Qualifications or Race and Gender?

[Wawa]

20 hours ago, All Ts said:

There's no way anyone in this thread believes diversity trumps merit.

Neither should anyone believe that a meritocracy actually exists, because it doesn't.

[All Ts]

5 hours ago, Wawa said:

Neither should anyone believe that a meritocracy actually exists, because it doesn't.

There's a lot of ways to interpret your post I'm not sure if you think my post says that I believe the world is fair, or that I believe that personally. We should strive for people suited best based on merit though, no? It's kind of not a meritocracy when the sitting President says he's decided what group of people he's going to give a seat in the Supreme Court then for people to be upset that he's virtue signaling that he's accomplishing anything towards equity towards minorities. 

 

If he just happened to promote a minority group or hasn't been on the court before I wouldn't really think much of it. It's always a sleight of hand though, he's virtue signaling for a fair system while actually doing the opposite. This isn't to say "wow muh racism against white people", but it's definitely a little lacking in judgement in almost every category for him. I could care less if they promote a woman or a black person or whoever, that's great I'm sure there's a lot of qualified candidates. I think it's just a very stupid vapid move from a politician.

 

 

[Wawa]

6 hours ago, All Ts said:

There's a lot of ways to interpret your post I'm not sure if you think my post says that I believe the world is fair, or that I believe that personally. We should strive for people suited best based on merit though, no? It's kind of not a meritocracy when the sitting President says he's decided what group of people he's going to give a seat in the Supreme Court then for people to be upset that he's virtue signaling that he's accomplishing anything towards equity towards minorities. 

 

If he just happened to promote a minority group or hasn't been on the court before I wouldn't really think much of it. It's always a sleight of hand though, he's virtue signaling for a fair system while actually doing the opposite. This isn't to say "wow muh racism against white people", but it's definitely a little lacking in judgement in almost every category for him. I could care less if they promote a woman or a black person or whoever, that's great I'm sure there's a lot of qualified candidates. I think it's just a very stupid vapid move from a politician.

 

 

I'm pretty much in agreement, but if people got to where they are based on merit, we wouldn't have 99% of the politicians that we have today.  They aren't qualified to serve us, because they don't serve us--they serve money.  This Justice pick is what you said it is, just more virtue signaling by the Democrats to water down anything that promotes positive change in society, like the whitewashing of MLK as a radical figure and watering down BLM as a radical movement.

[All Ts]

11 hours ago, Wawa said:

I'm pretty much in agreement, but if people got to where they are based on merit, we wouldn't have 99% of the politicians that we have today.  They aren't qualified to serve us, because they don't serve us--they serve money.  This Justice pick is what you said it is, just more virtue signaling by the Democrats to water down anything that promotes positive change in society, like the whitewashing of MLK as a radical figure and watering down BLM as a radical movement.

I think it's just idiocracy, people vote these people in or help create generalizations that only escalate issues. Maybe I'm just taking the easy way out in saying that though. We can sit and blame the politicians/special interests but no one is required to listen to a TV ad, or a campaign promise. People probably think they're voting on merit, but a lot of the time they've been fed bad statistics that twist the truth, or straight up lies. Politicians across all aisles sell people on desperation, fear, and virtue signaling nonsense. It'd be nice to find a nice, healthy, totally agreeable way to get some of the money out. The way that politicians are able to invest in anything but an ETF that tracks a stock index is fucking absurd to me for example, then you get into campaign finance which can become an entire discussion with very reasonable counterpoints. 

 

On the otherhand.

 

 I think it's perverse and wrong how stuff like social media, news, etc has become so incredibly polarized and we have propaganda shoved down our throat 24/7. If we aren't keen to it you'll take one bite and then stubbornly continue onwards and it just gets more extreme. I guess I've never really understood the proper solution to it. I try my best to look at things from the most reasonable perspective and to me I just genuinely wish people would turn off the news, turn off social media and try to be more decent to one another. I read a reddit thread about this topic (original OP topic) like an hour ago and it put on display what I'm saying. People either believe you're racist if you don't like it, or you're somehow racist if you do. If people are upset at what Biden's doing, I honestly don't think they're automatically racist (although who knows there's oughta be some racist mad about it). If someone's happy about what he's doing, I also don't think they're a racist. What sells is clearly division, screaming, name calling. You'll never open cable TV to find a reasonable discussion between two people. The craziest shit is that as comical as the discussions are if a normal person does any research they can discover this for themselves. 

 

 

[Wawa]

25 minutes ago, All Ts said:

We can sit and blame the politicians/special interests but no one is required to listen to a TV ad, or a campaign promise.

Yet, we can't vote away said special interests.  In this system, if voting could actually lead to meaningful change that would challenge the status quo, we wouldn't be allowed to do it.

 

Quote

People probably think they're voting on merit

A TV celebrity and a geriatric, career political cuck were 'democratically' voted into the highest office.

 

Quote

Politicians across all aisles sell people on desperation, fear, and virtue signaling nonsense.

The media exists to manufacture your consent.  Pay no attention to the economic system pulling the strings behind the curtains.

 

Quote

People either believe you're racist if you don't like it, or you're somehow racist if you do. If people are upset at what Biden's doing, I honestly don't think they're automatically racist (although who knows there's oughta be some racist mad about it). If someone's happy about what he's doing, I also don't think they're a racist. What sells is clearly division, screaming, name calling.

This is just liberal spectacle.  Develop your class consciousness and realize that none of this benefits you if you identify with the working class.

 

Quote

I guess I've never really understood the proper solution to it.

Well then, I have a red bridge to sell to you.

[All Ts]

1 hour ago, Wawa said:

Yet, we can't vote away said special interests.  In this system, if voting could actually lead to meaningful change that would challenge the status quo, we wouldn't be allowed to do it.

 

A TV celebrity and a geriatric, career political cuck were 'democratically' voted into the highest office.

 

The media exists to manufacture your consent.  Pay no attention to the economic system pulling the strings behind the curtains.

 

This is just liberal spectacle.  Develop your class consciousness and realize that none of this benefits you if you identify with the working class.

 

Well then, I have a red bridge to sell to you.

I don't get what you're saying here then? That our votes don't matter? 

[Gentoo]

3 hours ago, All Ts said:

I don't get what you're saying here then? That our votes don't matter? 

This is who you're replying to. Don't play dumb.

 

[dolo]

On 1/30/2022 at 11:30 PM, TheZZL said:

It is not only important to have a diverse court, but also to have diversity in every aspect of society. If there's only white men presiding over the courts, they'd be making judgments from their shared lived experiences, with a lack of empathy, understanding, or lived experience on the vast array of populations they fail to represent.

I don't see the connection between race / gender and upholding the constitution. The justices job that they are nominated for is to be impartial and to uphold the law / constitution. Now we can all mention times where those jobs were done incorrectly, (I figured your argument in the statement was that diversity can give a broader range and decrease mistakes) but diversity and the life experience some one shares will not prevent further mistakes from happening but rather if they do not have the correct "merit" It will cause more mistakes. Merit and someone's ability to make the "right" decision allows for more REAL progress. While diversity is a great in all aspects of life, if you think diversity should be upheld higher than "merit" then you are detached from the real world.
 

As well as picking someone because of there race idk man seems kind of racist. For example a white male who grew up in downtown Chicago doesn't have the same "life experience" as a Black Female who grew up in the suburbs. But that "diversity" in walks of life that people in this thread are looking some much towards is thrown out the window when you eliminate any other race / gender option. Now if you are arguing that the "walk of life / life experience" when its boiled down is the effects of racism on someone's life experience, than sorry to burst your bubble but the last supreme court ruling on the topic of race discrimination was in 1996 (according to https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cases/topics/tog_race_discrimination.html ). Now I don't know about you guys but it seems to me when talking about racial discrimination with supreme court rulings, over the past 25ish years its hasn't been very important. Not that racial discrimination isn't important, it's just that when "electing" someone for a position like Supreme Court Justice "merit" stomps diversity.

 

As well as I think its important to bring up a opinion of mine which is, that all judges should not run for / against a certain political party because the overarching goal is for justice and impartial decisions which is not met when someone runs as a certain political party. Just wanted to throw my 2 cents in to the disgusting tomato soup that is politics.

[Wawa]

17 hours ago, All Ts said:

I don't get what you're saying here then? That our votes don't matter? 

Local elections matter because they have a greater impact on the material conditions of your community.  On the federal level, no, our votes do not matter.  That's not to say that voting isn't important, but the primary intention behind casting a vote should be for the betterment of our country, not damage control.  You say that 'no one is required to listen to a TV ad, or a campaign promise' as if the responsibility can be shifted from the lobbyist-controlled politicians and the wealth-controlled media to the common man who is expected to know better on how to cast their vote.  So lets say the common man does know better on how to cast their vote, then why does gerrymandering exist?  Why not let democracy run its course rather than drawing artificial district maps to represent voters who are more vulnerable to vote a certain way?

 

So no, our votes on the federal level do not matter.  We cannot vote away money in politics, privatized healthcare, climate change, skyrocketing housing prices, imperialism, economic depressions, etc.

 

15 hours ago, Gentoo said:

This is who you're replying to. Don't play dumb.

 

 

 

[kabLe]

On 1/31/2022 at 5:45 PM, Kieran said:

I think some people in this thread don't really understand or want to recognize the importance of diversity in establishments like this.

 

Most of us can agree a person's gender, race, etc. greatly impacts their life experiences and life perspectives. Anyone who can't agree on that has probably either been shielded from that reality or aren't mature enough to make that admission just yet.

 

Now, on the Supreme Court, a group which deals with a wide variety of issues affecting a wide variety of people, wouldn't you want the court to have a wide variety of perspectives and insights?

 

Diversity in the Supreme Court should be embraced; a diverse group will be able to see issues through a variety of different lenses and therefore make a stronger decision. This is why in most companies you'll find their board of directors are purposefully composed of a diverse pool of individuals: diversity brings needed important perspectives.

 

A Supreme Court lacking diversity will fail to bring in different insights and make a fair decision, just like how a fully Republican-leaning or Democrat-leaning court would also fail to do the same. In a way, I would argue bringing in more diversity and providing new life perspectives is a qualification for a position like this.

 

Notice how I'm focusing on positions meant for providing insight specifically, because we have people like this..

 

 

..who throw around these statistics yet blatantly ignore or fail to consider any differences between the US Supreme Court and an NBA basketball team. It doesn't require a lot of thought to realize how diversity in an NBA team (where all that really matters is your physical talents and basketball abilities) might not be as important as it is in the Supreme Court, where the justices have to discuss and rule on literally the most important issues in the entire country. I find it hilarious people still throw around this statistic thinking it holds any weight.

 

Do I think that Biden should solely be considering black female candidates for this new position? Not at all. However, too often when a headline like this pops up people fall back on the "I want the most qualified candidate for the position" stance without considering how diversity plays a role in that very position.

I haven't read all the responses yet but I do want to address this.

 

The supreme court is not here to make a decision on the morality of ANYTHING. They are there to uphold the Constitution AS WRITTEN.  They are not here to interpret the Constitution based on their experiences in life and render a decision. The morality of the mask mandate from my point of view is, it's a good idea to force people to wear masks in public areas so we can save as many people as possible. That's a very good morale stance to take on the mask mandates. Its not Constitutionally legal, as the document is currently written. Regardless of how good the intentions are or how moral it is. Diversity does not matter. Being a judge is arguably the job that requires the most OBJECTIVITY. If you are bringing your past experiences and feelings into account when rendering a judgement you are not a good judge.

 

The Supreme Court sets precedents. Bringing your feelings into setting a precedent for 300 million people is, in my opinion, a very bad thing.

 

@Phoenix_ I'm gonna give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you view it as non-discriminatory because the perception is the black female demographic is being oppressed at the moment so if we get a black female then they aren't being as oppressed? I think that's your view, I'm not quiet sure. Racism is not whites hating blacks or blacks hating whites. Racism is not, white people are gaining resources at the detriment of black people. Racism is, I don't like you because your white. Racism is also, I like you because your black. If you are determining anything, and taking race into account, that, at least in my view and how I'm interpreting the official definition, is racism. 

 

 

This is not directed at anyone specific:

 

Webster Dictionaries Definition of Racism - by this definition how is selecting a judge and using skin color as a metric not racist? You are almost fully saying that because she is a black female, she will have knowledge that is superior to others and therefore will make a better judgement? And if you aren't saying that, can someone explain to me how being a black female supreme court judge who is supposed to be objective and impartial is any different from a white, asian, or hispanic supreme court judge who is supposed to be objective and impartial. I'm almost positive if you walked into the interview and said "I plan on using my past experiences in life to help me render judgement in cases" you would not get the job as a judge at any court black, white, asian, or hispanic.

 

What if she never gets a case where she needs to draw on those experiences? What case would you say is acceptable to draw on your personal feelings and experiences as a SCOTUS judge to render a fair judgement. Let's use the most recent Supreme Court case as an example. When it comes to the mask mandate case, can anyone here tell me how being a black female would change the fact that it was against the Constitution? 

 

@Kieran Personally, I don't think the color of your skin is what affects your life. I think it's the culture around it. Why did Ben Carson graduate from college but Nas couldn't get in? Both are black. Both are rich. Both have something that is studied by college students. And how come, the rich black people, historically will tell you that getting out of a mostly black environment was the best thing they ever did?

 

If you want to talk about shielded I don't think you've looked at what people who are just coming out of the hood are saying about the hood. Or people currently in the projects. Hell, have you ever stepped foot in a project? It's not just black people. Just like the suburbs is not just white people. Your skin color has very little to do with how you grow up and experience life. The culture around you is the reason.

 

Most schools that have majority black kids can barely graduate their students. Is that the white man bringing them down? It's a culture thing. Black people in general, don't appreciate education as much as asian or white households. And if you can't admit that, you've been shielded from that reality or you just aren't mature enough to make that admission.

 

 

 

For anyone who wants to discredit him because he speaks his mind and it doesn't make sense to you. Maybe follow his lead a bit, he seems to be doing something right.

 

 

TL;DR - Taking race into account is inherently racist. Good or bad. Fair doesn't mean right.