|
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 October 31 2024 07:09 Elroi wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2024 06:34 Fleetfeet wrote:First and foremost - Thanks, Vindicare, for your commentary a few pages back. I appreciate where your head is at on the subject even though there isn't anything particular I want to comment on. On October 31 2024 04:40 BlackJack wrote:On October 31 2024 02:26 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 31 2024 01:50 BlackJack wrote:
In my analogy you’re not drafting “some white kid that can’t play ball."
On October 30 2024 17:51 BlackJack wrote:
Do you think if that white player doesn’t play very well  Do you think this is some kind of contradiction? There’s lots of nba players that are trash compared to the superstars. That doesn’t make them unqualified for the NBA. It’s consistently you making the strawman that Kamala Harris is unqualified. Turbolover even searched my posts to look for evidence of your claims that I’ve repeatedly called Kamala an unqualified DEI hire and he found nothing of the sort. One, Turbolover just looked for you using specific phrases, which was the subject at the time. This is a stretch of truth or misunderstanding on your part that isn't wholly uncommon. + Show Spoiler +Shit like this isn't uncommon where you misunderstand someone or are otherwise incorrect and then don't address the correction. On October 30 2024 14:30 Fleetfeet wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2024 14:28 BlackJack wrote:
I actually don't disagree with Fleetfeet that "DEI Hire" is used as a pejorative dog whistle towards black people. That's why I've tried to avoid using it. But evidently it doesn't matter if I avoid using it because they will start using it, insist I'm the one using it, and then imply I'm racist for using it. Worth noting - I never claimed it was a perjorative dogwhistle towards black people, never used the phrase "DEI Hire" afaik (though for clarity not because I avoided doing so but because it's uncommon vocab for me and I don't know the nuance between DEI Hire / diversity hire / DEI etc) and also never insisted that you're using specifically those phrases nor are racist for using them. Also, thank you for informing me that it's a perjorative dogwhistle towards black people. In my circles 'diversity hire' leans more towards 'underqualified ethnic female' than specifically black people. I will stop using that phrase! Regardless, I'm not that interested in that. What confuses me is that as part of your opposition to hiring with consideration to race and sex seems to deny that there are racist and sexist tendencies built within our structures. Sure 'forced diversity' is fucked if you remove the context that the opposite has historically been true. Your NBA analogy would be interesting if the general populace voted in drafts, so we could see that racism and sexism be systematically enacted in vote. The NBA isn't a democracy, it's a meritocracy, and so you see that reflected in its statistics. Do you believe that the position of president in the US is also a meritocracy and you've had 44 white dudes (?) because they're the GOAT? It's funny that you would mention the NBA, which seems to me to be a strikingly homogenous group of people in terms of race and social background. Contrary to what you are saying, I'd say that in meritocratic environments you tend to get homogeneous types of people on the top. In the NBA, most players are African Americans. In the math olympiad, the US team is mostly male asian Americans. This probably has to do with deeply rooted cultural preferences and differences between groups more than anything else. Groups are very different. Maybe there aren't many black women who are top legal scholars? Just like there aren't many black women in the math olympiad or among the chess grand masters. None of these things are necessarily because of racism.
There are various hypothesis as to why there are much fewer white players in the NBA. Cultural differences are not among the probable reasons. More likely it's access. White people have access to a broad range of sports, which disperses them across various sports. Black people, due to economic disadvantages, are less exposed to a wide range of sports. Basketball is a simple, widely accessible game that can be financed easily in neighborhoods of all backgrounds. So for black people who are behind on the economic curve, basketball is the obvious game of choice.
So, in fact, one of the more likely reasons is racism. Whether present racism is still the reason or it's just the consequence of past racism, that'd be a different question.
|
Comparing the NBA or professional sports in general to political office is an imperfect comparison because the requirements are different.
The NBA is a meritocracy in that the people that are the best basketball players get rewarded with the highest contracts, but the game itself isn't fair to everyone. If you're taller you have a built in advantage in that game. Even the best athletes in the world can train their entire lives to play in the NBA and not even get looked at in the draft because they are too small. Larry Bird was an incredible white player, but not to be forgotten the guy was also 6'9 with long arms. He had a body built to play basketball that he augmented with his brilliant mind and skillset.
How do you define merit in politics? What's the skillset required to make someone a good government representative? I'd argue there isn't one. Anyone can be a good politician, anyone can also be a bad politician. It doesn't even take skill to get elected to any of these posts it just takes popularity and popularity can be gained for the most bizarre of reasons, just look at the Hawk Tuah girl for evidence of that.
A highly educated, highly accomplished woman can just as easily become a corrupt politician that ignores her constituents as a poorly educated man with no accomplishments can become an exemplary politician who gets reelected 20 times.
IMO. There is no meritocracy in politics. It's all subjective.
|
On October 31 2024 07:09 Elroi wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2024 06:34 Fleetfeet wrote:First and foremost - Thanks, Vindicare, for your commentary a few pages back. I appreciate where your head is at on the subject even though there isn't anything particular I want to comment on. On October 31 2024 04:40 BlackJack wrote:On October 31 2024 02:26 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 31 2024 01:50 BlackJack wrote:
In my analogy you’re not drafting “some white kid that can’t play ball."
On October 30 2024 17:51 BlackJack wrote:
Do you think if that white player doesn’t play very well Do you think this is some kind of contradiction? There’s lots of nba players that are trash compared to the superstars. That doesn’t make them unqualified for the NBA. It’s consistently you making the strawman that Kamala Harris is unqualified. Turbolover even searched my posts to look for evidence of your claims that I’ve repeatedly called Kamala an unqualified DEI hire and he found nothing of the sort. One, Turbolover just looked for you using specific phrases, which was the subject at the time. This is a stretch of truth or misunderstanding on your part that isn't wholly uncommon. + Show Spoiler +Shit like this isn't uncommon where you misunderstand someone or are otherwise incorrect and then don't address the correction. On October 30 2024 14:30 Fleetfeet wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2024 14:28 BlackJack wrote:
I actually don't disagree with Fleetfeet that "DEI Hire" is used as a pejorative dog whistle towards black people. That's why I've tried to avoid using it. But evidently it doesn't matter if I avoid using it because they will start using it, insist I'm the one using it, and then imply I'm racist for using it. Worth noting - I never claimed it was a perjorative dogwhistle towards black people, never used the phrase "DEI Hire" afaik (though for clarity not because I avoided doing so but because it's uncommon vocab for me and I don't know the nuance between DEI Hire / diversity hire / DEI etc) and also never insisted that you're using specifically those phrases nor are racist for using them. Also, thank you for informing me that it's a perjorative dogwhistle towards black people. In my circles 'diversity hire' leans more towards 'underqualified ethnic female' than specifically black people. I will stop using that phrase! Regardless, I'm not that interested in that. What confuses me is that as part of your opposition to hiring with consideration to race and sex seems to deny that there are racist and sexist tendencies built within our structures. Sure 'forced diversity' is fucked if you remove the context that the opposite has historically been true. Your NBA analogy would be interesting if the general populace voted in drafts, so we could see that racism and sexism be systematically enacted in vote. The NBA isn't a democracy, it's a meritocracy, and so you see that reflected in its statistics. Do you believe that the position of president in the US is also a meritocracy and you've had 44 white dudes (?) because they're the GOAT? It's funny that you would mention the NBA, which seems to me to be a strikingly homogenous group of people in terms of race and social background. Contrary to what you are saying, I'd say that in meritocratic environments you tend to get homogeneous types of people on the top. In the NBA, most players are African Americans. In the math olympiad, the US team is mostly male asian Americans. This probably has to do with deeply rooted cultural preferences and differences between groups more than anything else. Groups are very different. Maybe there aren't many black women who are top legal scholars? Just like there aren't many black women in the math olympiad or among the chess grand masters. None of these things are necessarily because of racism.
I don't see how this is contrary, and I agree that none of these things are necessarily because of racism.
I don't see it as contrary because I'm saying they're not the same structures and aren't comparable. You can currently say "Black men dominate the NBA playerbase because they are generally better at the sport" and can look at the organic development of the league and prioritization of the best players. I don't believe you can currently say "White men dominate the position of presidency of the US because they are generally better leaders" because there hasn't been equal opportunity historically and this trend is likely a reflection of both sexist and racist undertones in the general consciousness of the nation.
And before anyone goes "Waaah Fleetfeet called me a racist", please remember that I'm approaching from the position that effectively everyone is sexist and xenophobic because we're all humans and that's how humans function, and I'm not calling anyone 'a racist'. I still do have and historically have had sexist tendencies, as well as racist tendencies. People have biases. Be aware of them and work on them the same way you would anger issues or other undesirable emotions.
I would agree (if this is what you're implying) that it's vaguely possible that a homogenous group such as "asian women" would dominate the presidency if it were strictly a meritocracy without cultural bias and not a democracy. Homogeneity itself is not the issue.
|
Certain demographics represent certain aspects of society broadly because of overrepresentation. And that js perfectly fine, if power structures don't disadvantage other demographics because of that overrepresentation.
Like I said, there are so many people nowadays, it's almost impossible not to find someone qualified even inter demographic cluster.
The actual worst thing of all is that we have to divide "people" into demographic clusters because of all these different aspects of society that exert power over one another. But it's also baked into our genetics sadly, which I'm actually quite okay with. I don't particularly care of I'm stupider than the next guy. I don't particularly care that I'm physically weaker than someone else, or have a tendency towards early dementia or cancer or substance abuse. It's part of the hand you're dealt.
I do care, however, that we have systems in place that try to enforce situations to be a "certain way", when all the lessons we've learned lately as humans is that being human is an ever shifting dynamic thing and absolutely not based on absolutisms. It's time we grew up, really.
|
On October 31 2024 08:33 Fleetfeet wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2024 07:09 Elroi wrote:On October 31 2024 06:34 Fleetfeet wrote:First and foremost - Thanks, Vindicare, for your commentary a few pages back. I appreciate where your head is at on the subject even though there isn't anything particular I want to comment on. On October 31 2024 04:40 BlackJack wrote:On October 31 2024 02:26 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 31 2024 01:50 BlackJack wrote:
In my analogy you’re not drafting “some white kid that can’t play ball."
On October 30 2024 17:51 BlackJack wrote:
Do you think if that white player doesn’t play very well Do you think this is some kind of contradiction? There’s lots of nba players that are trash compared to the superstars. That doesn’t make them unqualified for the NBA. It’s consistently you making the strawman that Kamala Harris is unqualified. Turbolover even searched my posts to look for evidence of your claims that I’ve repeatedly called Kamala an unqualified DEI hire and he found nothing of the sort. One, Turbolover just looked for you using specific phrases, which was the subject at the time. This is a stretch of truth or misunderstanding on your part that isn't wholly uncommon. + Show Spoiler +Shit like this isn't uncommon where you misunderstand someone or are otherwise incorrect and then don't address the correction. On October 30 2024 14:30 Fleetfeet wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2024 14:28 BlackJack wrote:
I actually don't disagree with Fleetfeet that "DEI Hire" is used as a pejorative dog whistle towards black people. That's why I've tried to avoid using it. But evidently it doesn't matter if I avoid using it because they will start using it, insist I'm the one using it, and then imply I'm racist for using it. Worth noting - I never claimed it was a perjorative dogwhistle towards black people, never used the phrase "DEI Hire" afaik (though for clarity not because I avoided doing so but because it's uncommon vocab for me and I don't know the nuance between DEI Hire / diversity hire / DEI etc) and also never insisted that you're using specifically those phrases nor are racist for using them. Also, thank you for informing me that it's a perjorative dogwhistle towards black people. In my circles 'diversity hire' leans more towards 'underqualified ethnic female' than specifically black people. I will stop using that phrase! Regardless, I'm not that interested in that. What confuses me is that as part of your opposition to hiring with consideration to race and sex seems to deny that there are racist and sexist tendencies built within our structures. Sure 'forced diversity' is fucked if you remove the context that the opposite has historically been true. Your NBA analogy would be interesting if the general populace voted in drafts, so we could see that racism and sexism be systematically enacted in vote. The NBA isn't a democracy, it's a meritocracy, and so you see that reflected in its statistics. Do you believe that the position of president in the US is also a meritocracy and you've had 44 white dudes (?) because they're the GOAT? It's funny that you would mention the NBA, which seems to me to be a strikingly homogenous group of people in terms of race and social background. Contrary to what you are saying, I'd say that in meritocratic environments you tend to get homogeneous types of people on the top. In the NBA, most players are African Americans. In the math olympiad, the US team is mostly male asian Americans. This probably has to do with deeply rooted cultural preferences and differences between groups more than anything else. Groups are very different. Maybe there aren't many black women who are top legal scholars? Just like there aren't many black women in the math olympiad or among the chess grand masters. None of these things are necessarily because of racism. I don't see how this is contrary, and I agree that none of these things are necessarily because of racism. I don't see it as contrary because I'm saying they're not the same structures and aren't comparable. You can currently say "Black men dominate the NBA playerbase because they are generally better at the sport" and can look at the organic development of the league and prioritization of the best players. I don't believe you can currently say "White men dominate the position of presidency of the US because they are generally better leaders" because there hasn't been equal opportunity historically and this trend is likely a reflection of both sexist and racist undertones in the general consciousness of the nation. And before anyone goes "Waaah Fleetfeet called me a racist", please remember that I'm approaching from the position that effectively everyone is sexist and xenophobic because we're all humans and that's how humans function, and I'm not calling anyone 'a racist'. I still do have and historically have had sexist tendencies, as well as racist tendencies. People have biases. Be aware of them and work on them the same way you would anger issues or other undesirable emotions. I would agree (if this is what you're implying) that it's vaguely possible that a homogenous group such as "asian women" would dominate the presidency if it were strictly a meritocracy without cultural bias and not a democracy. Homogeneity itself is not the issue.
I don't see how that it is though. What's so special about Asian Women that would make them more suitable to the office of President of the United States than any other group?
We can't even come to a consensus about what makes a good president since the role is so multi-faceted. A man that might be excellent in one area of the job might be horrible at another. People gotta remember that the President is both Commander in Chief AND the Head of State. That's a widly broad range of roles to fill for just one person.
The truth is I think we judge Presidencies primarily based on how they handle crisis and i don't think there's any particular homogenous group of people that handle crisis better than any other, especially since even the word "crisis" can mean anything from War, to a global Pandemic to a series of hurricanes, to a financial disaster.
So i don't see a single group of people that are more suited to the job than another. What we need or want from the office of President changes as often as who holds it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
