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?

[MigL]

Easy, JC.
You might give MSC a coronary.

[MSC]

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

The breakdown doesn't give the results for black women specifically but it does mention that 28% of whites were in favour of considering only black women...which indicates minorities were considerably less in favour...funny that...seems like they're a principled lot.

Quote

Although the poll's sample size was not large enough to break out results for Black people, only a little more than 1 in 4 nonwhite Americans (28%) wish for Biden to consider only Black women for the vacancy. 

Oh so it says 28% of whites does it? Then why does it say non-white American? I'm assuming an honest typo. Correct?

It also clearly says the polls sample was was not large enough to break out results for black people. Just a very unspecific "non-white Americans". Essentially it just breaks it down into 2 categories, white Americans and everyone else, completely othered. 

Let's see how the math works out.

Quote

• The White alone population accounted for 204.3 million people and 61.6% of all people living in the United States, compared with 223.6 million and 72.4% in 2010.

Quote

• In 2020, the Black or African American alone population (41.1 million) accounted for 12.4% of all people living in the United States, compared with 38.9 million and 12.6% in 2010.
• Coupled with the 5.8 million respondents who identified as Black or African American in combination with another race group, such as White or American Indian and Alaska Native, the Black or African American alone or in combination population totaled 46.9 million people (14.2% of the total population) in 2020.

- Census.gov

So 28% of non white Americans said they only want Biden to consider black women, in keeping with his campaign promise. 

61.6% of the country are white. So that's roughly 61 in 100 are white. (Yall don't mind if I round to a whole number? I'd rather not cut anyone in half.)

14.2% of the population are either black or black and mixed with another ethnicity so 14 in 100. 

If 61 in 100 leaves 39, then we'll say 39 in 100 are non white. 

28% of 3C, is 10.92. So theoretically, the 28% of non whites who desired that Biden select only from black woman, could have been a supermajority of black people/mixed race black. Some here may think it safe to assume that most of that 28% is the black community. Without a better round of polling though, I don't like to assume. High probability it is, but not complete certainty for me. 

What keywords did you use by the way? Not asking to criticise, just trying to figure out what went wrong with my own searches. I've been trying to find this sort of thing online for the past week and have been coming up empty. Thank you for sharing.

In conclusion, hopefully there will be a larger sample for the next poll. For now, we are both left to only be able to speculate on the demographic makeup of that 28%. 😕 stalemate for now it seems.

Disclaimer: Feel free to correct my math where and if it needs correcting. It's not my aoe. 

3 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Regardless of how you measure "better" in politics or sport, respectful and disrespectful can be measured in the same manner.

Let's assume you're correct, how do you measure it? 

As an aside, and in the interest of trying to be more respectful, I apologize for offense caused to everyone in this discussion. Intentional or not. I'd prefer that we all be able cool this discussion down. I've felt myself slipping on my temper and I can tell I'm not the only one either. I suggest we all (myself included) lighten the fuck up, remember we are all just observers to this and unlike the politicians etc that we are discussing; are dedicated to science and the truth. 

Biden ruffled some people's feathers, sure. Not me, but for those that did feel that way, that sucks and I wish it could have happened differently, but only so that it made less of the people here feel shitty or sore about it. 

49 minutes ago, MigL said:

Easy, JC.
You might give MSC a coronary.

I'm not as emotionally invested in this discussion as you might think, for that to be a possibility. Debating here is less stressful than changing and cleaning up after my daughter has a blow out diaper tbh. I'm also just tired of anger in general.

[CharonY]

The other thing to consider is once the nominee was announced, the usual support was given.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/03/17/more-support-than-oppose-jacksons-supreme-court-nomination-with-many-not-sure/

So fundamentally there was more handwringing at the front (shall we call it virtue signaling or something?) but with very little actual follow-up impact.

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 hour ago, MSC said:

Oh so it says 28% of whites does it? Then why does it say non-white American? I'm assuming an honest typo. Correct?

 

 

Not a typo. I actually misread it. So my numbers are off with regard to how minorities disagree with choosing only from black females. It's 28% not considerably less than that, but my point stands. If it's clear that a considerable number of blacks weren't comfortable picking only from black woman I think it's fair to say that even if a majority of them supported it...it would seem likely they were less comfortable with the way it was handled.

But +1 for reading the link and picking that up.

 

 

[Intoscience]

6 hours ago, uncool said:

The difference between competitive sports and politics is that in competitive sports there’s a clear, objective measure of “better”. Tiger Woods has won because he did better on the golf course.

There is no single objective “better” when it comes to the judiciary. There is no “best judge” that can be objectively determined, merely a pool of judges with better qualifications, among whom the President picks. So by picking a black woman from that pool, the President isn’t deliberately choosing a worse candidate - merely a particular one from among a pool of similarly qualified candidates.

No one is arguing his choice, in fact we all applaud it. We are questioning the merits of the pre announcement, whether it was it was a good idea or not. Personally I don't see why it was necessary and as a result see how it could be perceived negatively. 

Whether or not it makes a difference, I don't know the answer to, and to be fair it makes no odds to me so I won't be losing any sleep over it. I just find it interesting reading other perspectives and then discussing and trying to understand why they differ from mine.

Its all educational after all. 😉   

[J.C.MacSwell]

2 hours ago, CharonY said:

The other thing to consider is once the nominee was announced, the usual support was given.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/03/17/more-support-than-oppose-jacksons-supreme-court-nomination-with-many-not-sure/

So fundamentally there was more handwringing at the front (shall we call it virtue signaling or something?) but with very little actual follow-up impact.

Right. That's a good thing, correct? Even though a substantial majority were against raciallizing and genderizing the selection a majority liked the pick. Maybe many are more principled than racist in their thinking?...and let's not assume the remainder that KJB did not win over were against her due to her gender or colour of her skin.

2 hours ago, MSC said:

What keywords did you use by the way? Not asking to criticise, just trying to figure out what went wrong with my own searches. I've been trying to find this sort of thing online for the past week and have been coming up empty. Thank you for sharing.

 

I put it in the form of a question in hopes the keywords I used would have the context I hoped for.

"do black women like the way biden handled the scotus pick?"

The first thing that came up seeming to have even vaguely the right context was a Fox News article citing an ABC poll, so I went to the ABC article. It had a link to the poll that gets blocked on this computer which has had some issues but I will likely see it tomorrow when I am on my laptop if I choose to look closer.

But I obviously didn't find exactly what I was asking for.

Edited April 22, 2022 by J.C.MacSwell

[MSC]

34 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

But I obviously didn't find exactly what I was asking for

Neither did I. Whether or not Bidens actions we are discussing were disrespectful, is our point of disagreement. But having both of us now done similar searches (My search was their opinions on KBJ specifically, so between us that's two bases covered) I would say that the lack of effort to get or make clearer the opinions of real black people, is disrespectful. Would you agree with that?

[J.C.MacSwell]

12 minutes ago, MSC said:

Neither did I. Whether or not Bidens actions we are discussing were disrespectful, is our point of disagreement. But having both of us now done similar searches (My search was their opinions on KBJ specifically, so between us that's two bases covered) I would say that the lack of effort to get or make clearer the opinions of real black people, is disrespectful. Would you agree with that?

I would certainly agree it can be, especially when it's just assumed their opinions should be self serving.

[swansont]

16 hours ago, MigL said:

He eventually picked the candidate he wanted ( and we need ), but the pre-announcement of the selection criteria, involving skin color and gender, did not improve things but made things slightly worse and gave people the excuse to gripe about the selection process.

He won, so how does one demonstrate that he made things worse?

Many of the people who griped were going to gripe anyway. How do we know? Because they gripe about everything, even when the "controversy" is made up. Obama wearing a tan suit. Searching for his birth certificate. Hunter Biden's laptop. Biden not holding a press conference soon enough. Any number of Peter Doocy questions that get dismantled by Jen Psaki at the press briefings. Mitch McConnell's repeated hypocrisies.

[iNow]

7 hours ago, Intoscience said:

Whether or not it makes a difference,

It doesn’t. All that matters is that people like you and me who otherwise agree and align on 97% or more of what matters in our day-to-day lives keep fussing and arguing with each other over silly petty nonsense instead of focusing our energies on coming together and solving actual problems that affect our actual lives and actual families and collective futures. 

[MigL]

2 hours ago, swansont said:

He won, so how does one demonstrate that he made things worse?

I am of the opinion that he got more 'push back' on his choice than he would have otherwise gotten had he not made the pre-announcement of the selection criteria.
You seem to think he would have gotten the same, from the usual suspects.
I guess we'll never know which of us is rght, because he can't take back the pre-announcement.

The biggest strawman going on here is that, although a few of us have said there is no problem with the selection of KBJ, but there could be a problem with the announcing that he would "pick a black woman', as that gives the imopression of discrimination based on skin color and gender, some others are still arguing that we think the selection is discriminatory.
Some have gone as far as throwing out the  'walks like a duck' line to insinuate we might be racist.
For pointing out what could be considered racism !

Then he goes on to claim that my ( and JC's ) argument is simplistic and esy to understand.
Meanwhile we cannot possibly understand his argument because it is complex and nuanced ( and we are after all, just racist simpletons, who need to have prejudicial discrimination explaine with an out-of-context dictionary definition )

 

We now have white, blacks and a latino on the SC, but orientals are catching up fast with 7 % of US population.
Based on some of the justifications presented in defence of Biden's pre-announcement, should we expect an announcement for his next pick of a 'gay oriental' ?
I, myself, don't think skin color, gender, sexual orientation, religion, etc. should ever be a criteria for selection.
But according to some people, that makes me a racist.

That person, and he knows who he is, needs to give his head a shake.
( unless he can't because it is firmly wedged up his ass )
 

Rant completed; carry on.

Edited April 22, 2022 by MigL

[iNow]

27 minutes ago, MigL said:

I, myself, don't think skin color, gender, sexual orientation, religion, etc. should ever be a criteria for selection.

And when you become president, you can act on this preference.

Until then, many of us recognize this is something with a long standing precedent and find it hypocritical to single out Biden specifically despite so many other of his predecessors doing the EXACT SAME THING.

 

28 minutes ago, MigL said:

should we expect an announcement for his next pick of a 'gay oriental' ?

* homesexual Asian

[MigL]

Again, my gripe is NOT with his selection, rather the fact that his pre-announcement could be seen as discriminatory.

Things will be different when I'm President !

And J Biden most likely said the exact same as above, when he ran for President against the previous orange haired buffoon.
So we all expected different.
And better.
Yet you say he should do the EXACT SAME THING as his predecessors ?
( people tend to focus on the actions of current Presidents, and direct criticism  at them )

41 minutes ago, iNow said:

* homesexual Asian

Sorry, it's a full time job keeping up with politically correct language.
But words either hurt people, or they don't.
Don't make the argument that my words hurt homosexual Asians, then excuse J Biden for saying he will "pick a black woman", and possibly hurt other groups/skin colors and gender identities.

[iNow]

7 minutes ago, MigL said:

Yet you say he should do the EXACT SAME THING as his predecessors ?

Correct 

At least in this context and on this topic 

[MSC]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

Some have gone as far as throwing out the  'walks like a duck' line to insinuate we might be racist.
For pointing out what could be considered racism !

Then he goes on to claim that my ( and JC's ) argument is simplistic and esy to understand.
Meanwhile we cannot possibly understand his argument because it is complex and nuanced ( and we are after all, just racist simpletons, who need to have prejudicial discrimination explaine with an out-of-context dictionary definition )

That dictionary definition was in context but okay. I already apologized in general a few lines ago. But I can be more direct.

In regards to the racist accusation, I take it back. I'm sorry. In all honesty after the last time I said that, I regretted it about 20 minutes after I said it because you did actually say that in all you agreed KBJ deserved the job. But at that point it had been up too long so I couldn't edit it away. 

I didn't actually say simplistic though, I said "not difficult to understand" in response to you insinuating that I was just too stupid to see your point. (In the reverse would you not have reacted similarly?) As for not grasping my points, I still feel like most of it was missed but I'm not overly concerned about that, at least not anymore. I didn't really think it was because you or JC are stupid either, but because I had written a lot and it felt like you were both just skimming it over and reading to respond rather than reading to understand. Especially the holistic review and affirmative action stuff.

I said last night, I really am just tired of anger in general and I really don't like falling out with people over arguments like these. We were agreeing to respectfully disagree just a few pages ago, then things escalated and I think we both said things to each other that are beneath us. I regret the things I said to you, sincerely. I was getting frustrated and close to losing my temper at the time. These are the reasons, not excuses. I still feel bad about it and do hope you can forgive me there.

I remember when I got my 1year suspension during a mental breakdown and that you had posted kind words to me after the fact. I appreciated those kind words at the time and still do. 

While I still believe your expectations of Biden are too idealistic, there is nothing wrong with wanting a better world where we genuinely don't have to worry about discrimination anymore and people of all races are confident that a SC nominee is going to do right by them, regardless of who they are. So while I don't agree with you, I do actually wish you were correct. I'm still a bit of an idealist too deep down.

[iNow]

18 minutes ago, MigL said:

Sorry, it's a full time job keeping up with politically correct language.

Yeah. Poor you. You’re obviously the victim here, referring to entire continents of people as a type of rug. 

On 4/20/2022 at 9:42 PM, iNow said:

Your suggestion seems to be that I’m a liar who doesn’t stand by what he says. Am I reading you correctly?

Still unclear here, btw

[MSC]

9 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I would certainly agree it can be, especially when it's just assumed their opinions should be self serving.

True, although I would point out that in this instance, self-serving, could be considered justified here if it enables  feelings of restoration and reparation. Seeking justice for one's self or one's community for past wrongs,, is definitely self serving, but not a bad expression of it imo. 

But you're right, we shouldn't assume what the opinions are either way until these wanker journalists do their damn jobs and get the information that would actually help our discussion, out there. 

[StringJunky]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

Sorry, it's a full time job keeping up with politically correct language.
But words either hurt people, or they don't.
Don't make the argument that my words hurt homosexual Asians, then excuse J Biden for saying he will "pick a black woman", and possibly hurt other groups/skin colors and gender identities.

It is not fair to call people that are born in a culture, and identify as part of that culture, something which they are not.  For instance a person with Oriental  heritage, born in the US, is not 'Oriental'... they are American. Unlike an indigenous Oriental person, who I think, don't regard it as offensive, creates a sense of discrimination from their fellow Americans. You are not what your skin tells people, but the way you behave culturally to which you identify. If you called an Inuit an 'Eskimo', when they aren't, you will annoy them because even though an Eskimo is an Inuit, they are not Eskimos. In the UK, in the past,  anybody from up that part of the world was described as an Eskimo.

This change in cultural sensitivity has come to the fore because of the increased exposure via the internet. These mistakes are being replicated many more times than pre-internet, so it's become a more prominent issue. It has forced us to see more shades of grey than we did before... much less black and white.... in ethnic terms and figuratively.

Edited April 22, 2022 by StringJunky

[beecee]

3 hours ago, MigL said:

Again, my gripe is NOT with his selection, rather the fact that his pre-announcement could be seen as discriminatory.

And with all due respect, considering that the choice of the black female was one being discriminated against for a couple of hundred years or so, and considering that she is qualified anyway, and considering there is no other black female on that panel of judges, I see Biden's prempt as a rather non event.

3 hours ago, MigL said:

Sorry, it's a full time job keeping up with politically correct language.

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

This change in cultural sensitivity has come to the fore because of the increased exposure via the internet. 

🤣 Ahh, I could go on and on about political correctness, in many instances being taken too far, and going from the sublime to the ridiculoius. I had this feminazi tell me I was a sexist because I addressed a female bank clerk and others as "love"....or that a manhole cover was equally disciminatory speech...or the paramedics that addressed my wife as "love" when I called them to her after a severe asthma attack...I could go on and on and on and on......... 

[Phi for All]

31 minutes ago, beecee said:

🤣Ahh, I could go on and on about political correctness, <snip>...I could go on and on and on and on......... 

And that's because you don't realize how offensive you can be to others, and instead of learning, you keep going on and on and on. Sure, it's a bunch of little things, but it's not that hard. You might want to start by realizing that it's relationship correctness, and has NOTHING to do with politics, unless you object to others asking for something different than what you asked for.

Don't be like the asshats in right-wing leadership here in the US, who have whole staffs full of people who brief them on everything under the sun, yet still seem to have blatant trouble pronouncing any name that isn't white Anglo-Saxon Protestant in origin. Those dumbfucks can learn enough respect to get someone's name right, but they play to their dumbfuck bases and when right-minded people object, they claim to be victims of political correctness.

Most of the Republicans questioning Ketanji Brown Jackson made no attempt to get her name right. People not fit to shine her shoes disrespected her that way. Correctness is much more respectful.

[J.C.MacSwell]

2 hours ago, StringJunky said:

It is not fair to call people that are born in a culture, and identify as part of that culture, something which they are not.  For instance a person with Oriental  heritage, born in the US, is not 'Oriental'... they are American.

Given that, how is it okay to refer to them as Asian? Honest question.

[beecee]

4 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

And that's because you don't realize how offensive you can be to others, and instead of learning, you keep going on and on and on.

I am never purposely offensive to anyone if I can help it. I'm simply saying that sometimes political correctness can be taken too far, and have given a few examples. 

7 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Don't be like the asshats in right-wing leadership here in the US, who have whole staffs full of people who brief them on everything under the sun, yet still seem to have blatant trouble pronouncing any name that isn't white Anglo-Saxon Protestant in origin. Those dumbfucks can learn enough respect to get someone's name right, but they play to their dumbfuck bases and when right-minded people object, they claim to be victims of political correctness.

Don't worry about me. We are having elections in Australia in late May, and I am doing my little part in getting rid of all the dumbfucks and arsehats in Australian political life. 

[MSC]

22 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Given that, how is it okay to refer to them as Asian? Honest question.

Because Asian-American is what gets put into all types of forms. I think it's about trying to find a happy medium between combating racism while keeping secure feelings of cultural pride in one's heritage, as well as safety for medical signposting. That said, you can also be more specific than that Japanese-American, Scottish-American etc. Obviously Scottish is not Asian, but I'm not from the Caucasus either so I can't be Caucasian 😂.

Sometimes I wonder what it would be like in the very extreme. I'm not white, I'm more of a light rose and peach colour and in the summer I'm light brown. What if I want to be prejudiced against fake tan orange people? Is that okay? Or what if I want to create a new basis for race based on height or areola shape and circumference? What if someone's parents are European but they were born somewhere in Asia? Can they be European-Asian? 

I suppose we should just be thankful that identity politics isn't as confusing as the above extreme, but it still is pretty confusing. From the perspective of a centrist, it sometimes feels like the left and right political extremes make it feel like there is nothing nice to say anymore. If the rule is if you have nothing nice to say, say nothing at all, and there is nothing nice to say anymore, that's just a lot of silence. 

Maybe I should just address everyone and everything by their name or living being? 

27 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

And that's because you don't realize how offensive you can be to others, and instead of learning, you keep going on and on and on. Sure, it's a bunch of little things, but it's not that hard. You might want to start by realizing that it's relationship correctness, and has NOTHING to do with politics, unless you object to others asking for something different than what you asked for.

I do like what you said about relationship correctness. I remember watching a Ted talk on something called emotional correctness. It described the idea of being more in line with the feeling of something than the politics of it. For example, in the Abortion debate, both sides could do with better remembering that both views come from a similar sentiment of care toward a living being. 

Or when disagreeing with one another, not getting angry at being disagreed with or having someone point out a mistake to you and then angrily punishing them on that basis alone. I'm just saying that in general, thats not directed towards anyone here. 

Edited April 22, 2022 by MSC

[StringJunky]

17 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Given that, how is it okay to refer to them as Asian? Honest question.

I would imagine they prefer 'American-Asian'. I don't know, but maybe 'Oriental' has negative Colonial-era connotations for them .

[Phi for All]

3 minutes ago, beecee said:

I am never purposely offensive to anyone if I can help it.

Should this excuse you from pronouncing my name right, or learning any of my other preferences? If you were purposely offensive, we'd be having a completely different conversation.

4 minutes ago, beecee said:

I'm simply saying that sometimes political correctness can be taken too far, and have given a few examples. 

You gave strawman-worthy examples so you could show how easy "political correctness" can go too far. What we're talking about here, in this tangent to the Jackson SCOTUS appointment, is the disrespect shown to people when you mispronounce their name, or refer to their heritage by some offensive colonial term they've been forced to live with for decades. 

We're living in a time when our human capabilities for communication and cooperation are at their highest point. We're being exposed to many new ideas, peoples, traditions, behaviors, and processes. People are asking you to care about more than yourself, and part of that is simple respect for their ways. As more diverse people gain seats of power, it should be important to us that all can find representation and dignity.