commitment to advancing Black women's interests. I identified underdeveloped understandings of identity or "diversity and representation" as a fertile medium for such a ploy and the example of Kamala Harris and her incalculable harm to Black families. There's plenty to unpack about James Clyburn's role in all this and what it would mean if it did end up being J. Michelle Childs nominated, but I was mostly just distinguishing myself from the charade around this being about substantively advancing the interests of Black women. Underpinning my perspective is the work of folks like Barbara Smith and The Combahee River Collective. As I said there's plenty to unpack, but for those finding themselves unfamiliar with my perspective I'd recommend reading The Combahee River Collective Statement to have some base from which a more complete mutual understanding can be attained. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Dan HH
Romania9122 Posts
On January 30 2022 07:16 JimmiC wrote: I think your point about assumption is the point, people are assuming he is picking from a limited pool based on that he announced it WILL be a Black person. That people are not presuming that a Black person was the best person is the problem. And it goes further than that they are assuming this person is worse. They completely ignored most of what he said and created a strawman so they could justify their bias as not one. May very well be, however a shortlist of black women will have diversity in itself. Different upbringings, experience, worldviews, legal philosophies and so on, and thus who they represent is also very different, people are far more complex than their ethnicity and gender. The lock-in on "get me the next black woman" if the first one doesn't pan out is absurd to me, they're not car parts. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
| ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
Obviously it's rather idiotic to exclude choices. "A black woman" should not be a criteria for a SCJ, the same way "christian white old male" shouldn't be one. What if the choice wouldn't be between "black woman" and " Does everything need a token-person, despite there potentially being better choices? If the black woman objectively is the best choice - sure, of course. But that beginning part, that "black person" part, should absolutely not be a requirement for "being the best choice". It's even dumber than you think, what exactly do you think that "black woman" is gonna do for "black women"? Do we further cement criteria, like "had to grow up in some ghetto in detroit" - because obviously, a university educated judge from a middle or even higher class won't know jack shit about the difficulties that a black single mother faces in detroit other than the tidbits she caught in reality shows? Oh, you think she "understands the struggles of black people"? Any halfway intelligent person understands the struggles of a discriminated minority. It's not rocket science. It boils down to "don't be racist, and "check if what you stand for might have racist consequences". All you need to have is an understanding of what a consequence is. Do you think it takes a black person to realise that things like voter ID disproportionally have an effect on black communities? Do you think it takes a black woman to understand how "growing up in a ghetto as a single mother" impacts a woman? Or, to put it differently, do you think that a white person would be incapable of spotting/preventing/rooting out/etc racist policies? You want, wait for it, a good person as judge. That obviously does not exclude black people, but it's not a trait exclusively to black women either. This token bullshit does absolutely nothing. I wouldn't care if the entire supreme court were held by black judges, as long as they're there for merit. This literally doesn't help anything, i'm blown away by the fact that people think it's a reasonable criteria. Way to become "colour blind", by making skin colour a criteria. I hope you guys remember this when the next white supremacist president also isn't colour blind when it comes to his supreme court appointments. Instead of wasting your breath on such a stupid issue, you could talk about how the entire institution of the (american) supreme court is asinine. Especially the fact that judges are appointed for life, amongst other things, like de-politicising it. However, all the protest that gets levied anytime we actually talk about having representation that doesn't consist of an old, white, openly Christian man illustrates why having it is important. If we're so concerned about who we're excluding when we proceed with a black woman as a judicial candidate, where does that concern go when we're propping up yet another white dude who loves beer? And here's the prime example of the intellectual dishonesty going on here. The vast majority isn't bitching about a black woman being appointed. The majority is bitching about the fact that "being a black woman" is a requirement for the next judge. If a black woman has the best qualifications for the job, then obviously she should get the job. But what if the objectively best judge would be a "insert random non-black colour and random gender here" due to, lets say, decades of activism and a stronger understanding of (and history of fighting against) institutional racism etc pp? I genuinely don't understand how this is, apparently, a hard to grasp concept for some. You want the best person for the job. Not "the blackest, preferably with a vagina". The "best person" isn't excluding black people, but it's also not a requirement. Not to mention this bullshit of "representation", nonsense. You had a black president, the fuck did he do? Nothing. Black unemployment skyrocketed, and his "informed observer position" boiled down to "teach your kids and stuff, also read them stuff, and take responsibility". Great job. Had to have a black president to come to that conclusion (note, i'm not arguing against his presidency or him as a person, i'm arguing that "gotta be black to represent" is an idiotic argument), i guess. Remember when they executed Troy Davis, where was he? Germany, France, the EU tried to intervene because they saw the perversion that was going on there, yet here we are, a "brother", quietly hiding, letting it happen. Here's reality. Skin colour means jack shit. While i'm not a big Sanders fan (indifferent, really), he would've made much more of a difference to black communities than Obama did. Of that i'm certain. Same point here. By excluding "X percent" of judges, you potentially exclude the few judges who'd really make a difference to black people, for the opportunity to say "well we got a black woman SCJ now". Get the best person for the job, rather than a token that you can virtue signal with. | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
Also, can we please stop butting in with this stupid argument that merit isn't entering the picture because we're just trying to "virtue signal". Just. Stop. Please. Nobody said that, it's not a thing, and it's exhausting to keep reading it, let alone responding to it. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44375 Posts
On January 30 2022 14:51 NewSunshine wrote: Who's saying that being a black woman is a requirement? Biden just said that his next appointee will be one, because he probably has someone in mind already. That's it. We followed that with a discussion about what that can mean. Representation may not matter to you, it doesn't matter much to me because I'm over-represented as is, but it does matter to some folks. All you're doing is pointing out why being part of a demographic doesn't necessarily mean you represent it in the best way, which nobody argued with? But also it's kind of obnoxious and presumptuous to keep dredging up the idea that people outside that demographic are somehow inclined to represent them better, on average. Also, can we please stop butting in with this stupid argument that merit isn't entering the picture because we're just trying to "virtue signal". Just. Stop. Please. Nobody said that, it's not a thing, and it's exhausting to keep reading it, let alone responding to it. One day, our society will have progressed past the white/male savior tropes, but sadly, we're not there yet. | ||
|
justanothertownie
16318 Posts
On January 30 2022 15:36 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: One day, our society will have progressed past the white/male savior tropes, but sadly, we're not there yet. If that is what you read out of mainis post then you are so blinded by your mission that your reading comprehension got lost along the way. Entirely. The difference between the positions is obviously that in his opinion merit should be the most important/only criterion. Noone is saying reducing the pool of candidates to black women means the resulting choice is unqualified. But in general, if you look for the person who is the most qualified you cannot impose such restrictions (equally as idiotic as religious restrictions or anything else the Republicans might do). You are just giving the anti-woke crowd valuable ammunition by uttering such a condition. Just nominate her if you think she is the best option and while many people might still complain about the choice at least they cannot say "he is openly being racist against everyone not black". Just do it like LL said and make it a part of the desired qualities if you think the life experience is valuable. But do not exclude people because of their race in your supposed fight against racism... | ||
| ||
|
|
Sparkling Tuna Cup
WardiTV Summer Champion…
SC Evo League
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
BSL Team Wars
Team Dewalt vs Team Bonyth
Afreeca Starleague
Sharp vs Ample
Larva vs Stork
Wardi Open
RotterdaM Event
Replay Cast
Replay Cast
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
