Ketanji Brown Jackson to be first Black woman to sit on Supreme Court - Jordan Peterson has something to say - is he right or is he in the wrong?

[TheVat]

15 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Like I said, he should have kept schtum. It was an political act of overt virtual signalling to his base that he said something in advance. The fault is entirely his.

I am not sure what the confusion here is.  Biden needed South Carolina in the primaries.  While campaigning there, he courted the Black vote and promised he would select a Black woman for SCOTUS (per the NON-HIRING process described here half a dozen times, would our Polish member please acquaint themselves with the appointment concept) for the purpose of adding a new demographic to the high court.  He wasn't virtue signalling, he was making a political deal in order to gain votes and win a key primary state (which then turned the tide of a race where he had been trailing).  It wasn't a sly signal, it was saying the intent with a bullhorn, in advance of taking office so voters would understand what they were getting.   Then he won by 7 million votes.

[iNow]

14 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I know you get it. Can you explain why others don't seem to?

I reject your premise. I do get it.

I’ve also shown, with evidence… with specific historical dates, and direct quotes from previous presidents… that the fury against Biden feels hypocritical in the way it ignores the long-standing precedent here. 

No matter what Biden does, even if he hadn’t mentioned a desire to appoint the first black woman, he’d be attacked by political enemies. He could cure cancer itself, and there’d be rage at him for taking away their freedom to get cancer.

It’s specious. It’s hollow. It’s manufactured outrage. It’s strange to me that you don’t get this. Can you explain to me why so many don’t seem to get this?

[StringJunky]

8 minutes ago, TheVat said:

I am not sure what the confusion here is.  Biden needed South Carolina in the primaries.  While campaigning there, he courted the Black vote and promised he would select a Black woman for SCOTUS (per the NON-HIRING process described here half a dozen times, would our Polish member please acquaint themselves with the appointment concept) for the purpose of adding a new demographic to the high court.  He wasn't virtue signalling, he was making a political deal in order to gain votes and win a key primary state (which then turned the tide of a race where he had been trailing).  It wasn't a sly signal, it was saying the intent with a bullhorn, in advance of taking office so voters would understand what they were getting.   Then he won by 7 million votes.

OK, I wasn't aware of that.

 

5 minutes ago, iNow said:

I reject your premise. I do get it.

I’ve also shown, with evidence… with specific historical dates, and direct quotes from previous presidents… that the fury against Biden feels hypocritical in the way it ignores the long-standing precedent here. 

No matter what Biden does, even if he hadn’t mentioned a desire to appoint the first black woman, he’d be attacked by political enemies. He could cure cancer itself, and there’d be rage at him for taking away their freedom to get cancer.

It’s specious. It’s hollow. It’s manufactured outrage. It’s strange to me that you don’t get this. Can you explain to me why so many don’t seem to get this?

It's not manufactured, it's just not seeing the whole picture. You used this argument before and it annoyed me greatly... it is unjustifiably superimposing an attitude on a perceived 'group'... they are not monolithic.

Edited April 10, 2022 by StringJunky

[iNow]

1 minute ago, StringJunky said:

It's not manufactured

You’re smart enough to know that at least a fairly sizable portion of it is, SJ

[StringJunky]

3 minutes ago, iNow said:

You’re smart enough to know that at least a fairly sizable portion of it is, SJ

We must not exclude the minority sensible part of that demographic.

Edited April 10, 2022 by StringJunky

[J.C.MacSwell]

10 minutes ago, iNow said:

I reject your premise. I do get it.

 

Do you see it as virtue signalling, and promoting or attempting to take advantage of racial discord for political purposes?

Or not?

And in a smart way? Or not?

 

[zapatos]

8 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Are you saying exclusion of every race but one is okay? It's okay as long as he doesn't think they are inferior?

 

No. I am asking why you categorized this particular action as racism. Thinking a particular race as inferior is the/a definition of racism, but I didn't think that is what Biden did. I just want to know how you view this as racism.

If you think what Biden did was wrong I have no problem with that. And if you had simply said "everyone should be in the pool of candidates or it is wrong" that would have made sense to me. But I don't know why you think it is racism in particular. Not every decision based on race is necessarily "racism".

[TheVat]

21 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

OK, I wasn't aware of that.

 

And you have the intellectual integrity to acknowledge things you didn't know.  A rare quality on online forums.  I gather a lot of people didn't know about the South Carolina deal.  Even if Biden hadn't made that promise, I am having trouble with the term virtue signaling.  If a politician sees a course of action as the virtuous one, isn't it part of being a public figure and providing leadership to promote that course of action and its virtues?  This term strikes me as putting a pejorative twist on a positive thing without really revealing any new information.  (like Social Justice Warrior)

 

 

 

 

Edited April 10, 2022 by TheVat
Dpbmr

[Peterkin]

18 minutes ago, iNow said:

It’s specious. It’s hollow. It’s manufactured outrage. It’s strange to me that you don’t get this. Can you explain to me why so many don’t seem to get this?

May I add, in the case of this Jordan Petersen, that it's also a hand-biting exercise. The beneficiary of previous affirmative action speaking out against affirmative action on behalf of future beneficiaries. Like a landed immigrant opposing new immigration, or Craig T. Nelson condemning welfare.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTwpBLzxe4U

 

The only acceptable SCOTUS nominee would have been a self-taught asexual person with eight differently coloured great grandparents. How many of these qualified 'applicants' were there? In any other situation, all races, ages and sexes but one are discriminated against.

[J.C.MacSwell]

8 minutes ago, zapatos said:

No. I am asking why you categorized this particular action as racism. Thinking a particular race as inferior is the/a definition of racism, but I didn't think that is what Biden did. I just want to know how you view this as racism.

If you think what Biden did was wrong I have no problem with that. And if you had simply said "everyone should be in the pool of candidates or it is wrong" that would have made sense to me. But I don't know why you think it is racism in particular. Not every decision based on race is necessarily "racism".

That is one definition. If I act against you because I don't like your race, or because of your race, that's racism. It might be more despicable if I think your race is inferior while doing so, but it's still racism if I don't hold that view, but am acting based on your race.

[TheVat]

Just for clarity here, why are we calling the unidentified Black woman in Koti's video "Jordan Petersen"?  And where is the quote from the pale Canadian guy named Jordan Peterson which apparently promoted Koti to start this thread??  I see no quote or link to him.  

 

[iNow]

8 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

We must not exclude the minority sensible part of that demographic.

Of course. I readily acknowledge that there is another sizable contingent of people who have arrived at their conclusions on this topic organically and authentically. No doubt, and in fact I (and I imagine most of us) agree that merit based selection and choices based on competence MUST be prioritized. We’re all totally on the same page there. Zero gap between us.

Where things start to crumble for me, however, is why were all of these organic and authentic voices who favor selections based solely on merit and competence silent for the last 200+ years?

At each step along the way when every single new justice was being chosen over the centuries… when there were SURELY better suited minority candidates or female jurists who were clearly more skilled, capable, and competent than the endless procession of white men that DID get chosen… where were all of these passionate voices arguing solely for fairness and integrity in the process then?

Where was the outrage for presidents not choosing the most qualified candidate when the candidate they chose was a white guy?

I mean… There were SURELY many more capable, more competent, more qualified female and minority jurists available to choose, yet not so much as a single “peep” from the “should be based on merit!” crowd that’s been so animated and agitated and outwardly expressive this time. 

I wonder what’s different this time. Why did all of these well intentioned citizens arguing in favor of a pure and fair process… defending the integrity of our system and the need for color blindness in our justice selection process… why have these same people remained so numbingly silent Every. Other. Time. All throughout our history… when SURELY better choices were available from other demographic groups? Why is it THIS time that they suddenly feel so compelled and called upon to speak out with such passion and such vigor and such holier-than-thou oratory?

Gosh… what’s different THIS time? I just can’t put my finger on it. It may forever remain a mystery to us all. 

22 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Do you see it as virtue signalling, and promoting or attempting to take advantage of racial discord for political purposes?

You mean the faux outrage against it despite there being a LONG historical precedent of other presidents doing the exact same thing? Yep, I sure do. 

[zapatos]

10 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

 If I act against you because I don't like your race, or because of your race, that's racism. It might be more despicable if I think your race is inferior while doing so, but it's still racism if I don't hold that view, but am acting based on your race.

So if I understand you correctly, you are saying that 'any' race based decision is "racism". Is that correct? If not, can you please further clarify?

[TheVat]

1 minute ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

That is one definition. If I act against you because I don't like your race, or because of your race, that's racism. It might be more despicable if I think your race is inferior while doing so, but it's still racism if I don't hold that view, but am acting based on your race.

OK, now we're getting somewhere.  I think the confusion here is in viewing the individual appointment rather than the whole body of the Court.  The goal of appointment is to keep political promises and, for presidents who believe in the genuine virtue of diverse backgrounds, to keep and to further a broad demographic.  If the body of the Court is largely white, then that demographic is well covered.  Done.  And if people who interact heavily with the American legal system, like Blacks (a category that is both an ethnicity and an experience), see someone who looks like them on the highest court, that adds to its credibility as representing the whole nation.  Appointing KJB is to assign value to her experience of being Black in America - driving while black, shopping while black, buying housing while black, interacting with law enforcers while black, etc.  Appointment simply recognizes being Black as a particular qualifying experience.  (See my analogy of the mayor putting a homeless person on a task force to help the homeless - the mayor isn't being "anti-domiciled")

[Peterkin]

15 minutes ago, TheVat said:

Just for clarity here, why are we calling the unidentified Black woman in Koti's video "Jordan Petersen"?  And where is the quote from the pale Canadian guy named Jordan Peterson which apparently promoted Koti to start this thread??  I see no quote or link to him.  

 

I just accepted that the young woman in the video who is worried about her dignity was also named Jordan Peterson or Petersen. That wouldn't be so hard to believe. The confusion was introduced by putting the name in with a presentation of an otherwise unidentified person. The Canadian guy also has a lot to say on this topic, which is, like many of his topics, is way outside his area of expertise.  

[J.C.MacSwell]

16 minutes ago, iNow said:

 

You mean the faux outrage against it despite there being a LONG historical precedent of other presidents doing the exact same thing? Yep, I sure do. 

They didn't do the exact same thing. If do in fact get it, and realize how Biden's handled it, you would recognize the false equivalency, even if in principle it is much the same.

[StringJunky]

22 minutes ago, iNow said:

Of course. I readily acknowledge that there is another sizable contingent of people who have arrived at their conclusions on this topic organically and authentically. No doubt, and in fact I (and I imagine most of us) agree that merit based selection and choices based on competence MUST be prioritized. We’re all totally on the same page there. Zero gap between us.

Where things start to crumble for me, however, is why were all of these organic and authentic voices who favor selections based solely on merit and competence silent for the last 200+ years?

At each step along the way when every single new justice was being chosen over the centuries… when there were SURELY better suited minority candidates or female jurists who were clearly more skilled, capable, and competent than the endless procession of white men that DID get chosen… where were all of these passionate voices arguing solely for fairness and integrity in the process then?

Where was the outrage for presidents not choosing the most qualified candidate when the candidate they chose was a white guy?

I mean… There were SURELY many more capable, more competent, more qualified female and minority jurists available to choose, yet not so much as a single “peep” from the “should be based on merit!” crowd that’s been so animated and agitated and outwardly expressive this time. 

I wonder what’s different this time. Why did all of these well intentioned citizens arguing in favor of a pure and fair process… defending the integrity of our system and the need for color blindness in our justice selection process… why have these same people remained so numbingly silent Every. Other. Time. All throughout our history… when SURELY better choices were available from other demographic groups? Why is it THIS time that they suddenly feel so compelled and called upon to speak out with such passion and such vigor and such holier-than-thou oratory?

Gosh… what’s different THIS time? I just can’t put my finger on it. It may forever remain a mystery to us all. 

You mean the faux outrage against it despite there being a LONG historical precedent of other presidents doing the exact same thing? Yep, I sure do. 

You are pointing back to less equitable times, when societal hierarchical stratification was a thing to be promoted and lauded. I  think we just have to say that it was 'right and just' for those times. We shouldn't apply our modern moral mores on times so long since gone. In a couple of hundred years time, some things that we consider moral and just now may be anathema to a future society in the same location. Societal life is like a dictionary, it's meanings are pertinent only to the times they  were written.

Edited April 10, 2022 by StringJunky

[iNow]

6 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

You are pointing back to less equitable times, when societal hierarchical stratification was a thing to be promoted and lauded. I  think we just have to say that it was 'right and just' for those times. We shouldn't apply our modern moral mores on times so long since gone.

Okay. So where were these same voices then when Brett Kavenaugh was selected just 3 years ago?

Or what about Neil Gorsuch a year before him?

Or Merrick Garland 5 years ago?

Or Sam Alito 15 years ago?

Noticing a trend?

[StringJunky]

2 minutes ago, iNow said:

Okay. So where were these same voices then when Brett Kavenaugh was selected just 3 years ago?

Or what about Neil Gorsuch a year before him?

We can judge those things with our modern lens because they are modern events to us. The effects of those choices are tangible in our present. Our judgement is pertinent.

[J.C.MacSwell]

9 minutes ago, zapatos said:

So if I understand you correctly, you are saying that 'any' race based decision is "racism". Is that correct? If not, can you please further clarify?

No. I'm already on record that it can be justified for some reasons to a limited degree.

 

12 minutes ago, TheVat said:

OK, now we're getting somewhere.  I think the confusion here is in viewing the individual appointment rather than the whole body of the Court.  The goal of appointment is to keep political promises and, for presidents who believe in the genuine virtue of diverse backgrounds, to keep and to further a broad demographic.  If the body of the Court is largely white, then that demographic is well covered.  Done.  And if people who interact heavily with the American legal system, like Blacks (a category that is both an ethnicity and an experience), see someone who looks like them on the highest court, that adds to its credibility as representing the whole nation.  Appointing KJB is to assign value to her experience of being Black in America - driving while black, shopping while black, buying housing while black, interacting with law enforcers while black, etc.  Appointment simply recognizes being Black as a particular qualifying experience.  (See my analogy of the mayor putting a homeless person on a task force to help the homeless - the mayor isn't being "anti-domiciled")

I agree with that. +1. 

Would you agree that Biden unnecessarily racialized the process, more than was needed to achieve the purpose you described?

 

[zapatos]

1 minute ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

No. I'm already on record that it can be justified for some reasons to a limited degree.

 

I don't mean to be dense, but can you just give me a short summary of the RACIST aspects of Biden's actions? I'm trying to understand how you define racism, or at least the component of racism exhibited by Biden.

[TheVat]

2 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

 

Would you agree that Biden unnecessarily racialized the process, more than was needed to achieve the purpose you described?

 

Well, he said the quiet part out loud.  I guess he could have said, I will makes choices that promote the greatest possible diversity on the Supreme Court.  And given no specifics.  But wouldn't that draw the same charges and overheated rhetoric, that somehow diversity appointments are "racializing" the process?  In America, race happens to be a strong marker for diversity, so how can it be avoided or shushed when mentioned?  This isn't Belgium, where diversity might be found in appointment of both Walloons and Flemings, people who are not visually distinct.

[iNow]

14 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

We can judge those things with our modern lens because they are modern events to us. The effects of those choices are tangible in our present. Our judgement is pertinent.

I don’t disagree at all, but that’s not my question. 

All of these citizens who are so passionate about selecting the very best possible candidate for the highest court in the land, who are advocating that this always happens based solely on merit and in a color blind manner… where were their voices speaking out passionately when it was the white fellas being selected? It wasn’t “a different time.” It was 3 years ago, and 4 years ago, and 15 years ago…

Surely more capable, more competent, and more qualified candidates from other demographic groups were available when these other nominations were made, so why were they (even you) silent on this topic then?

[J.C.MacSwell]

10 minutes ago, zapatos said:

I don't mean to be dense, but can you just give me a short summary of the RACIST aspects of Biden's actions? I'm trying to understand how you define racism, or at least the component of racism exhibited by Biden.

He excluded, outright, some unrepresented minorities from consideration, based on race.

[iNow]

35 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

They didn't do the exact same thing. If do in fact get it, and realize how Biden's handled it, you would recognize the false equivalency, even if in principle it is much the same.

It what way is the equivalency I’m suggesting “false?”

Lyndon Johnson said he wanted to select a black justice and did. GHW Bush said he wanted to select a black justice and did. Regan said he wanted to select a woman and did. Trump said he wanted to select a woman and did. 

Biden said he wanted to select a black woman and did.

The only thing I can see here that’s not equivalent is that KBJ was both black AND female, but otherwise the process has been executed exactly inline with historical and well established precedent.