|
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 23:48 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2022 21:51 Silvanel wrote:
I wonder:
Do black men feel represented on USMC by Clarance Thomas given he is most conservative and blacks overwhelmingly vote democrats?
Do republican black women (i am sure there are some) feel represented by Kamala Harris? And will feel that way about Biden nominee?
Do white liberal men feel represented by Roberts, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Alito?
Do republican white women feel represented by Kagan? Likely no to all or most, which is why people are saying the other parts of the criteria matter more. But if you were to pick a random Asian woman and a random white dude who be more likely to have shared experience and values with Asian women?
Gonna be the devil advocate here, but no one qualified to be supreme court justice is very likely to have any shared experience with a given demographic. Which is why I would value much more representation by social background than by skin colour, gender or ethnicity.
|
On February 01 2022 02:55 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2022 23:48 JimmiC wrote:On January 31 2022 21:51 Silvanel wrote:
I wonder:
Do black men feel represented on USMC by Clarance Thomas given he is most conservative and blacks overwhelmingly vote democrats?
Do republican black women (i am sure there are some) feel represented by Kamala Harris? And will feel that way about Biden nominee?
Do white liberal men feel represented by Roberts, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Alito?
Do republican white women feel represented by Kagan? Likely no to all or most, which is why people are saying the other parts of the criteria matter more. But if you were to pick a random Asian woman and a random white dude who be more likely to have shared experience and values with Asian women? Gonna be the devil advocate here, but no one qualified to be supreme court justice is very likely to have any shared experience with a given demographic. Which is why I would value much more representation by social background than by skin colour, gender or ethnicity.
Why do you think this? Black women experience racism and sexism all the time, even if they went to law school. Having a good education doesn't mean you necessarily avoid black or female experiences (whether they're good or bad or simply unique).
|
If they're from a wealthy family then their experiences are going to be fairly radically different from an average black person in the US though, the socioeconomic realities of being black in the US are very important to that experience I'd imagine. Being rich in the US just insulates you from so much, its like it's own specially crafted culture-bubble.
|
On February 01 2022 03:41 Zambrah wrote:
If they're from a wealthy family then their experiences are going to be fairly radically different from an average black person in the US though, the socioeconomic realities of being black in the US are very important to that experience I'd imagine. Being rich in the US just insulates you from so much, its like it's own specially crafted culture-bubble.
Socioeconomic status is also very important, but being rich doesn't mean you won't get stopped by the police, or that you won't have to deal with a doctor not listening to you during a check-up, or that you don't need access to reproductive rights, etc.
Also, keep in mind that becoming a lawyer decades later doesn't mean you necessarily grew up rich. You could have been from a middle or even working class family.
|
You don't stop being black just beacuse you have money or come from a good home. Republicans are still going to treat you like shit and try to hurt you based on your race.
|
On February 01 2022 03:52 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2022 03:41 Zambrah wrote:
If they're from a wealthy family then their experiences are going to be fairly radically different from an average black person in the US though, the socioeconomic realities of being black in the US are very important to that experience I'd imagine. Being rich in the US just insulates you from so much, its like it's own specially crafted culture-bubble. Socioeconomic status is also very important, but being rich doesn't mean you won't get stopped by the police, or that you won't have to deal with a doctor not listening to you during a check-up, or that you don't need access to reproductive rights, etc. Also, keep in mind that becoming a lawyer decades later doesn't mean you necessarily grew up rich. You could have been from a middle or even working class family.
I'm aware, but at the same time what percentage of middle or working class families produce supreme court quality judges, let alone black middle or working class families? There are certainly worthy candidates out there that have lived experiences more aligned with the average black american, but at the same time the average black american isn't really getting many opportunities to get to be a supreme court quality judge as opposed to wealthier people.
It's just a hurdle that ideally would be considered and cleared when picking a candidate, worth keeping an eye on with regards to whoever gets chosen.
|
On February 01 2022 04:01 Zambrah wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2022 03:52 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 01 2022 03:41 Zambrah wrote:
If they're from a wealthy family then their experiences are going to be fairly radically different from an average black person in the US though, the socioeconomic realities of being black in the US are very important to that experience I'd imagine. Being rich in the US just insulates you from so much, its like it's own specially crafted culture-bubble. Socioeconomic status is also very important, but being rich doesn't mean you won't get stopped by the police, or that you won't have to deal with a doctor not listening to you during a check-up, or that you don't need access to reproductive rights, etc. Also, keep in mind that becoming a lawyer decades later doesn't mean you necessarily grew up rich. You could have been from a middle or even working class family. I'm aware, but at the same time what percentage of middle or working class families produce supreme court quality judges, let alone black middle or working class families? There are certainly worthy candidates out there that have lived experiences more aligned with the average black american, but at the same time the average black american isn't really getting many opportunities to get to be a supreme court quality judge as opposed to wealthier people. It's just a hurdle that ideally would be considered and cleared when picking a candidate, worth keeping an eye on with regards to whoever gets chosen.
Sure, additional connections are worthwhile to consider, but keep in mind the contested quote is "no one qualified to be supreme court justice is very likely to have any shared experience with a given demographic", which writes off Black and female experiences and issues simply because someone might have wealth.
|
On January 31 2022 21:51 Silvanel wrote:
I wonder:
Do black men feel represented on USMC by Clarance Thomas given he is most conservative and blacks overwhelmingly vote democrats?
Do republican black women (i am sure there are some) feel represented by Kamala Harris? And will feel that way about Biden nominee?
Do white liberal men feel represented by Roberts, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Alito?
Do republican white women feel represented by Kagan?
Indeed or as noted on this page, what do poor and normal class people have in common with people making a quarter million a year Ivy-league graduate educated sharks. The whole assumption this is predicated on, the idea that the Supreme Court is a venue where people are there to "represent" a demographic, seems not to fit.
|
On February 01 2022 04:01 Zambrah wrote:what percentage of middle or working class families produce supreme court quality judges
Most of them. The Supreme Court makes profoundly awful rulings, and would likely be improved by replacing them with randomly selected adults.
|
The tidal wave of false accusations of racism in America (which, to be sure, occurs alongside actual racism) continues. Related the recent debate in this thread, a law professor (Ilya Shapiro) is in hot water, and may lose his job, after tweeting this:
“Objectively best pick for Biden is Sri Srinivasan, who is solid [progressive] and [very] smart,” Shapiro tweeted. “Even has identity politics benefit of being first Asian (Indian) American. But alas doesn’t fit into latest intersectionality hierarchy so we’ll get lesser black woman. Thank heaven for small favors?”
So the tweet includes the phrase "lesser black woman" (which, to be sure, creates for poor optics on a superficial level). But it does not automatically follow that Shapiro was calling black women inherently lesser. The actual meaning of the tweet is that, because one Indian-American is the "objectively best" pick, all other candidates (including those who are black women) are lesser in their qualifications. That's just the plain English meaning.
At some point people need to realize that false accusations of racism, premised on distortions of what a person said, are morally repugnant.
|
I'm just amazed that someone so well educated would put out such an obviously poorly worded tweet. Weird example for you to express outrage over.
|
On February 01 2022 10:20 Starlightsun wrote:
I'm just amazed that someone so well educated would put out such an obviously poorly worded tweet. Weird example for you to express outrage over.
Well it's only poorly worded in the sense that it's predictable that people will distort its meaning in order to levy false accusations of racism.
|
Yeah no, that is a horrible tweet and I'm not surprised people are calling it racist. If you don't want to sound racist, don't pair a word like lesser with a race or ethnicity. It's really quite simple. I'm actually struggling to think of a worse way to sound racist in that tweet without overtly being racist. It's just so obviously bad. Just don't mention an entire race and gender and describe them as "lesser". If that's too difficult for you to do and you don't see how that could easily be seen as a racist statement, you might want to reflect on your beliefs about equality, race, and gender for a little bit.
"... so we'll get someone less qualified instead." Is a far better way to end that statement if you don't want to sound like a grifting racist trying to drum up outrage and media attention. That revised ending clearly makes the point the author is trying to get across without any "accidental" jabs thrown at an entire group of people.
|
I don't know how you take "we'll get lesser black woman" as anything but a fireable statement to make.
They weren't comparing their "best candidate" to a "lesser candidate" they were placing their candidate was better than "lesser black woman", not "lesser black woman candidate" but "lesser black woman". They didn't give an example of a lesser candidate they explicitly qualified the race would be lesser on the candidate they thought would be chosen.
|
On February 01 2022 10:57 StasisField wrote:
Yeah no, that is a horrible tweet and I'm not surprised people are calling it racist. If you don't want to sound racist, don't pair a word like lesser with a race or ethnicity. It's really quite simple. I'm actually struggling to think of a worse way to sound racist in that tweet without overtly being racist. It's just so obviously bad. Just don't mention an entire race and gender and describe them as "lesser". If that's too difficult for you to do and you don't see how that could easily be seen as a racist statement, you might want to reflect on your beliefs about equality, race, and gender for a little bit.
"... so we'll get someone less qualified instead." Is a far better way to end that statement if you don't want to sound like a grifting racist trying to drum up outrage and media attention. That revised ending clearly makes the point the author is trying to get across without any "accidental" jabs thrown at an entire group of people.
It seems as though you're not arguing that the tweet's meaning was actually racist, but instead that the three successive words "lesser black woman," when viewed in isolation, "sound racist."
On February 01 2022 11:13 Sermokala wrote:
I don't know how you take "we'll get lesser black woman" as anything but a fireable statement to make.
They weren't comparing their "best candidate" to a "lesser candidate" they were placing their candidate was better than "lesser black woman", not "lesser black woman candidate" but "lesser black woman". They didn't give an example of a lesser candidate they explicitly qualified the race would be lesser on the candidate they thought would be chosen.
I think he was clearly comparing his supposed "objectively best candidate" to a lesser candidate. If one person who is Indian-American is the objectively best candidate, it follows that all candidates who are not Indian-American are lesser. That, anyway, is the meaning of what he said.
|
|
|
On February 01 2022 11:13 Sermokala wrote:
I don't know how you take "we'll get lesser black woman" as anything but a fireable statement to make.
They weren't comparing their "best candidate" to a "lesser candidate" they were placing their candidate was better than "lesser black woman", not "lesser black woman candidate" but "lesser black woman". They didn't give an example of a lesser candidate they explicitly qualified the race would be lesser on the candidate they thought would be chosen.
It's already been determined that all the candidates will be black woman so "lesser black woman candidate" is just redundant and I'm not sure how that would make it less racist or "sound" less racist.
|
On February 01 2022 11:49 Doc.Rivers wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2022 10:57 StasisField wrote:
Yeah no, that is a horrible tweet and I'm not surprised people are calling it racist. If you don't want to sound racist, don't pair a word like lesser with a race or ethnicity. It's really quite simple. I'm actually struggling to think of a worse way to sound racist in that tweet without overtly being racist. It's just so obviously bad. Just don't mention an entire race and gender and describe them as "lesser". If that's too difficult for you to do and you don't see how that could easily be seen as a racist statement, you might want to reflect on your beliefs about equality, race, and gender for a little bit.
"... so we'll get someone less qualified instead." Is a far better way to end that statement if you don't want to sound like a grifting racist trying to drum up outrage and media attention. That revised ending clearly makes the point the author is trying to get across without any "accidental" jabs thrown at an entire group of people. It seems as though you're not arguing that the tweet's meaning was actually racist, but instead that the three successive words "lesser black woman," when viewed in isolation, "sound racist." Show nested quote +On February 01 2022 11:13 Sermokala wrote:
I don't know how you take "we'll get lesser black woman" as anything but a fireable statement to make.
They weren't comparing their "best candidate" to a "lesser candidate" they were placing their candidate was better than "lesser black woman", not "lesser black woman candidate" but "lesser black woman". They didn't give an example of a lesser candidate they explicitly qualified the race would be lesser on the candidate they thought would be chosen. I think he was clearly comparing his supposed "objectively best candidate" to a lesser candidate. If one person who is Indian-American is the objectively best candidate, it follows that all candidates who are not Indian-American are lesser. That, anyway, is the meaning of what he said.
And what if you don't necessarily agree with this "objectively best candidate"? And do you believe that White Supremacists are racist?
I dunno man, it seems like you're way more interested in deliberately setting up a terrible argument so you can be outraged when people point out that it's problematic. I have a card table and a paper sign ready, prove me wrong.
|
On February 01 2022 12:00 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2022 11:13 Sermokala wrote:
I don't know how you take "we'll get lesser black woman" as anything but a fireable statement to make.
They weren't comparing their "best candidate" to a "lesser candidate" they were placing their candidate was better than "lesser black woman", not "lesser black woman candidate" but "lesser black woman". They didn't give an example of a lesser candidate they explicitly qualified the race would be lesser on the candidate they thought would be chosen. It's already been determined that all the candidates will be black woman so "lesser black woman candidate" is just redundant and I'm not sure how that would make it less racist or "sound" less racist.
If you want to sound less racist, maybe don't say "lesser black woman", period. Don't care how you want to rationalize that one, just no. And then, maybe don't also imply that "lesser black woman" is redundant? Like, holy shit dude.
|
On February 01 2022 12:17 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2022 12:00 BlackJack wrote:On February 01 2022 11:13 Sermokala wrote:
I don't know how you take "we'll get lesser black woman" as anything but a fireable statement to make.
They weren't comparing their "best candidate" to a "lesser candidate" they were placing their candidate was better than "lesser black woman", not "lesser black woman candidate" but "lesser black woman". They didn't give an example of a lesser candidate they explicitly qualified the race would be lesser on the candidate they thought would be chosen. It's already been determined that all the candidates will be black woman so "lesser black woman candidate" is just redundant and I'm not sure how that would make it less racist or "sound" less racist. If you want to sound less racist, maybe don't say "lesser black woman". And then, maybe don't also imply that "lesser black woman" is redundant? Like, holy shit dude.
I said that "lesser black woman candidate" is redundant in the context of a group of candidates that is exclusively black woman.
You conveniently deleted the "candidate" out of my quote. I'm going to assume you did this accidentally.
For clarity: Sermokala implied that the tweet was racist because he said "lesser black woman," and not "lesser black woman candidate." My point was that adding the "candidate" changes nothing because we already know all the candidates are black women.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
