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?

[Peterkin]

Quote

  One court appointment, or one cabinet appointment, doesn't constitute discrimination against all those who were not appointed. If an entire identifiable group is absent from both court and cabinet, one has cause to question whether the reason is systemic discrimination. Each appointment has to come from one group and no other. If every group but one is considered, it's probably discrimination. If only one group is considered, it's certainly discrimination.

34 minutes ago, MigL said:

because Peterkin seems to be in denial, and wants to go around 28 times ...

Somebody seems to be in something.... It's a pattern-recognition problem, not an optical one; optics are changed by snip-and-tuck.

Edited April 19, 2022 by Peterkin

[MSC]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

Could he not have told them that with his actual selection, instead of announcing he would "pick a black female" beforehand, and alienating the other half of voters ?

Biden was/is already alienated from nearly the other half of voting districts (but not voters.) due to this ever escalating hyperpartisan politics of the past few decades. He wasn't going to win fans amongst the Trump/q-anon wing of the Republican party, no-matter what he did in regards to this nomination. I mean a few of them believe he's a reptilian, cannibalistic pedophile... even though there is major fucking logic break between reptilian and cannibal by eating humans?

A reptile isn't a cannibal if it eats a human dummies! At least get your weird conspiracy theories somewhat logically coherent! That's obviously not directed at you MigL. I know you don't believe that nonsense. 

Putting my angry tangent aside, my point, is just that this Supreme Court nomination was not even close to some fantastic olive branch that would have effectively nurtured non-partisan unity with voters and the districts. It was for black people, who identify very much so with their race by majority and consider it an important part of who they are. I mean, I don't feel the same way about my whiteness sure, maybe a little about my nationality I guess, my socioeconomic class is more important to me than both, but ultimately I'm pretty cosmopolitan in nature. Which drives me to ultimately just be happy for KBJs achievement and a win for a group of people long trodden on or ignored. I can dig the spirit of that completely. For me it's people first over politics any day, and nobody came to any real harm because of how Biden went about it. Without real harm, I just don't feel the need to be overly critical for the sake of being tough on Biden.

[MigL]

This was already addressed, here ...

 

17 hours ago, MigL said:

On 4/18/2022 at 12:29 PM, Peterkin said:

BTW One court appointment, or one cabinet appointment, doesn't constitute discrimination against all those who were not appointed.

The appointment of KBJ is not discriminatory; announcing beforehand that he would choose a back female does fit your crteria for discrimination.
Quote : "If only one group is considered, it's certainly discrimination."

Do try to keep up.
( or maybe read other people's posts, and remember what you yourself wrote )

4 minutes ago, MSC said:

Biden was/is already alienated from nearly the other half of voting districts (but not voters.) due to this ever escalating hyperpartisan politics of the past few decades.

Isn't it about time to start changing things ?
Or do you think the Republicans are going to do it ?
Whatever happened to we, progressive Democrats, are the sensible party, that cares for the country and ALL its people ?

[MSC]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

Just in case anyone wants to know where that quote came from, because Peterkin seems to be in denial, and wants to go around 28 times ...

Haven't we already been over this? Positive and negative discrimination, affirmative action, concrete harm, holistic review. I went over all of these. So why are you still implying that all forms of discrimination are wrong? Would you hold it against me if I didn't want to date a 78 year old woman as a married 28 year old man? Isn't that discriminatory? What If I don't want to sleep with black men because I'm heterosexual? Does that make me a homophobic bigot? What if I say I prefer hanging out with my African friends over my Scottish ones? Am I not being discriminatory? 

Like seriously, Biden shared a preference for an important job, a preference which favored a group of people normally left out, nobody was hurt, the preference isn't going to now be strictly enforced everytime and I'm supposed to buy that it was somehow a mistake or wrong of him to do so? Because a few people have an opinion about it? One that cannot really be backed up with anecdotal evidence of he said she said. What could even be done about it if the opinion had any merit? A civil suit for hurt feelings because a black woman got a promotion?

Can you see why I'm having such a hard time with understanding this?

[MigL]

7 minutes ago, MSC said:

Haven't we already been over this?

Yes we have.
But apparently you and Peterkin don't read my posts.

On 4/18/2022 at 12:44 PM, MigL said:

I will simply say, discrimination is NOT bad; it is done all the time in the process of choosing.
Discrimination on the basis of skin color, gender, religion, etc. IS bad, as a matter of fact, it is against the law.

J Biden's pre-announcement gave the impression ( whether warranted or not ) to some people, that he was choosing according to skin color and gender.

And you, re-stating YOUR opinion doesn't negate MY opinion.

[MSC]

8 minutes ago, MigL said:

Isn't it about time to start changing things ?

That is what Biden has been trying to do the entire time and he campaigned on unity and harmony! How is trying to appoint the first black woman to the Supreme Court not changing things? And how exactly is he meant to change things quickly within one year and a slim majority in the senate? This system wasn't built from the ground up, overnight yesterday with Biden at the helm. You don't think every politician sets out to change things and struggles to do a thing because of all the red tape? 

Keep in mind exactly what Biden inherited, leadership of a country where a sizeable fraction of it is in a personality cult centered around Donald Trump. Cult member adherence to a narrative is one of the HARDEST things to break. 

Do me a favor, think back to the year 2014, and who you were then, if Obama had done this then, and a black woman was going to be confirmed to the Supreme Court then, and Obama had stated so before, would you have spoken up then? Would you have shouted discrimination?

1 minute ago, MigL said:

Yes we have.
But apparently you and Peterkin don't read my posts.

I read your posts, but noticed a distinct lack of answers to pretty much every question I've put to you. I read the posts, they just didn't convince me that you had reasonably countered any of my points and a lot remain ignored.

2 minutes ago, MigL said:

And you, re-stating YOUR opinion doesn't negate MY opinion

It's not my opinion that for it to be a breach of the law in the eyes of a court, the bar is set at proof of concrete harm. Where is the proof of concrete harm? That's what would be required if the discrimination takes place in employment, Healthcare, education etc so why would it be any different for the top level of the court itself? Is there some high crime and misdemeanor I don't know about? 

[Peterkin]

40 minutes ago, MigL said:

Do try to keep up.

Whatever for?

[MigL]

Maybe this is a difference between Canadian law and American law ...

30 minutes ago, MSC said:

It's not my opinion that for it to be a breach of the law in the eyes of a court, the bar is set at proof of concrete harm. Where is the proof of concrete harm?

Are you saying I could run an ad that says

"Apartment for rent. Only white males will be considered."

That is the 'optics' ( Peterkin's favorite word ) of J Biden's pre-announcement, to a lot of his constituents.
Regardless of who he actually, eventually, apointed.

 

7 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Whatever for?

So you don't look confused, and out of your depth.

Edited April 19, 2022 by MigL

[MSC]

3 minutes ago, MigL said:

"Apartment for rent. Only white males will be considered."

No. It's not even that similar of a scenario. 

49 minutes ago, MigL said:

Whatever happened to we, progressive Democrats, are the sensible party, that cares for the country and ALL its people ?

Need to revisit this. I would hug all people. That does not mean I can hug all people at once. What do you want Biden to do? Put multiple people onto one chair? Where does this cater to everyone all at once or not at all mentality come from? It's one seat on a court where white people are already represented. Why are people so offended at being told directly and transparently It's time for someone else to have a turn. This is basic kid stuff man. If there is one slice of cake left and one person hasn't yet had any, why oh why would it be wrong to give them the cake?

[Peterkin]

9 minutes ago, MigL said:

So you don't look confused, and out of your depth.

I'm not obsessed with 'optics'.

[MSC]

3 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

I'm not obsessed with 'optics'.

It's a projection. His only fall claim to wrong doing at this point has been dialed back to "but it looks bad to some people." 

You're definitely not the one obsessed with optics so don't worry about it. I think this thread has probably just run its course.

[J.C.MacSwell]

4 hours ago, MSC said:

I don't know, I guess to me, being explicit about characteristic criteria for KBJ seems like Bidens way of giving racists the big ol middle finger fuck you. 

Among other things it certainly does.

How exactly does that middle finger help win over the hearts and minds of these racists? How does it help steer some away from the malice required to hold those views, or the ignorance required for most of the others? How does it help them think clearly and not justify their racism?

[CharonY]

2 hours ago, MigL said:

Could he not have told them that with his actual selection, instead of announcing he would "pick a black female" beforehand, and alienating the other half of voters ?

So, looking at polls among democratic and likely democratic voters the choice was highly popular. 

I think there is one thing that one needs to understand for the US voting system (and actually to some degree also the Canadian, though a bit less so) is that due to the partisan divide, you do not win elections by getting folks from the other aisle or trying to get the biggest consensus. You win elections by mobilizing folks on your side (if we put the issue of gerrymandering aside for the moment) not by trying to get others to move to your side. I.e. the goal is to combat apathy. The GOP is doing that by creating a visceral response based on fear. Themes like white displacement, LGBTQ agendas, immigrants and economic fears (often tied to the former) are wedge issues that create emotional responses and trigger all the right identity politics boxes that helps getting a higher turnout. 

Especially in the polarized atmosphere we are right now, trying to stay in the middle and appease those that won't vote for you either way is a ticket out of power.

 

[MSC]

1 minute ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

How exactly does that middle finger help win over the hearts and minds of these racists? How does it help steer some away from the malice required to hold those views, or the ignorance required for most of the others? How does it help them think clearly and not justify their racism?

By modeling good behavior and saying it's about damn time there was some more diversity on the court. Republicans got to have their picks, they were white, yippee for white people, we had the last turn. Time for someone else. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

...and how does KJB feel about that finger that Biden projected "on her behalf"? If I was her I think I would have preferred just the appointment...I would think that would be enough of a challenge on it's own....and of course it was not on her behalf at all as it was on Biden's.

[CharonY]

7 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

How exactly does that middle finger help win over the hearts and minds of these racists? How does it help steer some away from the malice required to hold those views, or the ignorance required for most of the others? How does it help them think clearly and not justify their racism?

While there are ways to engage with racists, appeasing them at every step won't win them over, either. One of the few effective methods is direct engagement but other than that folks generally have their own bubbles either way. Appoint a white man and they would against it for being a liberal. A white woman is a direct attack on masculinity. A black person or any other minority is obviously just a ploy to diminish hard working white folks. 

However, changing the system and normalizing e.g. black women in places of power at least creates the chance that at some point this state will be normalized. Just as a silly example, in non-diverse groups or universities immigrant often were made fun of of their accents or were just considered too hard to understand to engage. One of the most common things in student evaluations are complaints about accents. Yet the more diverse the setting (i.e. more folks talk with different accents) the more folks are used to that. Do they stop being annoyed by it? Perhaps not, but at some point they put up with it as this is just the way things are now.

I.e. changing the norm requires changing the system to some degree up until it becomes normal again.

 

[J.C.MacSwell]

8 minutes ago, MSC said:

By modeling good behavior and saying it's about damn time there was some more diversity on the court. Republicans got to have their picks, they were white, yippee for white people, we had the last turn. Time for someone else. 

So you're saying giving the finger to the ignorant is good behaviour?

[beecee]

29 minutes ago, MigL said:

And you, re-stating YOUR opinion doesn't negate MY opinion.

While essentially I disagree with your general thoughts on this matter, the above is of course correct, and I can certainly relate to that. And by the same token, the newly discovered or recognised forms of political correctness, is also sometimes taken too far...imo of course! 

7 minutes ago, MigL said:

That is the 'optics' ( Peterkin's favorite word ) of J Biden's pre-announcement, to a lot of his constituents.
Regardless of who he actually, eventually, apointed.

And again, of course to many, that would indeed be what would be understood by some. But perhaps we need to  widen our area of thinking, and understand that in the past, the white male has indeed been in an elevated position, and that woman and non whites have been discriminated against. Therefore, again imo, if we have a non white woman, of equal qualifications, wouldn't it be morally correct to recognise that while morally all judges should judge without fear or favour, and irrespective of colour or background, they are also human? (and most humans do have biases) So recognising that justice must not only be done, but be seen to be done, what is wrong then in chosing a female non white that is qualified? And further more, what is wrong with Biden chosing a morally honest approach, and informing his constituents, that these are the grounds and reasons for his choice, which seems to be your bone of contention.

Again, as an aside, I would like to hear more from the VP, Harris on this and other matters.

24 minutes ago, MigL said:

Could he not have told them that with his actual selection, instead of announcing he would "pick a black female" beforehand, and alienating the other half of voters ?

You can please some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you aint ever going to please all of the people all of the time.

 

[MSC]

3 minutes ago, CharonY said:

So, looking at polls among democratic and likely democratic voters the choice was highly popular.

Wonder how it polled among black Republicans.

8 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Especially in the polarized atmosphere we are right now, trying to stay in the middle and appease those that won't vote for you either way is a ticket out of power.

You just need to look at how Collins, Murkowski, Romney, McConnell and Cheney are being treated by the rest of the GOP right now, to know this currently rings true. Or Manchin on the democrats side. I don't think any of them could win a presidential election tbh.

[beecee]

Just now, CharonY said:

While there are ways to engage with racists, appeasing them at every step won't win them over, either.

Bingo! aint that true!!!

[J.C.MacSwell]

2 minutes ago, CharonY said:

While there are ways to engage with racists, appeasing them at every step won't win them over, either. One of the few effective methods is direct engagement but other than that folks generally have their own bubbles either way. Appoint a white man and they would against it for being a liberal. A white woman is a direct attack on masculinity. A black person or any other minority is obviously just a ploy to diminish hard working white folks. 

However, changing the system and normalizing e.g. black women in places of power at least creates the chance that at some point this state will be normalized. Just as a silly example, in non-diverse groups or universities immigrant often were made fun of of their accents or were just considered too hard to understand to engage. One of the most common things in student evaluations are complaints about accents. Yet the more diverse the setting (i.e. more folks talk with different accents) the more folks are used to that. Do they stop being annoyed by it? Perhaps not, but at some point they put up with it as this is just the way things are now.

I.e. changing the norm requires changing the system to some degree up until it becomes normal again.

 

This is a very good argument for his choice and no real argument at all to support the way he went about it. It really doesn't address my post.

If maintaining polarization of the population is a more worthwhile goal than social progress, Biden's handling of this was right on the mark. 

[Endy0816]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

This was already addressed, here ...

 

Do try to keep up.
( or maybe read other people's posts, and remember what you yourself wrote )

Isn't it about time to start changing things ?
Or do you think the Republicans are going to do it ?
Whatever happened to we, progressive Democrats, are the sensible party, that cares for the country and ALL its people ?

The parties always tend to mirror each other(in some respects).

 

15 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

So you're saying giving the finger to the ignorant is good behaviour?

Here the alternative tends to be zero progress if you don't.

...and they gave it to themselves to sone extent. Filibusters used to help moderate things.

Edited April 19, 2022 by Endy0816

[MSC]

Just now, J.C.MacSwell said:

So you're saying giving the finger to the ignorant is good behaviour?

No, Which Biden hasn't literally done. But since racists aren't the majority, the optics of metaphorically giving them the finger wins over others. Black conservatives for example. 

To be clear, bidens not actually flipping anyone off. Don't know why I'm having to argue that. That's a bottom of the barrel type argument dude. Did you really not understand that I was being metaphorical or are you just grasping at straws?

 

17 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

maintaining polarization of the population is a more worthwhile goal than social progress, Biden's handling of this was right on the mark. 

In what world is the first woman whom is black to be on the Supreme Court not social progress? In upside-down land? This is getting comical. Are you just doing satire?

[J.C.MacSwell]

5 minutes ago, MSC said:

No, Which Biden hasn't literally done. But since racists aren't the majority, the optics of metaphorically giving them the finger wins over others. Black conservatives for example. 

To be clear, bidens not actually flipping anyone off. Don't know why I'm having to argue that. That's a bottom of the barrel type argument dude. Did you really not understand that I was being metaphorical or are you just grasping at straws?

 

You seemed to recognize that a certain group would feel flipped off by the way Biden went about it and touted it as a good thing.

I'm asking how that is a good thing. Not through the pick. Through the way he went about it. 

How is what you thought was so great helpful...or if not helpful...how is it so great?

 

[CharonY]

37 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

This is a very good argument for his choice and no real argument at all to support the way he went about it. It really doesn't address my post.

It does actually. He wants to create enthusiasm among those supporting such choices. So he announces that he is going to fill a position with a black woman and then he does. This is a signal that he is committing to their values rather than having incidentally a black woman on the list. 

I am not sure where the confusion is. Have you heard of movie trailers? They announce what they are going to show well ahead of time. There is a reason for that. They shore up enthusiasm and try to keep up momentum until the movies shows. Here, Biden can say that he is committed to what he and his voters consider to be right right move and rather than trying to hide it. 

I think doing it in a conspicuous way in order not to offend the GOP would be seen as a weakness from most of his potential voters. I.e. you need to see politics from the viewpoint of the political system.