|
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 July 26 2024 20:18 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2024 20:05 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 26 2024 19:56 oBlade wrote:On July 26 2024 19:17 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:It's such a weird piece of shit to fling, especially since she has two stepkids, and especially since Republicans have been shooting themselves in the foot every time they attack women's bodily autonomy, family planning, and reproductive rights. They've also started calling her a DEI pick/nominee, as if the vice president couldn't possibly be qualified to become president. It's just blatantly misogynistic and racist. It's kind of weird for you to assume being a DEI pick is a racist or sexist attack. Dismissing qualified candidates as DEI picks has been a racist and misogynistic dog whistle ever since Republicans started using that phrase instead of criticizing the actual content of one's character. They did it with Ketanji Brown Jackson, they've done it with many others, and they're doing it with Kamala Harris. There are plenty of things one can criticize Harris over, to the point where they should never need to appeal to her sex or race. Republicans are questioning her candidacy by attacking her sex and race every time they bring up DEI, and it's a pity that they are so focused on identity politics. It's not surprising, but it's still disappointing. Aye this is the thing, they’ll give lip service to a hyper-focus on certain characteristics, such as race as something that is actually holding us back from moving on to something more blind to such differences. In isolation, something that has a degree of merit perhaps at times. But as you say then they just inject it back in as an attack vector. I mean perusing the thread people were quite down on Harris, then there was a bit of an uptick after she gave some strong public speaking performances. But it certainly wasn’t ’yas slay you black queen’ or anything like that. It’s quite difficult to extol the position that ‘the left’ hyperfixate on race when, on the occasions they’re not really talking about it, you start doing so.
Agreed. And while Democrats also engage in identity politics, the Republicans literally campaign on it. All they do is attack trans people, fabricate the "woke mind virus", and then attack women for being women, and people of color for being people of color. Cool "policy" positions lol.
We even have oBlade who just wrote "stop choosing people based on race and sex" right after citing Harris and Jackson, completely unaware of how toxic and wrong that assumption is. They can't even fathom the idea that someone can be qualified if they're also a woman of color. Maybe if they cared about credentials, they could get over the fact that women of color can also be legitimate choices for positions of power, but then again they're the party of Donald Trump. It's frustrating that Republicans can't see past sex or race.
|
oBlade just wrote a quote from the president of the United States saying that DEI started at the top, with VP Harris, that you completely ignored. Either Biden is racist or you're being a wild hypocrite because one word can't be a magical password to angels when one person uses it and the ultimate unutterable curse word when someone else uses it.
Republicans think Clarence Thomas is qualified. They think Amy Coney Barrett is qualified. A black person, and a woman. Why would they have any issue with a black woman?
Maybe Hispanic men and Asian and Pacific Islander anythings are upset they're not on the Supreme Court. You know they're qualified too, right? Why is black woman even a first? There was already a first black and a first woman. Why is the Supreme Court all heterosexual? You could have got like five birds with one stone - First half Native American and half Asian gay nonbinary on the Supreme Court. Don't just assume they're not qualified, buddy.
|
On July 26 2024 20:41 oBlade wrote:
oBlade just wrote a quote from the president of the United States
No, oBlade did not just write a quote from the president of the United States lol. Recheck your post. No quote. No source. At best, you may have paraphrased and oversimplified something that Biden may have said, without including any other key attributes that Biden might have found important in a runningmate, but that's a lot of qualifiers doing a lot of heavy lifting for your bias. It's not like Biden just scooped up a random black woman and said that nothing else mattered. (If he did, please post the actual quote and source.)
Republicans think Clarence Thomas is qualified. They think Amy Coney Barrett is qualified. A black person, and a woman.
So you can't be racist because you have a black friend? Nice one. In case you've missed it, Democrats don't criticize Clarence Thomas for being black or surely just being a DEI pick, and they don't dismiss his legitimate legal background (which he absolutely has); they criticize him for taking bribes and not recusing himself during perceived instances of conflicts of interest. Just because Republicans appointed Thomas doesn't mean that they can be racist towards other people of color. Just because they appointed Amy Coney Barrett doesn't mean they can be misogynistic towards other women.
Maybe Hispanic men and Asian and Pacific Islander anythings are upset they're not on the Supreme Court. You know they're qualified too, right? Why is black woman even a first? There was already a first black and a first woman. Why is the Supreme Court all heterosexual? You could have got like five birds with one stone - First half Native American and half Asian gay nonbinary on the Supreme Court.
I love how you think that this is supporting the conservative perspective instead of decimating it. Imagine how triggered Republicans would be if someone that diverse were ever appointed, even if they were extremely experienced. Democrats are the ones who do indeed know that they can be qualified. It's the Republicans who can't see it.
|
What do we think the chances are that Donald Trump changes his mind on J.D. Vance and swaps him out for someone else, like Nikki Haley? Likely? Unlikely? Do you think it would reflect badly to change runningmates? Do you think it would ultimately help him to change runningmates?
I thought that selecting someone like Haley would have been an obvious decision, if the objective was to solidify the conservative base and unite the Never-Trumpers under the banner of the Republican party, but clearly it was more important to Trump to have a younger MAGA vice president to double-down on Trump's actions and rhetoric.
|
On July 26 2024 21:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
What do we think the chances are that Donald Trump changes his mind on J.D. Vance and swaps him out for someone else, like Nikki Haley? Likely? Unlikely? Do you think it would reflect badly to change runningmates? Do you think it would ultimately help him to change runningmates?
I thought that selecting someone like Haley would have been an obvious decision, if the objective was to solidify the conservative base and unite the Never-Trumpers under the banner of the Republican party, but clearly it was more important to Trump to have a younger MAGA vice president to double-down on Trump's actions and rhetoric. In Trumps mind he would now be President if it wasn't far Pence being a coward and refusing to send the election result back to the states.
Having a compromise VP that wasn't entirely loyal, in his mind, literally cost him the Presidency. He doesn't want to unite the Republican base, he wants loyalty.
And before you mention how none of that matters if he doesn't win this election, we're talking about Trump here.
And I could see him wanting to change VP, but I think it would look incredibly weak to everyone. Democrats got to change candidate because Biden was to old and everyone got to see the issues he is having because of that.
Unless Vance suffers a major health issue very quickly the Republicans can lean on that same situation.
|
Northern Ireland24978 Posts
On July 26 2024 21:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
What do we think the chances are that Donald Trump changes his mind on J.D. Vance and swaps him out for someone else, like Nikki Haley? Likely? Unlikely? Do you think it would reflect badly to change runningmates? Do you think it would ultimately help him to change runningmates?
I thought that selecting someone like Haley would have been an obvious decision, if the objective was to solidify the conservative base and unite the Never-Trumpers under the banner of the Republican party, but clearly it was more important to Trump to have a younger MAGA vice president to double-down on Trump's actions and rhetoric.
When you’re the King, you can do what you want.
I mean for a different demographic it was clearly the rationale behind Pence last time around. But you’ve had a solid 4 more years of people rallying solidly behind Trump no matter what he does, so it feels a bit redundant.
If the party and its membership has booted out various folks genuinely critical of Trump, they’d be just rebuilding a bridge that they themselves blew up.
|
On July 26 2024 21:29 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2024 21:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
What do we think the chances are that Donald Trump changes his mind on J.D. Vance and swaps him out for someone else, like Nikki Haley? Likely? Unlikely? Do you think it would reflect badly to change runningmates? Do you think it would ultimately help him to change runningmates?
I thought that selecting someone like Haley would have been an obvious decision, if the objective was to solidify the conservative base and unite the Never-Trumpers under the banner of the Republican party, but clearly it was more important to Trump to have a younger MAGA vice president to double-down on Trump's actions and rhetoric. In Trumps mind he would now be President if it wasn't far Pence being a coward and refusing to send the election result back to the states. Having a compromise VP that wasn't entirely loyal, in his mind, literally cost him the Presidency. He doesn't want to unite the Republican base, he wants loyalty. And before you mention how none of that matters if he doesn't win this election, we're talking about Trump here. And I could see him wanting to change VP, but I think it would look incredibly weak to everyone. Democrats got to change candidate because Biden was to old and everyone got to see the issues he is having because of that. Unless Vance suffers a major health issue very quickly the Republicans can lean on that same situation.
I think those are really good points. The fact that Vance is off to a very slow start might not be a good enough reason, optics-wise, for Trump to ditch him. We can only hope that the Republican party continues to run a Hitler-Vance ticket, to use the same language that Vance used about Trump.
On July 26 2024 21:33 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2024 21:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
What do we think the chances are that Donald Trump changes his mind on J.D. Vance and swaps him out for someone else, like Nikki Haley? Likely? Unlikely? Do you think it would reflect badly to change runningmates? Do you think it would ultimately help him to change runningmates?
I thought that selecting someone like Haley would have been an obvious decision, if the objective was to solidify the conservative base and unite the Never-Trumpers under the banner of the Republican party, but clearly it was more important to Trump to have a younger MAGA vice president to double-down on Trump's actions and rhetoric. When you’re the King, you can do what you want. I mean for a different demographic it was clearly the rationale behind Pence last time around. But you’ve had a solid 4 more years of people rallying solidly behind Trump no matter what he does, so it feels a bit redundant. If the party and its membership has booted out various folks genuinely critical of Trump, they’d be just rebuilding a bridge that they themselves blew up.
Yeah that makes sense. Trump is going to try to steal the election again if he loses anyway, so maybe he doesn't care that much about winning it fair and square by appealing to more voters.
|
On July 26 2024 20:53 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
I love how you think that this is supporting the conservative perspective instead of decimating it. Imagine how triggered Republicans would be if someone that diverse were ever appointed, even if they were extremely experienced. Democrats are the ones who do indeed know that they can be qualified. It's the Republicans who can't see it.
"Define a Woman"
"Me!"
Conservative brains explode.
|
If Trump loses his nerve and drops Vance, that’ll bode very well for Kamala’s already good odds of winning in November.
|
On July 26 2024 20:53 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2024 20:41 oBlade wrote:
oBlade just wrote a quote from the president of the United States No, oBlade did not just write a quote from the president of the United States lol. Recheck your post. No quote. No source. At best, you may have paraphrased and oversimplified something that Biden may have said, without including any other key attributes that Biden might have found important in a runningmate, but that's a lot of qualifiers doing a lot of heavy lifting for your bias. It's not like Biden just scooped up a random black woman and said that nothing else mattered. (If he did, please post the actual quote and source.)
The blue words aren't because the text is sad, professor, I directly linked the White House transcript.
On July 26 2024 20:53 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +Republicans think Clarence Thomas is qualified. They think Amy Coney Barrett is qualified. A black person, and a woman. So you can't be racist because you have a black friend? Nice one. In case you've missed it, Democrats don't criticize Clarence Thomas for being black or surely just being a DEI pick
Was he one? He's certainly been the target of racist attacks as Democrats are no strangers to being racist.
If you have enough black friends, claims of racism become more and more spurious, yes. If you think all black Democrats are great and all black Republicans suck, race isn't the operative vector.
On July 26 2024 20:53 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +Maybe Hispanic men and Asian and Pacific Islander anythings are upset they're not on the Supreme Court. You know they're qualified too, right? Why is black woman even a first? There was already a first black and a first woman. Why is the Supreme Court all heterosexual? You could have got like five birds with one stone - First half Native American and half Asian gay nonbinary on the Supreme Court. I love how you think that this is supporting the conservative perspective instead of decimating it. Imagine how triggered Republicans would be if someone that diverse were ever appointed, even if they were extremely experienced. Democrats are the ones who do indeed know that they can be qualified. It's the Republicans who can't see it.
Republicans do not care. It's not the immutable characteristics. Supporting things due to the assumption they will "trigger" somebody is a road to a world led by infantile people who know and stand for nothing, it's an immature snubbing of perceived authority. If you take some people and say I'm going to hire one of these best people, based on immutable characteristics, and they get the job and show no competence, even fuck things up severely, going back and saying "you were wrong to hire based on this immutable characteristic. Clearly your own judgment and competence can't be trusted, and you're just using flowery excuses to retroactively justify how you judge human beings" is not attacking the immutable characteristic. It's attacking the choice. The decision. The process. The more contrived the DEI justification is - equally meaning the more exclusion that has to take place, the more suspicious the placement becomes. We just had a Director of Sloped Roofs have to resign because someone got shot while she was trying to hire 30% of women in law enforcement. You and Republicans believe DEI means the same thing. Giving jobs to people, that you claim are the best for the job, based on immutable characteristics. They aren't bigots, they just disagree with you.
|
Northern Ireland24978 Posts
I mean you didn’t link the transcript, not in the post referenced anyway
|
On July 26 2024 20:41 oBlade wrote:
oBlade just wrote a quote from the president of the United States saying that DEI started at the top, with VP Harris, that you completely ignored. Either Biden is racist or you're being a wild hypocrite because one word can't be a magical password to angels when one person uses it and the ultimate unutterable curse word when someone else uses it.
Republicans think Clarence Thomas is qualified. They think Amy Coney Barrett is qualified. A black person, and a woman. Why would they have any issue with a black woman?
Maybe Hispanic men and Asian and Pacific Islander anythings are upset they're not on the Supreme Court. You know they're qualified too, right? Why is black woman even a first? There was already a first black and a first woman. Why is the Supreme Court all heterosexual? You could have got like five birds with one stone - First half Native American and half Asian gay nonbinary on the Supreme Court. Don't just assume they're not qualified, buddy.
Don't forget dems torpedoed Miguel Estrada's DC circuit nomination 20 years ago because they didn't want thr GOP to have the first Hispanic justice (a SCOTUS seat was probably in his future. .) It was a major escalation of the judicial wars that Dems want to forget.
|
On July 26 2024 23:10 WombaT wrote:
I mean you didn’t link the transcript, not in the post referenced anyway
But oBlade believes it, and feelings don't care about facts! (Or was it supposed to be the other way around?)
On July 26 2024 23:05 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2024 20:53 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 26 2024 20:41 oBlade wrote:
oBlade just wrote a quote from the president of the United States No, oBlade did not just write a quote from the president of the United States lol. Recheck your post. No quote. No source. At best, you may have paraphrased and oversimplified something that Biden may have said, without including any other key attributes that Biden might have found important in a runningmate, but that's a lot of qualifiers doing a lot of heavy lifting for your bias. It's not like Biden just scooped up a random black woman and said that nothing else mattered. (If he did, please post the actual quote and source.) The blue words aren't because the text is sad, professor, I directly linked the White House transcript.
I'm just going to leave this alone as a concession on your part. At no point does Biden say that being a black woman is what makes her qualified to be vice president, or that her professional attributes are irrelevant. Being proud of having an experienced, legitimate group of professionals working alongside you - who also happen to represent the diversity that the Unites States is supposed to be championing - is not appealing to DEI over expertise, which is what Republicans continuously claim. If you ever manage to dig up a quote from Biden that actually makes the point that you're asserting, then I'd be happy to change my view on the matter.
Show nested quote +On July 26 2024 20:53 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Republicans think Clarence Thomas is qualified. They think Amy Coney Barrett is qualified. A black person, and a woman. So you can't be racist because you have a black friend? Nice one. In case you've missed it, Democrats don't criticize Clarence Thomas for being black or surely just being a DEI pick Was he one? He's certainly been the target of racist attacks as Democrats are no strangers to being racist. If you have enough black friends, claims of racism become more and more spurious, yes. If you think all black Democrats are great and all black Republicans suck, race isn't the operative vector.
Not gonna lie, I didn't expect you to actually defend the idea that having a black friend means you can't be racist, but okay. Props for doubling down on that absurd notion, I guess. And your second sentence is kind of the point: It's not about race. Evaluating Clarence Thomas based on his past and present decisions while being a Supreme Court Justice is a fair way to evaluate him. Evaluating Kamala Harris based on her past and present decisions would be a fair way to evaluate her - not simply asserting that she's a DEI candidate. Please let the Republicans know, thanks.
Show nested quote +On July 26 2024 20:53 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Maybe Hispanic men and Asian and Pacific Islander anythings are upset they're not on the Supreme Court. You know they're qualified too, right? Why is black woman even a first? There was already a first black and a first woman. Why is the Supreme Court all heterosexual? You could have got like five birds with one stone - First half Native American and half Asian gay nonbinary on the Supreme Court. I love how you think that this is supporting the conservative perspective instead of decimating it. Imagine how triggered Republicans would be if someone that diverse were ever appointed, even if they were extremely experienced. Democrats are the ones who do indeed know that they can be qualified. It's the Republicans who can't see it. Republicans do not care. [et al.]
Are you joking? Honestly, is this a Poe's Law response? Are you honestly saying that if a Democratic president wanted to appoint a completely legitimate, well-experienced, seasoned judicial expert as a Supreme Court Justice - who happened to also be "half Native American and half Asian gay nonbinary" - that Republicans wouldn't criticize that person's identity at all, or call them a DEI candidate?
|
On July 26 2024 23:24 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
I'm just going to leave this alone as a concession on your part. At no point does Biden say that being a black woman is what makes her qualified to be vice president,
He wouldn't have to explicitly, it's a dog whistle as you already explained to us.
https://tl.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=28208678
On July 26 2024 23:24 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
or that her professional attributes are irrelevant.
Nobody said that. You, me, and Republicans are saying the exact same thing. You take a group of people you think are qualified. You choose one based on race (earlier I used "immutable characteristics" but the point got lost in the verbiage so I'm simplifying). Or worse, you sort a group of people based on race, and choose the one you think is qualified. At no time has or will the word "ONLY" be used. Fair?
You are saying, there's no reason someone couldn't be qualified. All normal people are saying, "duh." Republicans are saying, after the person you thought was qualified turned out to be shit, maybe you should revisit the assumption that they were qualified, and the system of choosing people this way, and your own competence in choosing people, especially if it becomes a pattern.
On July 26 2024 23:24 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Being proud of having an experienced, legitimate group of professionals working alongside you - who also happen to represent the diversity that the Unites States is supposed to be championing - is not appealing to DEI over expertise, which is what Republicans continuously claim.
You can discuss that with Republicans if you like. But you are a mathematician. You know that it is impossible for a local maximum, of a subset, to exceed a global maximum. When you optimize along the dimension of best for the job, you get a global maximum. If you optimize in any local subset of that, you are necessarily deprioritizing being best for the job. The best you can do is get the same result you would have otherwise. Unless we want to modify the function to include sex or skin color as part of the calculus of being best for the job, in which case again, we would be continuing a 160 year tradition of racism in the Democratic party.
On July 26 2024 20:53 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Not gonna lie, I didn't expect you to actually defend the idea that having a black friend means you can't be racist, but okay. Props for doubling down on that absurd notion, I guess. And your second sentence is kind of the point: It's not about race. Evaluating Clarence Thomas based on his past and present decisions while being a Supreme Court Justice is a fair way to evaluate him. Evaluating Kamala Harris based on her past and present decisions would be a fair way to evaluate her - not simply asserting that she's a DEI candidate. Please let the Republicans know, thanks.
I'll have them add it to the inauguration day teleprompter so everyone can hear.
On July 26 2024 20:53 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Are you joking? Honestly, is this a Poe's Law response? Are you honestly saying that if a Democratic president wanted to appoint a completely legitimate, well-experienced, seasoned judicial expert as a Supreme Court Justice - who happened to also be "half Native American and half Asian gay nonbinary" - that Republicans wouldn't criticize that person's identity at all, or call them a DEI candidate?
Yes, they would be a DEI candidate if they were given the position for those reasons. You keep making this sudden defense of how amazing DEI is and yet you can't acknowledge a single case of it ever happening despite public examples that have been bragged about. If this DEI is so damned important, then what have the Democrats been doing just blustering about it all these years and never implementing it? Where's the DEI success story? One person please?
|
On July 27 2024 00:02 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2024 23:24 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
or that her professional attributes are irrelevant. Nobody said that.
Republicans are saying that. That's entirely the point. They're not making criticisms of her professional attributes; they're saying "lol typical DEI hire". They're just throwing nonsense at the wall, to see what sticks. Hell, J.D. Vance is saying "lol she doesn't even have her own biological children, what a loser." They're not saying "Kamala Harris is admittedly experienced, but I wish the Democrats would support someone else because I think Alternative Candidates A and B are even more qualified than Harris, and I suspect that Harris's sex and race aren't merely being used as a true tiebreaker, but rather as an evaluative metric that unfairly dismisses all her legitimate criticisms, such as X, Y, and Z."
Republicans reference DEI derisively, the same way they mock being woke, and not the same way that academics talk about the value of diversity, equity, and inclusion. I'm going to ask my Yes or No question again, using the identity you proposed within the framework of a hypothetical top-tier SCJ candidate:
Suppose a Supreme Court Justice spot has just opened up, and a Democratic president has the opportunity to fill it. Let's suppose that there are 10 viable candidates that everyone agrees are extremely well-qualified, have unimpeachably strong judicial résumés, plenty of key professional attributes, etc. They're all in the top tier, and any one of them could be a legitimate Supreme Court Justice. Let's suppose, as a tiebreaker, the Democratic president decides to choose the one SCJ candidate who has the very unique identity that you suggested: the SCJ candidate also happens to be "half Native American and half Asian gay nonbinary".
Which do you think is more likely to occur:
a) Trump, other Republican leaders, and Fox News will attack elements of that candidate's racial and sexual identity ("half Native American and half Asian gay nonbinary") and question that candidate's ability to be a competent SCJ specifically because of that candidate's racial and sexual identity;
or
b) Trump, other Republican leaders, and Fox News will stick to analyzing the relevant professional attributes of the candidate, and merely critique political positions and judicial rulings the candidate may have made in the past without trying to undermine the candidate's qualifications through snide remarks about their racial and sexual identity?
Do you think Option A or Option B is more likely to occur, in this hypothetical situation?
|
Didn’t Biden say he would choose a black woman for vp before making the choice? That would effectively make it a “diversity hire” by definition (if that were indeed the case, I don’t remember).
|
On July 27 2024 01:23 Elroi wrote:
Didn’t Biden say he would choose a black woman for vp before making the choice? That would effectively make it a “diversity hire” by definition (if that were indeed the case, I don’t remember).
I believe that the term "diversity hire" tends to be used when someone is hired for their diversity despite a lack of other qualifications, not just making sure that a qualified candidate also has a diverse background... in which case Harris wouldn't be a diversity hire. I'm less interested in the semantics of the term, though, and more interested in hearing Republicans criticize Harris for relevant reasons that are unrelated to identity politics.
|
Canada11349 Posts
I think when Biden chose Harris, he framed it in a very poor way and four years ago the diversity hire attack might have made some kind of sense. This is four years later. It's a super bad line of attack and a rather suspicious one at that to still be making. Now to her credentials she has added Vice President for four years, on top of a Senator, and the AG of California. That's more than enough to be a serious presidential candidate. When, hell, one of the initial appeals of Trump was his political inexperience.
|
On July 27 2024 01:29 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2024 01:23 Elroi wrote:
Didn’t Biden say he would choose a black woman for vp before making the choice? That would effectively make it a “diversity hire” by definition (if that were indeed the case, I don’t remember). I believe that the term "diversity hire" tends to be used when someone is hired for their diversity despite a lack of other qualifications, not just making sure that a qualified candidate also has a diverse background... in which case Harris wouldn't be a diversity hire. I'm less interested in the semantics of the term, though, and more interested in hearing Republicans criticize Harris for relevant reasons that are unrelated to identity politics.
I would say both are diversity hires of different types. The truly neutral way to do it is to hide name, race etc for the person in the entire hiring process. Which doesn't work in politics since those things sadly matter a lot.
Many places have diversity goals where they want different opinions. Then you can basically say you have 50% of something and thus shouldn't have more of that, whatever it is.
|
On July 27 2024 02:03 Yurie wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2024 01:29 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 27 2024 01:23 Elroi wrote:
Didn’t Biden say he would choose a black woman for vp before making the choice? That would effectively make it a “diversity hire” by definition (if that were indeed the case, I don’t remember). I believe that the term "diversity hire" tends to be used when someone is hired for their diversity despite a lack of other qualifications, not just making sure that a qualified candidate also has a diverse background... in which case Harris wouldn't be a diversity hire. I'm less interested in the semantics of the term, though, and more interested in hearing Republicans criticize Harris for relevant reasons that are unrelated to identity politics. I would say both are diversity hires of different types. The truly neutral way to do it is to hide name, race etc for the person in the entire hiring process. Which doesn't work in politics since those things sadly matter a lot.
Yeah that's a good point; it's not exactly applicable in the same way. You and Falling gave much better responses than i did, as you both noted the context.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
