|
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 |
|
|
On January 31 2022 03:48 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2022 00:19 justanothertownie wrote:
Look, if Biden had the actual person in mind as his best choice (and had to confirm that somehow) all this time then it is of course a slightly different story. But he still handled it extremely poorly in that case because that is not what the general public will understand from this. Just nominate her and say she is the most qualified full stop.
This kind of "fighting" racism or inequality in general by instituting quotas or selection bias is a special annoyance to me since I saw it day in day out in german academia with respect to the favored choice of women for basically anthing (going so far as the level of this being the deciding factor if some university/institute gets funding or not). It leads to the majority of them who are actually a good appointment being questioned by their peers and themselves not being sure if they actually deserve their position and also to a few that are really "diversity hires" and completely unsuitable. All in a field where the gender ratio is already more or less 50:50. There are also already more female than male professors at my former institute. Wait: "I saw it day in day out in german academia with respect to the favored choice of women for basically anthing (going so far as the level of this being the deciding factor if some university/institute gets funding or not)" Really? So when a woman gets a job, she got it because she's a woman? You might want to have a think about that one.
Care to elaborate? I was present when this criterion was discussed. By highly ranking officials of the German research foundation. Yes, some women get a scientific position because of their gender. If you think that is the way things should be done we may as well just agree to disagree and call it a day.
|
On January 31 2022 04:41 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2022 04:39 Jockmcplop wrote:
You guys realize what the outrage over this looks like from a distance, right?
Biden says he wants a black woman on the SC, the right gets furious about the idea.
Its so predictable.
Frankly, for supporters of the party that put Trump in power, talking about merit for important positions is laughable. Pretty much. It's...pathetic, really.
I am not from the right. Not even in Germany. I would basically vote Democrat no matter what if I was an US citizen (thankfully I am not) and try to do what I can to influence people to vote for more progressive candidates in the primaries since this is the only way I can see to change anything for the better in your horrible election system.
Kavanaugh for example is a disgusting person to appoint as a judge. But when that happened I did not feel interested to participate in this thread yet. And also there was no point since that was the dominant consensus anyways.
I am just an opponent of combating unfairness with your own unfairness. And I am also not a fan of unnecessarily giving the people who are actually on the right ammunition with which they can convince people on the fence to join their camp.
If your kneejerk reaction to that is "the people on the right get furious" then you have one of the reasons why the left in your country cannot win anything meaningful. Besides all the obviously shitty advantages the Republicans implemented for themselves and the lacking education of the populace.
|
On January 31 2022 05:08 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2022 05:01 Dan HH wrote:On January 31 2022 04:13 JimmiC wrote:On January 31 2022 02:20 Dan HH wrote:On January 31 2022 01:50 Acrofales wrote:On January 30 2022 06:37 Dan HH wrote: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. Okay, fine. Lets assume that there had never been an SC justice from Texas, and Biden had committed to picking his nominee from the great state of Texas! Would that really feel like he was "not picking based on merit"? Or would we accept that somewhere in the Texas legal system there were still plenty of people with the right qualifications to be a SC justice, and it was indeed a bit weird that until now they had been skipped over.. and it was about time somebody rectified that? And yes, the population of Texas is roughly similar to the number of Black Women in the US. If you object to Texas which has a slightly higher population, we can stick with Florida, which has a slightly lower population. This whole shitshow over choosing a population of roughly 25m people to pick a judge from is... weird. If there was some reason to suspect he was narrowing his choice to a pool of people among which there was no meritorious individual (e.g. black women from Vermont), you'd have cause for concern, but there's plenty of nations with fewer than 25million people, and we can safely assume they don't have potatoes in their highest courts. I have a lot more sympathy with GH's argument that it's dishonest virtue signalling. Just because a person is black and a woman doesn't mean they have any interest in protecting black people's rights, women's rights or the intersection thereof. You could no doubt find a black woman with the right qualifications who would vote along with the old white men with verve and gusto if you really wanted to. Similarly advocating for black women's rights may be done just as well, perhaps even better, by an old white man who, for some reason or another, has adopted their cause. Nevertheless, I think it's way more likely to find an advocate for black women's rights among black women, than among the population at large. Most old white men won't know what the problems are, why these problems are problems, and what type of solution might work, whereas most (not all) black women will have grown up in society facing these issues. It's no guarantee they care about these issues, but the chance is definitely higher... and even if they don't care, they probably at least understand the issue, which is often the first barrier! You're basically asking me to repurpose every single argument to a scenario that doesn't add anything and only subtracts. Yes Biden making a shortlist only from Texas, a conservative state, with the implication of "there you go, now you're represented!" is silly. Do you think it is silly for Black women to want to be represented in the Supreme court for the first time ever? Do you think they think they have been excluded unfairly in every appointment so far and in points that never allowed them to be considered? Do you think they would be wrong? Everyone, myself included, acknowledge from the start that underrepresented minorities exist and this should hold at least some weight. That by itself answers all those questions. You have been this discussion's most active participant and yet you keep making me have to explain its premise after 10 pages. So if you think it should hold some weight, you know Biden has been looking at this candidate pool for at least a decade, why are you so convinced that whoever he has chosen is not the "most qualified"? My other point is equal and equitable are different concepts. Every person regardless of race and gender might, and likely did not have equal chance at this job, but given that it has happened in the other direction with certainty for 200 years, and even the current group has none that if this person is qualified, and we have no reason to think they will not be, it is an equitable choice. Even without bias, If I every time there was a extra donut I flipped a coin between my kids on who got it and my son got it 5 times in a row, if on the 6th time I didn't flip the coin and instead just gave it to my daughter would you say I was being unfair?
I'm not. I explained that here but you didn't understand it then because at that point you hadn't acknowledged the premise of the White House reviewing a black-women only shortlist yet. So we kept jumping backwards in the discussion and downwards in the concepts being discussed. I will stop here, on the next subject you find yourself in spiral like this please take your time to read the subject being discussed and the posts you reply to.
|
On January 31 2022 05:33 justanothertownie wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2022 04:41 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On January 31 2022 04:39 Jockmcplop wrote:
You guys realize what the outrage over this looks like from a distance, right?
Biden says he wants a black woman on the SC, the right gets furious about the idea.
Its so predictable.
Frankly, for supporters of the party that put Trump in power, talking about merit for important positions is laughable. Pretty much. It's...pathetic, really. I am not from the right. Not even in Germany. I would basically vote Democrat no matter what if I was an US citizen (thankfully I am not) and try to do what I can to influence people to vote for more progressive candidates in the primaries since this is the only way I can see to change anything for the better in your horrible election system. Kavanaugh for example is a disgusting person to appoint as a judge. But when that happened I did not feel interested to participate in this thread yet. And also there was no point since that was the dominant consensus anyways. I am just an opponent of combating unfairness with your own unfairness. And I am also not a fan of unnecessarily giving the people who are actually on the right ammunition with which they can convince people on the fence to join their camp. If your kneejerk reaction to that is "the people on the right get furious" then you have one of the reasons why the left in your country cannot win anything meaningful. Besides all the obviously shitty advantages the Republicans implemented for themselves and the lacking education of the populace.
So you want the Dems to break from decades of tradition in appointing SC judges based on the political advantages for their party, and instead do whatever it is you think is right. I guess put a job interview ad in the newspapers.
Isn't that the kind of thing that makes people say 'this is why the dems never win, because they play by the rules too much'?
They can't win really.
SC nominations have never, EVER been purely about merit.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On January 31 2022 05:33 justanothertownie wrote:
If your kneejerk reaction to that is "the people on the right get furious" then you have one of the reasons why the left in your country cannot win anything meaningful. Besides all the obviously shitty advantages the Republicans implemented for themselves and the lacking education of the populace.
It often seems to be that one of the effects, perhaps even purposes, of this particular brand of identity politics (prioritizing identity as a virtue over any other, often more relevant, character traits) is to be divisive and to accuse others of being racist / the opposition / bad. Judging specifically by where the posters within this thread lie, it seems that liberals (or, alternatively, Democrat party-liners) are deeply enamored with this particular brand of discriminatory appointment, whereas you'll get strong opposition from both the right (moderate and hardcore, both mostly underrepresented due to bans) and the hard left (e.g. people like GH and Drone). I find this interesting in light of, for example, GH's previous argument that "the left should be treating Democrats as the opposition" despite what should seem at the surface-level to be common ground.
That interpretation at least seems pretty strongly consistent with who tends to cry "right wing racists - SAD!" at opposition to this, versus the reality of the general political alignment of those who oppose it.
|
On January 31 2022 05:52 LegalLord wrote:It often seems to be that one of the effects, perhaps even purposes, of this particular brand of identity politics (prioritizing identity as a virtue over any other, often more relevant, character traits) is to be divisive and to accuse others of being racist / the opposition / bad. Judging specifically by where the posters within this thread lie, it seems that liberals (or, alternatively, Democrat party-liners) are deeply enamored with this particular brand of appointment, whereas you'll get strong opposition from both the right (moderate and hardcore, both mostly underrepresented due to bans) and the hard left (e.g. people like GH and Drone). I find this interesting in light of, for example, GH's previous argument that "the left should be treating Democrats as the opposition" despite what should seem at the surface-level to be common ground. That interpretation at least seems pretty strongly consistent with who tends to cry "right wing racists - SAD!" at opposition to this, versus the reality of the general political alignment of those who oppose it. What other more relevant things are you thinking they will ignore by appointing a black women to the SC?
Are you saying there is no black female judge who is completely qualified for the SC?
Seriously from the outside seeing how a black women on the SC sparks a multi day discussion in this thread just shows how badly it is apparently needed.
|
|
|
On January 31 2022 05:55 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2022 05:42 Dan HH wrote:On January 31 2022 05:08 JimmiC wrote:On January 31 2022 05:01 Dan HH wrote:On January 31 2022 04:13 JimmiC wrote:On January 31 2022 02:20 Dan HH wrote:On January 31 2022 01:50 Acrofales wrote:On January 30 2022 06:37 Dan HH wrote: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. Okay, fine. Lets assume that there had never been an SC justice from Texas, and Biden had committed to picking his nominee from the great state of Texas! Would that really feel like he was "not picking based on merit"? Or would we accept that somewhere in the Texas legal system there were still plenty of people with the right qualifications to be a SC justice, and it was indeed a bit weird that until now they had been skipped over.. and it was about time somebody rectified that? And yes, the population of Texas is roughly similar to the number of Black Women in the US. If you object to Texas which has a slightly higher population, we can stick with Florida, which has a slightly lower population. This whole shitshow over choosing a population of roughly 25m people to pick a judge from is... weird. If there was some reason to suspect he was narrowing his choice to a pool of people among which there was no meritorious individual (e.g. black women from Vermont), you'd have cause for concern, but there's plenty of nations with fewer than 25million people, and we can safely assume they don't have potatoes in their highest courts. I have a lot more sympathy with GH's argument that it's dishonest virtue signalling. Just because a person is black and a woman doesn't mean they have any interest in protecting black people's rights, women's rights or the intersection thereof. You could no doubt find a black woman with the right qualifications who would vote along with the old white men with verve and gusto if you really wanted to. Similarly advocating for black women's rights may be done just as well, perhaps even better, by an old white man who, for some reason or another, has adopted their cause. Nevertheless, I think it's way more likely to find an advocate for black women's rights among black women, than among the population at large. Most old white men won't know what the problems are, why these problems are problems, and what type of solution might work, whereas most (not all) black women will have grown up in society facing these issues. It's no guarantee they care about these issues, but the chance is definitely higher... and even if they don't care, they probably at least understand the issue, which is often the first barrier! You're basically asking me to repurpose every single argument to a scenario that doesn't add anything and only subtracts. Yes Biden making a shortlist only from Texas, a conservative state, with the implication of "there you go, now you're represented!" is silly. Do you think it is silly for Black women to want to be represented in the Supreme court for the first time ever? Do you think they think they have been excluded unfairly in every appointment so far and in points that never allowed them to be considered? Do you think they would be wrong? Everyone, myself included, acknowledge from the start that underrepresented minorities exist and this should hold at least some weight. That by itself answers all those questions. You have been this discussion's most active participant and yet you keep making me have to explain its premise after 10 pages. So if you think it should hold some weight, you know Biden has been looking at this candidate pool for at least a decade, why are you so convinced that whoever he has chosen is not the "most qualified"? My other point is equal and equitable are different concepts. Every person regardless of race and gender might, and likely did not have equal chance at this job, but given that it has happened in the other direction with certainty for 200 years, and even the current group has none that if this person is qualified, and we have no reason to think they will not be, it is an equitable choice. Even without bias, If I every time there was a extra donut I flipped a coin between my kids on who got it and my son got it 5 times in a row, if on the 6th time I didn't flip the coin and instead just gave it to my daughter would you say I was being unfair? I'm not. I explained that here but you didn't understand it then because at that point you hadn't acknowledged the premise of the White House reviewing a black-women only shortlist yet. So we kept jumping backwards in the discussion and downwards in the concepts being discussed. I will stop here, on the next subject you find yourself in spiral like this please take your time to read the subject being discussed and the posts you reply to. I have acknowledged it since the beginning of the conversation that is what they announced. I have also pointed out over and over again, as have 5 or more others, that they have been looking at this position for a LONG time and knew within that shortlist the best candidate for this group existed. You say you don't have an issue with diversity being a criteria, but then that the shortlist included people with the criteria is an issue? Are they not qualified in other ways? That I don't agree with you does not mean I'm not reading your posts, it means I both disagree and think what you are saying is logically incongruent.
If you think you found the overall best candidate on this shortlist why even make this whole identity thing a point at all? Instead of just saying: this is my candidate. She is the best choice in my opinion. That would have been perfectly fine by me.
Deciding prior to all of this that the candidate needs to be (or will be) of a certain arbitrarily chosen subgroup on the other hand is not. If that is not what happened then don't make it seem that way by virtue signaling the way Biden did. It is contraproductive.
|
On January 31 2022 05:15 justanothertownie wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2022 03:48 EnDeR_ wrote:On January 31 2022 00:19 justanothertownie wrote:
Look, if Biden had the actual person in mind as his best choice (and had to confirm that somehow) all this time then it is of course a slightly different story. But he still handled it extremely poorly in that case because that is not what the general public will understand from this. Just nominate her and say she is the most qualified full stop.
This kind of "fighting" racism or inequality in general by instituting quotas or selection bias is a special annoyance to me since I saw it day in day out in german academia with respect to the favored choice of women for basically anthing (going so far as the level of this being the deciding factor if some university/institute gets funding or not). It leads to the majority of them who are actually a good appointment being questioned by their peers and themselves not being sure if they actually deserve their position and also to a few that are really "diversity hires" and completely unsuitable. All in a field where the gender ratio is already more or less 50:50. There are also already more female than male professors at my former institute. Wait: "I saw it day in day out in german academia with respect to the favored choice of women for basically anthing (going so far as the level of this being the deciding factor if some university/institute gets funding or not)" Really? So when a woman gets a job, she got it because she's a woman? You might want to have a think about that one. Care to elaborate? I was present when this criterion was discussed. By highly ranking officials of the German research foundation. Yes, some women get a scientific position because of their gender. If you think that is the way things should be done we may as well just agree to disagree and call it a day.
I mean, do I really need to tell you that women and other under-represented groups have a difficult time being selected for any kind of position when most panels are near 100% old, white and male? There's a lot of research in this area if you're curious.
To your other point, maybe you should elaborate because I've never heard of a single institution/example of funding being pulled out by the DFG for not complying with generic diversity guidelines. FYI, I worked in Germany for 3 years as a W2 professor before my current position so I am not actually a stranger to the system. At worst, I imagine you probably had someone coming in advertising their new funding scheme targeting under-represented groups.
It is a big jump from there to saying something like 'women are favoured for any position in german academia'. I mean, have you been to any of the DFG-funded network grant meetings? There's like 2 women professors out of 100. Most women you do meet tend to be in very junior positions or in a management role, i.e. like the secretary of a big german prof or some such.
|
On January 31 2022 06:07 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2022 05:15 justanothertownie wrote:On January 31 2022 03:48 EnDeR_ wrote:On January 31 2022 00:19 justanothertownie wrote:
Look, if Biden had the actual person in mind as his best choice (and had to confirm that somehow) all this time then it is of course a slightly different story. But he still handled it extremely poorly in that case because that is not what the general public will understand from this. Just nominate her and say she is the most qualified full stop.
This kind of "fighting" racism or inequality in general by instituting quotas or selection bias is a special annoyance to me since I saw it day in day out in german academia with respect to the favored choice of women for basically anthing (going so far as the level of this being the deciding factor if some university/institute gets funding or not). It leads to the majority of them who are actually a good appointment being questioned by their peers and themselves not being sure if they actually deserve their position and also to a few that are really "diversity hires" and completely unsuitable. All in a field where the gender ratio is already more or less 50:50. There are also already more female than male professors at my former institute. Wait: "I saw it day in day out in german academia with respect to the favored choice of women for basically anthing (going so far as the level of this being the deciding factor if some university/institute gets funding or not)" Really? So when a woman gets a job, she got it because she's a woman? You might want to have a think about that one. Care to elaborate? I was present when this criterion was discussed. By highly ranking officials of the German research foundation. Yes, some women get a scientific position because of their gender. If you think that is the way things should be done we may as well just agree to disagree and call it a day. I mean, do I really need to tell you that women and other under-represented groups have a difficult time being selected for any kind of position when most panels are near 100% old, white and male? There's a lot of research in this area if you're curious. To your other point, maybe you should elaborate because I've never heard of a single institution/example of funding being pulled out by the DFG for not complying with generic diversity guidelines. FYI, I worked in Germany for 3 years as a W2 professor before my current position so I am not actually a stranger to the system. At worst, I imagine you probably had someone coming in advertising their new funding scheme targeting under-represented groups. It is a big jump from there to saying something like 'women are favoured for any position in german academia'. I mean, have you been to any of the DFG-funded network grant meetings? There's like 2 women professors out of 100. Most women you do meet tend to be in very junior positions or in a management role, i.e. like the secretary of a big german prof or some such.
The ratio is very dependent on your actual field. In mine there is no such imbalance. As I said - there are more female than male professors at the institute I was working for (as the substitute for a professor due to his parental leave). The panel I was talking about also was not male dominated at all. And no, it wasn't some advertisement for a funding scheme. It were evaluations of proposals for "sonderforschungsbereiche" which are quite a big thing. If you think it is more difficult to get an academic position in Germany as a woman you are either of a very different field than me or your time here was not very recent.
But even if the ratio was drastically in favor of men for me that is no justification for handing positions out based on gender. These things need to adjust organically over time. The more women go into the sciences the more will get to the top if you create an equal playing field. Encourage them to do that and be attentive if they encounter any problems that should not exist. But you cannot enforce a 50:50 ratio overnight and expect to choose the most qualified candidates.
|
On January 31 2022 05:33 justanothertownie wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2022 04:41 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On January 31 2022 04:39 Jockmcplop wrote:
You guys realize what the outrage over this looks like from a distance, right?
Biden says he wants a black woman on the SC, the right gets furious about the idea.
Its so predictable.
Frankly, for supporters of the party that put Trump in power, talking about merit for important positions is laughable. Pretty much. It's...pathetic, really. I am not from the right. Not even in Germany. I would basically vote Democrat no matter what if I was an US citizen (thankfully I am not) and try to do what I can to influence people to vote for more progressive candidates in the primaries since this is the only way I can see to change anything for the better in your horrible election system. Kavanaugh for example is a disgusting person to appoint as a judge. But when that happened I did not feel interested to participate in this thread yet. And also there was no point since that was the dominant consensus anyways. I am just an opponent of combating unfairness with your own unfairness. And I am also not a fan of unnecessarily giving the people who are actually on the right ammunition with which they can convince people on the fence to join their camp. If your kneejerk reaction to that is "the people on the right get furious" then you have one of the reasons why the left in your country cannot win anything meaningful. Besides all the obviously shitty advantages the Republicans implemented for themselves and the lacking education of the populace.
The claims against Kavanaugh were not very credible, for a variety of reasons. The only reason I can see to believe them is political bias.
|
On January 31 2022 05:33 justanothertownie wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2022 04:41 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On January 31 2022 04:39 Jockmcplop wrote:
You guys realize what the outrage over this looks like from a distance, right?
Biden says he wants a black woman on the SC, the right gets furious about the idea.
Its so predictable.
Frankly, for supporters of the party that put Trump in power, talking about merit for important positions is laughable. Pretty much. It's...pathetic, really. I am not from the right. Not even in Germany. I would basically vote Democrat no matter what if I was an US citizen (thankfully I am not) and try to do what I can to influence people to vote for more progressive candidates in the primaries since this is the only way I can see to change anything for the better in your horrible election system. Kavanaugh for example is a disgusting person to appoint as a judge. But when that happened I did not feel interested to participate in this thread yet. And also there was no point since that was the dominant consensus anyways. I am just an opponent of combating unfairness with your own unfairness. And I am also not a fan of unnecessarily giving the people who are actually on the right ammunition with which they can convince people on the fence to join their camp. If your kneejerk reaction to that is "the people on the right get furious" then you have one of the reasons why the left in your country cannot win anything meaningful. Besides all the obviously shitty advantages the Republicans implemented for themselves and the lacking education of the populace.
Not sure why I was quoted. You're arguing the same line everyone else is. That Biden said, out loud, he wanted a Black woman as his SC nominee. If he hadn't said it out loud, we wouldn't be here until the person was announced and it still wouldn't have changed the underlying nature of why people are so entrenched. This is all about people not liking Biden saying he wanted a black woman to be the next SCJ. That is literally it. They're trying to use "reverse racism" or "affirmative action" or "discrimination" against other groups in the US. But that's not true. Everything equal, everyone qualified, they said "now give me the best qualified Black Women and vet them hard."
Again, and not necessarily you, there's a lot of repressed prejudice being shown.
|
|
|
On January 31 2022 06:27 Doc.Rivers wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2022 05:33 justanothertownie wrote:On January 31 2022 04:41 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On January 31 2022 04:39 Jockmcplop wrote:
You guys realize what the outrage over this looks like from a distance, right?
Biden says he wants a black woman on the SC, the right gets furious about the idea.
Its so predictable.
Frankly, for supporters of the party that put Trump in power, talking about merit for important positions is laughable. Pretty much. It's...pathetic, really. I am not from the right. Not even in Germany. I would basically vote Democrat no matter what if I was an US citizen (thankfully I am not) and try to do what I can to influence people to vote for more progressive candidates in the primaries since this is the only way I can see to change anything for the better in your horrible election system. Kavanaugh for example is a disgusting person to appoint as a judge. But when that happened I did not feel interested to participate in this thread yet. And also there was no point since that was the dominant consensus anyways. I am just an opponent of combating unfairness with your own unfairness. And I am also not a fan of unnecessarily giving the people who are actually on the right ammunition with which they can convince people on the fence to join their camp. If your kneejerk reaction to that is "the people on the right get furious" then you have one of the reasons why the left in your country cannot win anything meaningful. Besides all the obviously shitty advantages the Republicans implemented for themselves and the lacking education of the populace. The claims against Kavanaugh were not very credible, for a variety of reasons. The only reason I can see to believe them is political bias.
If you say so. My position on this is that it easily should have been possible to find someone else who does not have such claims (which to me did not look very unbelievable) against them. Not to mention how the guy went off the rails when discussing this (not a good way for a judge to behave). This is not even in the same ballpark as the discussion we have been having in the last days. There were probably hundreds of better candidates than Kavanaugh.
|
|
|
On January 31 2022 06:27 Doc.Rivers wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2022 05:33 justanothertownie wrote:On January 31 2022 04:41 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On January 31 2022 04:39 Jockmcplop wrote:
You guys realize what the outrage over this looks like from a distance, right?
Biden says he wants a black woman on the SC, the right gets furious about the idea.
Its so predictable.
Frankly, for supporters of the party that put Trump in power, talking about merit for important positions is laughable. Pretty much. It's...pathetic, really. I am not from the right. Not even in Germany. I would basically vote Democrat no matter what if I was an US citizen (thankfully I am not) and try to do what I can to influence people to vote for more progressive candidates in the primaries since this is the only way I can see to change anything for the better in your horrible election system. Kavanaugh for example is a disgusting person to appoint as a judge. But when that happened I did not feel interested to participate in this thread yet. And also there was no point since that was the dominant consensus anyways. I am just an opponent of combating unfairness with your own unfairness. And I am also not a fan of unnecessarily giving the people who are actually on the right ammunition with which they can convince people on the fence to join their camp. If your kneejerk reaction to that is "the people on the right get furious" then you have one of the reasons why the left in your country cannot win anything meaningful. Besides all the obviously shitty advantages the Republicans implemented for themselves and the lacking education of the populace. The claims against Kavanaugh were not very credible, for a variety of reasons. The only reason I can see to believe them is political bias. to bad the FBI investigation that could have answered the question was a complete sham and was not given authority to actually do any investigating. Heck they never even interviewed either involved party.
|
On January 31 2022 06:32 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2022 06:04 justanothertownie wrote:On January 31 2022 05:55 JimmiC wrote:On January 31 2022 05:42 Dan HH wrote:On January 31 2022 05:08 JimmiC wrote:On January 31 2022 05:01 Dan HH wrote:On January 31 2022 04:13 JimmiC wrote:On January 31 2022 02:20 Dan HH wrote:On January 31 2022 01:50 Acrofales wrote:On January 30 2022 06:37 Dan HH wrote:
[quote]
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. Okay, fine. Lets assume that there had never been an SC justice from Texas, and Biden had committed to picking his nominee from the great state of Texas! Would that really feel like he was "not picking based on merit"? Or would we accept that somewhere in the Texas legal system there were still plenty of people with the right qualifications to be a SC justice, and it was indeed a bit weird that until now they had been skipped over.. and it was about time somebody rectified that? And yes, the population of Texas is roughly similar to the number of Black Women in the US. If you object to Texas which has a slightly higher population, we can stick with Florida, which has a slightly lower population. This whole shitshow over choosing a population of roughly 25m people to pick a judge from is... weird. If there was some reason to suspect he was narrowing his choice to a pool of people among which there was no meritorious individual (e.g. black women from Vermont), you'd have cause for concern, but there's plenty of nations with fewer than 25million people, and we can safely assume they don't have potatoes in their highest courts. I have a lot more sympathy with GH's argument that it's dishonest virtue signalling. Just because a person is black and a woman doesn't mean they have any interest in protecting black people's rights, women's rights or the intersection thereof. You could no doubt find a black woman with the right qualifications who would vote along with the old white men with verve and gusto if you really wanted to. Similarly advocating for black women's rights may be done just as well, perhaps even better, by an old white man who, for some reason or another, has adopted their cause. Nevertheless, I think it's way more likely to find an advocate for black women's rights among black women, than among the population at large. Most old white men won't know what the problems are, why these problems are problems, and what type of solution might work, whereas most (not all) black women will have grown up in society facing these issues. It's no guarantee they care about these issues, but the chance is definitely higher... and even if they don't care, they probably at least understand the issue, which is often the first barrier! You're basically asking me to repurpose every single argument to a scenario that doesn't add anything and only subtracts. Yes Biden making a shortlist only from Texas, a conservative state, with the implication of "there you go, now you're represented!" is silly. Do you think it is silly for Black women to want to be represented in the Supreme court for the first time ever? Do you think they think they have been excluded unfairly in every appointment so far and in points that never allowed them to be considered? Do you think they would be wrong? Everyone, myself included, acknowledge from the start that underrepresented minorities exist and this should hold at least some weight. That by itself answers all those questions. You have been this discussion's most active participant and yet you keep making me have to explain its premise after 10 pages. So if you think it should hold some weight, you know Biden has been looking at this candidate pool for at least a decade, why are you so convinced that whoever he has chosen is not the "most qualified"? My other point is equal and equitable are different concepts. Every person regardless of race and gender might, and likely did not have equal chance at this job, but given that it has happened in the other direction with certainty for 200 years, and even the current group has none that if this person is qualified, and we have no reason to think they will not be, it is an equitable choice. Even without bias, If I every time there was a extra donut I flipped a coin between my kids on who got it and my son got it 5 times in a row, if on the 6th time I didn't flip the coin and instead just gave it to my daughter would you say I was being unfair? I'm not. I explained that here but you didn't understand it then because at that point you hadn't acknowledged the premise of the White House reviewing a black-women only shortlist yet. So we kept jumping backwards in the discussion and downwards in the concepts being discussed. I will stop here, on the next subject you find yourself in spiral like this please take your time to read the subject being discussed and the posts you reply to. I have acknowledged it since the beginning of the conversation that is what they announced. I have also pointed out over and over again, as have 5 or more others, that they have been looking at this position for a LONG time and knew within that shortlist the best candidate for this group existed. You say you don't have an issue with diversity being a criteria, but then that the shortlist included people with the criteria is an issue? Are they not qualified in other ways? That I don't agree with you does not mean I'm not reading your posts, it means I both disagree and think what you are saying is logically incongruent. If you think you found the overall best candidate on this shortlist why even make this whole identity thing a point at all? Instead of just saying: this is my candidate. She is the best choice in my opinion. That would have been perfectly fine by me. Deciding prior to all of this that the candidate needs to be (or will be) of a certain arbitrarily chosen subgroup on the other hand is not. If that is not what happened then don't make it seem that way by virtue signaling the way Biden did. It is contraproductive. Because he is trying to score political points AND believes that being a Black women is part of what makes the candidate the best choice. It was going to seem like virtue signaling to the crowd that is mad anyway, he wants this discussion, he wants to repoint out to people why it is important to vote Dem over Rep because the Reps believe a Black woman could not possibly the best choice. He's not polling well, either are the Dems in general, reminding people of the difference and what they bring makes a lot of sense. People who are mad about him putting a Black women were not voting Dem anyway.
Well, then I am here to prove you wrong. I would vote dem and I am mad about the way he did it. Am I the only one thinking this way? Maybe. But probably not.
What you fail to understand is that being against declaring the candidate shall definitely be a black women does not mean that you also have to think that a black women cannot be the best candidate. One does not follow from the other.
|
Canada11355 Posts
On January 30 2022 19:33 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2022 18:44 justanothertownie wrote:On January 30 2022 15:36 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: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. 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... The anti-woke crowd will go bananas either way if it's not an old white dude. Anyone who thinks that choosing a back woman for SCOTUS is compromising quality for diversity is never going to be on board, regardless of how the selection process was done.
We can run the tapes backwards. What was the conservative reaction to Clarence Thomas' appointment? I honestly don't know. But my sense is that at least now strong conservatives are most happy with him because he votes more consistently rules conservatively than most Republican appointments.
|
On January 31 2022 06:22 justanothertownie wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2022 06:07 EnDeR_ wrote:On January 31 2022 05:15 justanothertownie wrote:On January 31 2022 03:48 EnDeR_ wrote:On January 31 2022 00:19 justanothertownie wrote:
Look, if Biden had the actual person in mind as his best choice (and had to confirm that somehow) all this time then it is of course a slightly different story. But he still handled it extremely poorly in that case because that is not what the general public will understand from this. Just nominate her and say she is the most qualified full stop.
This kind of "fighting" racism or inequality in general by instituting quotas or selection bias is a special annoyance to me since I saw it day in day out in german academia with respect to the favored choice of women for basically anthing (going so far as the level of this being the deciding factor if some university/institute gets funding or not). It leads to the majority of them who are actually a good appointment being questioned by their peers and themselves not being sure if they actually deserve their position and also to a few that are really "diversity hires" and completely unsuitable. All in a field where the gender ratio is already more or less 50:50. There are also already more female than male professors at my former institute. Wait: "I saw it day in day out in german academia with respect to the favored choice of women for basically anthing (going so far as the level of this being the deciding factor if some university/institute gets funding or not)" Really? So when a woman gets a job, she got it because she's a woman? You might want to have a think about that one. Care to elaborate? I was present when this criterion was discussed. By highly ranking officials of the German research foundation. Yes, some women get a scientific position because of their gender. If you think that is the way things should be done we may as well just agree to disagree and call it a day. I mean, do I really need to tell you that women and other under-represented groups have a difficult time being selected for any kind of position when most panels are near 100% old, white and male? There's a lot of research in this area if you're curious. To your other point, maybe you should elaborate because I've never heard of a single institution/example of funding being pulled out by the DFG for not complying with generic diversity guidelines. FYI, I worked in Germany for 3 years as a W2 professor before my current position so I am not actually a stranger to the system. At worst, I imagine you probably had someone coming in advertising their new funding scheme targeting under-represented groups. It is a big jump from there to saying something like 'women are favoured for any position in german academia'. I mean, have you been to any of the DFG-funded network grant meetings? There's like 2 women professors out of 100. Most women you do meet tend to be in very junior positions or in a management role, i.e. like the secretary of a big german prof or some such. The ratio is very dependent on your actual field. In mine there is no such imbalance. As I said - there are more female than male professors at the institute I was working for (as the substitute for a professor due to his parental leave). The panel I was talking about also was not male dominated at all. And no, it wasn't some advertisement for a funding scheme. It were evaluations of proposals for "sonderforschungsbereiche" which are quite a big thing. If you think it is more difficult to get an academic position in Germany as a woman you are either of a very different field than me or your time here was not very recent. But even if the ratio was drastically in favor of men for me that is no justification for handing positions out based on gender. These things need to adjust organically over time. The more women go into the sciences the more will get to the top if you create an equal playing field. Encourage them to do that and be attentive if they encounter any problems that should not exist. But you cannot enforce a 50:50 ratio overnight and expect to choose the most qualified candidates.
This is the first article I found: www.nature.com"Sexism is still a problem for German research".
Despite being among the world’s most developed countries — Germany has the European Union (EU)'s largest economy and the world’s fourth-largest by gross domestic product — the nation performs poorly when it comes to giving women equal opportunity in sciences (see ‘Lagging behind’).
So things don't seem so different to when I was there 6 years ago.
Bringing this discussion back to US pol, the situation for women in academia in the US is not that different www.aauw.org.
Women make up the majority of nontenure-track lecturers and instructors across institutions, but only 44% of tenure-track faculty and 36% of full professors.
It doesn't matter where you live. Being a woman or from an under-represented group is a disadvantage, not an advantage.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
