Qualifications or Race and Gender?

[Kieran]

2 hours ago, kabLe said:

Response

 

Just a quick response since this thread is mostly dead. Not going to format it just gonna go down some of your points.

 

Supreme Court's job includes interpretation of the Constitution, interpretation meaning there is subjectivity involved. Never said anything about feelings, never said anything about mask mandates, and whatever other stories you brought up. Diverse group = diverse set of insights = better and fairer interpretation. Not going to reiterate this point again.

 

Racism involves a belief of inferiority or incapability of a certain race according to your own provided definition. I believe that accounting for someones race in a position like this does not imply that belief (matter of new insights, not inferiority/superiority). I think what Biden is doing is definitely teetering on the edge of racial discrimination, but no one is defending him.

 

People who choose to be "colorblind" and say race should never be accounted for are just too uncomfortable in confronting our country's realities with race. There's evidence that race still negatively affects minorities throughout a lot of America's infrastructure today - don't ask me for a source, look into it yourself. Race still matters, so if you ignore it you ignore the discrimination people are facing with it too.

 

Feel good black people success stories do nothing but trick conservatives into thinking all races have equal and fair opportunity in America.

 

I guess Ben Shapiro talkshows influenced enough people to keep this whole cultural reductionism thing around still. People really think the government still doesn't try to put minorities down? It's funny too because a lot of the people who buy into this stuff oppose legislation designed to help these communities out anyways.

 

Last time I'm responding to this thread, too many responses for something I don't even care about that much anyways.

[kabLe]

1 hour ago, Kieran said:

Just a quick response since this thread is mostly dead. Not going to format it just gonna go down some of your points.

 

Supreme Court's job includes interpretation of the Constitution, interpretation meaning there is subjectivity involved. Never said anything about feelings, never said anything about mask mandates, and whatever other stories you brought up. Diverse group = diverse set of insights = better and fairer interpretation. Not going to reiterate this point again.

 

Racism involves a belief of inferiority or incapability of a certain race according to your own provided definition. I believe that accounting for someones race in a position like this does not imply that belief (matter of new insights, not inferiority/superiority). I think what Biden is doing is definitely teetering on the edge of racial discrimination, but no one is defending him.

 

People who choose to be "colorblind" and say race should never be accounted for are just too uncomfortable in confronting our country's realities with race. There's evidence that race still negatively affects minorities throughout a lot of America's infrastructure today - don't ask me for a source, look into it yourself. Race still matters, so if you ignore it you ignore the discrimination people are facing with it too.

 

Feel good black people success stories do nothing but trick conservatives into thinking all races have equal and fair opportunity in America.

 

I guess Ben Shapiro talkshows influenced enough people to keep this whole cultural reductionism thing around still. People really think the government still doesn't try to put minorities down? It's funny too because a lot of the people who buy into this stuff oppose legislation designed to help these communities out anyways.

 

Last time I'm responding to this thread, too many responses for something I don't even care about that much anyways.

inherent superiority of a particular race

How does using their "life experiences as a black/asian/hispanic/white" to interpret the foundation of American law being a major qualification checkbox over merit in your field of occupation not constitute as racism? You are just saying that "In this situation, you cannot relate because you're white, so we need someone who's black that can properly relate and interpret the situation" Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

The way I'm interpreting the whole argument is their process will look like this:

 

Is said candidate black and female and what are their merits in their occupation?

• If yes for 1 and 2, put to top of pile, check back on third later.
• If no for 1 and 2, put to bottom of pile, check back if we can't make a compelling case for priority 1.

What I'm saying is that the question should be:

 

What are said candidates merits in their occupation?

 

What someone's childhood and early adult years are like should be irrelevant to interpreting the law since that changes over time. The law is the law. Freedom of speech should be interpreted now the same way it was when it was written. If freedom of speech was reinterpreted to suit todays political/social climate I think it's fair to agree that we would live in a much different society. Which is why I don't think someone's experiences in life should be part of the deciding factor of the potential trajectory of the future of the country.

 

Can you elaborate on what your interpretation is?