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]

You guys are still arguing the point that the selection wasn't racist; and I agree, it wasn't.
What was racist was the pre-announcement.

1 hour ago, MSC said:

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

 

It is exactly the same.
You have a vacancy, whether an apartment or a SC seat.
You announce beforehand that you will select a white male for the apartment, or a black female for the SC.
Please, point out the difference.
  

59 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.

So, is the purpose to simply stay in power, or to actually fix what you yourself aknowledge is wrong with America ?
 

53 minutes ago, CharonY said:

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

Not appeasement, but showing them the 'better'way.
By setting an example that unites instead of further polarizing.

America has shown the world the 'better way' of democracy, and more and more countries are starting to recognize that, and follow suit.
How sad that that the political parties of this great democracyhave to polarize, and get the voters to hate each other, so as to retain power and the Presidency.

[J.C.MacSwell]

23 minutes ago, CharonY said:

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.

I think it's short term thinking but maybe you are right. We'll see how it pans out in the midterms.

[CharonY]

51 minutes ago, MigL said:

Not appeasement, but showing them the 'better'way.
By setting an example that unites instead of further polarizing.

If history is any indication, that does not work. You have to acknowledge that for quite a sizeable proportion of the population a better way is just the things as they always were. Giving folks equal rights (see certain Eastern European countries and LGBTQ rights for example) is considered an essential threat to the way things were. I am not sure what a "better way" there would be. 

 

51 minutes ago, MigL said:

America has shown the world the 'better way' of democracy, and more and more countries are starting to recognize that, and follow suit.

I am not sure whether you were paying attention, but in the last years America has shown the world that you can threaten democracy by simply denying reality without paying a political price (though to be fair, other countries like Hungary have pioneered that). And this "better" way of democracy is seeping outward. Consider the freedom convoy and their claims regarding the first amendment. In Canada (Manitobans, eh?).

Again, folks that assert a critical threat to their identity (e.g. the alt-right movement as seen by their successes in Europe and basically their takeover of the GOP in the USA and tendrils getting into Canada) will always have a stronger ability to shore outrage and even a sense of community. The new thing is really that we managed to abandon facts entirely (rather than playing with it loosely as in the past).

There is a lot to unpack there, but I'd rather not hijack it anymore than I've already done.

41 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I think it's short term thinking but maybe you are right. We'll see how it pans out in the midterms.

The average voter has the memory of a goldfish and politics treats them as such. That is why we have slogans instead of whole sentences (or even paragraphs).

I actually doubt that KBJ is a big wedge issue, it is more of a short-term battleground and could be used to further isolate and marginalize the few remaining moderate Republicans. There are other issues, including the current economy which are going to hurt the Democrats.

Meanwhile, shit-stirrers such as JP try to take advantage of such things and try to elevate it to some kind of moral outrage in order to stay relevant. 

 

[MSC]

34 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

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.

Last I checked, being a racist isn't a protected characteristic. Standing up to racists, is a good thing. Taking an addicts heroin away could be perceived by them to be "flipping" them off, but it's better than enablement. 

It doesn't matter if they feel flipped off, in reality, they weren't! In fact, they were done a service. By not capitulating to racist ideologies, we set a boundary that it isn't tolerated anywhere; no matter who is on the receiving end of it, white, black etc. Biden is the leader of the executive branch of government, he isn't a therapist to racists nor is he their parent. 

44 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

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

You mean pointing out he was sticking to a campaign promise and being transparent? You tell me how that isn't a good thing? You cannot please everyone. Why should he try to please racists more than the people that voted for him? Voted for him knowing he made that promise I might add?Political mandate knocking!

Is something only good if 100% of people recognize it as such? Because by that standard, everything is bad. 

 

 

[swansont]

5 hours ago, MigL said:

I find it amusing that people are saying how refreshing it is to have a President who does what he said he was going to do, yet you claim that when he said he would "pick a black female" for SCJ, that wasn't really true, and all sorts of other criteria were considered.

So “I will pick a black female” suggests to you that no other criteria were considered? Wow, how lucky he picked someone with impeccable credentials for SCOTUS and not some housewife who only had a semester of junior college and was going to major in art history!

 

 

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

Not appeasement, but showing them the 'better'way.
By setting an example that unites instead of further polarizing.

What if the "better way" involves NOT trying to unite with lying racist homophobes who don't believe in democracy anymore? Why isn't it noble to stand against oppressive, slaver mentality any more?

Why would you think lying racist homophobes would look at anything to their left as "an example"? Aren't they too busy looking to Jordan Peterson for answers to everything?

[iNow]

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I think it's short term thinking but maybe you are right. We'll see how it pans out in the midterms.

The outcome of the midterms are already predetermined. Looks like a 30-35 seat loss coming. They’re not going to be the barometer on how popular Democratic policies and practices are that you seem to think they will be. 

But I’m sure you’ll keep repeating this talking point that the reason they lose so many seats is because they do silly things like appeal to their voters by sticking to campaign promises on stuff like SCOTUS picks.

Edited April 20, 2022 by iNow

[TheVat]

3 hours ago, MSC said:

 

A reptile isn't a cannibal if it eats a human dummies! At least get your weird conspiracy theories somewhat logically coherent! 

 

Yes.  I would only add (and plus one for making me laugh) that it's also confusing that a reptile pedophile would be going after human children.  From what I've heard, pedophiles tend to prefer children of their own species.  Sexually molesting juveniles of other species would be categorized as bestiality - also a political liability, at least in northern states*, but Catherine the Great made it work just fine.  

Sorry I can no longer generate much further insight on the thread topic.  Like several members, I see these kinds of selections, and prior announcements to a voter base, as pretty much standard political practice.  I mean, the people who didn't like Biden saying his intentions out loud already didn't vote for him and already aren't switching parties or ideologies.  So what are they going to do, yell at us?  Stomp their feet?

 

* no hate mail please, I'm just kidding

  

[MigL]

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

What if the "better way" involves NOT trying to unite with lying racist homophobes who don't believe in democracy anymore? Why isn't it noble to stand against oppressive, slaver mentality any more?

Why would you think lying racist homophobes would look at anything to their left as "an example"? Aren't they too busy looking to Jordan Peterson for answers to everything?

So, if you don't want to educate your fellow citizens as to the 'better' way, what do you propose to do with them ?

Start another civil war ?
Fire up the gas chambers for a 'final solution' ?
Send them all to goulags in Alaska ( more likely Florida and Texas ) ?

How long can you guys keep butting heads with the opposition ?
Until another Jan 6 incident finally works, and destroys your democracy ?
 

6 minutes ago, TheVat said:

but Catherine the Great made it work just fine. 

I don't think the horse story is actually true 😄 .
(

Edited April 20, 2022 by MigL

[zapatos]

18 hours ago, Intoscience said:

So in an act of ending colour and gender discrimination, he pre-announces that he will choose a person based on their skin colour and gender.  All sounds rather hypercritical wouldn't you say?

I understand why you say that, and I don't feel the need to try to get you to move to a different conclusion. But I will offer my own viewpoint which interprets the same set of facts differently.

When a group is discriminated against it is not perceived by some to be discriminatory to single out that group for reparations. In fact, it is not really possible to make up for past harm done to a group without singling out that group. That is the reasoning behind Affirmative Action.

Ensuring that future actions and decisions by government no longer favor white people does not make up for past harm. It only ensures no future harm. To make up for past harm you must identify the group that was harmed and do something extra for them.

If I unfairly singled you out and didn't give you a raise at work for years, then after a decade I proclaim I've seen the foolishness of my actions and vow to treat everyone equally going forward, you will be happy that from then on you will be treated fairly and get a raise every year just like the others. But you and I might also think it reasonable that I single you out above the others for a bonus. Some others might think it is hypocritical for me to give you something extra when I've just said I'm going to treat everyone equally, but some of us, including me, would find that to be fair.

So, while you may find giving blacks a bonus to make up for part harms is hypocritical, to me is seem like the right thing to do.

Edited April 20, 2022 by zapatos

[iNow]

21 minutes ago, MigL said:

So, if you don't want to educate your fellow citizens as to the 'better' way, what do you propose to do with them ?

Start another civil war ?
Fire up the gas chambers for a 'final solution' ?
Send them all to goulags in Alaska ( more likely Florida and Texas ) ?

How long can you guys keep butting heads with the opposition ?
Until another Jan 6 incident finally works, and destroys your democracy ?

It was subtle, but I particularly like how you’ve just blamed Democrats for causing the January 6 insurrection and suggest they’re the ones “gunning” for civil war.

Come to think of it… It’s probably also their fault climate change is being ignored, and that vaccines and masks continue being avoided, and that teachers and LGBTQ kids and books are all being targeting for burning among the right, too. 

Damn. If only those Dems would stop saying what they’re going to do while campaigning then actually later do it once they win the popular vote since those ideas were most popular amongst the voters. Gosh.

[CharonY]

16 minutes ago, MigL said:

So, if you don't want to educate your fellow citizens as to the 'better' way, what do you propose to do with them ?

Start another civil war ?
Fire up the gas chambers for a 'final solution' ?
Send them all to goulags in Alaska ( more likely Florida and Texas ) ?

How long can you guys keep butting heads with the opposition ?
Until another Jan 6 incident finally works, and destroys your democracy ?

Simply put, I have no solution. Look, I am unable to convince college student that the COVID-19 pandemic is deadly and threat to us all, what chance do I have convincing a bigot that pigments, sexual orientation does not make a person better or worse. But the evidence suggests that trying to bow to these pressures does nothin to fix the underlying problems. Poverty measures in the US which were assumed to lift black folks out of poverty mostly helped white folks. Economics based college admissions allowed more poor white folks to get into unis. Trying not to upset folks did a) nothing to solve problems that need addressing and b) still results in anti-democratic movements.

Faced with this choice I'd rather opt for doing the right thing and not worry too much about whether it might upset the majority. Look, my perspective might be a bit different on this issue as I was trained since childhood to traipse around the majority folks and not upset anyone because it will harm social interactions and career prospects. I still had to leave the country I grew up in, in order to get a job. And seeing the young folks now asserting their rights I start questioning whether I made the right choices when I was young. 

[TheVat]

29 minutes ago, MigL said:

So, if you don't want to educate your fellow citizens as to the 'better' way, what do you propose to do with them ?

Start another civil war ?
Fire up the gas chambers for a 'final solution' ?
Send them all to goulags in Alaska ( more likely Florida and Texas ) ?

Gosh, Godwin's  Law proves itself once again. (It's gulags, btw) Sorry, I don't think it's the Left or progressives  that have been talking concentration camps and putting people in cages.  You may want to review the recent activity of the Trumpists and Far Right in the US before you start making comparisons between Democrats and Nazi Germany.

29 minutes ago, MigL said:

How long can you guys keep butting heads with the opposition ?

We can keep rejecting their lies, their deeply flawed information sources, their bigotry, their misogyny and racism, their loathing for easy access to the polls for all Americans, and their idiotic disrespect for knowledge, facts, and discourse grounded in facts, because it is our duty as citizens of a democratic nation to call out fellow citizens when they are harming that nation.  Your question is akin to asking how long we have to look after our children, set rules of behavior, and keep teaching them social skills: until they grow up.

29 minutes ago, MigL said:

(sorry I can't delete this quote box!)

 

Edited April 20, 2022 by TheVat
Fixed

[MSC]

20 minutes ago, MigL said:

So, if you don't want to educate your fellow citizens as to the 'better' way, what do you propose to do with them ?

Start another civil war ?
Fire up the gas chambers for a 'final solution' ?
Send them all to goulags in Alaska ( more likely Florida and Texas ) ?

That's a lot of strawmen I see before me. Nobody said any of those things. This escalation is becoming nonsensical. All that happened was Biden nominated a black woman to the Supreme Court. Nobody is going to the gas chambers and nobody is being sent to a gulag... although if one was opened in the USA, it would probably be in either Florida or under the Yankees stadium. 

Again, modeling anti-racist behavior, such as nominating the first black woman to an SC seat, to a mostly white male court, with a long history of white male courts, is what you do. Ultimately it's a free world and some people will choose to remain ignorant and reject all suggestions you put at them to fix it, because they think there is nothing wrong with that ideology and that they are superior. Have you ever had anyone spit at you and call you an n-word lover? Because I have. How do I convince someone like that of anything? Even exposure therapy works slow, especially for life long, raised to be racist, individuals. 

Again I need to ask, don't you think your expectations of Biden are too idealistic and not in line with reality? What sort of political miracles do you think he should be capable of within the framework of the 3 branch governmental system and the constitution, within his first two years,, after inheriting the presidency in the middle of a global pandemic and 4 years of governmental incompetence and political mudslinging? 

We can agree to disagree on whether or not the way he went about it was problematic or not, what we cannot disagree on however, is that what is done is done. He said what he said, did what he did and when SCOTUS reconvenes on its next term, Breyer will be retired and KBJ will be in his seat. Yknow, assuming some right wing nut jobs doesn't try to kill or kidnap her or some Trump mob threatens to storm the capital to hang her. Which yknow, five years ago I would have said was being overly dramatic, but after the behavior of Trump supporters basically trying to do both of those things with other officials (even their own VP Mike Pence), I'd be a fool to rule them out. 

In conclusion, Biden did what he thought was right, I can respect that and I agree with it being the right thing to do. Even if the "optics" looked bad to certain people, people that clearly have no axe to grind at all! (Last line was sarcasm)

 

[MigL]

And INow provides a perfect example of 'optics', because he perceives a lot of things that are absent from my post ...

47 minutes ago, TheVat said:

Gosh, Godwin's  Law proves itself once again. (It's gulags, btw)

I wasn't strictly Godwin; I also included references to American history, and Russian History ( thanks for the gulag correction ), besides Nazi history.
 

47 minutes ago, TheVat said:

Your question is akin to asking how long we have to look after our children, set rules of behavior, and keep teaching them social skills: until they grow up.

The difference being you love your children; I don't see much love directed at your Republican fellow citizens.

 

9 minutes ago, MSC said:

We can agree to disagree on whether or not the way he went about it was problematic or not, what we cannot disagree on however, is that what is done is done.

Correct.
I agree with what he did; selecting  KBJ.
I disagree with how he went about it; pre-announcing he would pick a black woman.

And again you are correct that what is done, is done.
Maybe, after all the drama, he'll have learned for next time.

Edited April 20, 2022 by MigL

[iNow]

26 minutes ago, MigL said:

I don't see much love directed at your Republican fellow citizens

They’re not some monolithic homogeneous bloc. ”Republicans” are also not the target of this thread.

Many republicans toward whom I regularly direct love readily acknowledge and admit this manufactured hysteria about Biden saying he’d pick a black female judge to become justice is a waste of our time… yet another distraction preventing us from focusing on bigger more meaningful challenges… yet another distraction preventing us from remembering the other 97% of stuff we all actually agree and align on. 

The bad actors want us fighting and dividing. Doesn’t much matter what it’s about. Let’s stop obliging them. 

Power hungry demagogues are feeding people a steady diet of hate. They’re doing so at the same time when many people are looking for someone to blame without much caring who it is or what they’ve done. We need to stop eating what they’re feeding. 

Edited April 20, 2022 by iNow

[J.C.MacSwell]

3 hours ago, zapatos said:

If I unfairly singled you out and didn't give you a raise at work for years, then after a decade I proclaim I've seen the foolishness of my actions and vow to treat everyone equally going forward, you will be happy that from then on you will be treated fairly and get a raise every year just like the others. But you and I might also think it reasonable that I single you out above the others for a bonus. Some others might think it is hypocritical for me to give you something extra when I've just said I'm going to treat everyone equally, but some of us, including me, would find that to be fair.

So, while you may find giving blacks a bonus to make up for part harms is hypocritical, to me is seem like the right thing to do.

I think I have mistreated you in the past and favoured others of a different skin colour. I now should  see the error of my ways and start overpaying someone of your skin colour, and underpaying others of a different skin colour, all on your behalf? Can you not see how people of all colours of skin might be uncomfortable with this concept?

 

3 hours ago, iNow said:

Power hungry demagogues are feeding people a steady diet of hate. They’re doing so at the same time when many people are looking for someone to blame without much caring who it is or what they’ve done. We need to stop eating what they’re feeding. 

Can you not see that unnecessary racializing is also feeding the hate. Do you ever stop to wonder why many are tiring of it?  

 

5 hours ago, MSC said:

You mean pointing out he was sticking to a campaign promise and being transparent? You tell me how that isn't a good thing? You cannot please everyone. Why should he try to please racists more than the people that voted for him? Voted for him knowing he made that promise I might add?Political mandate knocking!

Is something only good if 100% of people recognize it as such? Because by that standard, everything is bad. 

 

 

Are you at all open to the possibility that blatant racializing, even in the name of political gain, can be unhealthy and have negative effects?

5 hours ago, swansont said:

So “I will pick a black female” suggests to you that no other criteria were considered? Wow, how lucky he picked someone with impeccable credentials for SCOTUS and not some housewife who only had a semester of junior college and was going to major in art history!

 

 

Strawman much?

 

5 hours ago, swansont said:

 

5 hours ago, swansont said:

[Intoscience]

5 hours ago, zapatos said:

I understand why you say that, and I don't feel the need to try to get you to move to a different conclusion. But I will offer my own viewpoint which interprets the same set of facts differently.

When a group is discriminated against it is not perceived by some to be discriminatory to single out that group for reparations. In fact, it is not really possible to make up for past harm done to a group without singling out that group. That is the reasoning behind Affirmative Action.

Ensuring that future actions and decisions by government no longer favor white people does not make up for past harm. It only ensures no future harm. To make up for past harm you must identify the group that was harmed and do something extra for them.

If I unfairly singled you out and didn't give you a raise at work for years, then after a decade I proclaim I've seen the foolishness of my actions and vow to treat everyone equally going forward, you will be happy that from then on you will be treated fairly and get a raise every year just like the others. But you and I might also think it reasonable that I single you out above the others for a bonus. Some others might think it is hypocritical for me to give you something extra when I've just said I'm going to treat everyone equally, but some of us, including me, would find that to be fair.

So, while you may find giving blacks a bonus to make up for part harms is hypocritical, to me is seem like the right thing to do.

I can see your point and understand the premise. But I think there are ways to go about it that would sit more comfortably with the majority. Singling out whether it be positively or negatively can have repercussions, especially if there is a larger agenda or the motives are unclear.

So in your example I would question whether the additional pay was because you actually realised that I deserved the bonus or whether you did it because you wanted to look good and be seeing to be doing the right thing? 

Of course giving me the bonus is the right thing to do (assuming my efforts warrant it) if I was mistreated or discriminated against in the past.

However, the way that this is dealt with needs consideration. Pre-announcing to the everyone else that I would be getting a bonus and no one else will be, may not be the most tactful way. This singling out may make things uncomfortable for both me and my work colleagues and may put a question mark over your management skills, and motives. A much better way maybe would have been to keep it low key, then pay the bonus, and then explain to me and possibly my colleagues in detail why this had been done.

There would still be some unhappy people who felt it unjust, but for the majority based on your actions, your motive would have been clear - you genuinely wanted to set things right for the person who had been previously discriminated against, rather than trying to look good or gain popularity for yourself. Ironically you would most likely gain more popularity and respect by being more tactful anyhow.    

[swansont]

4 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Strawman much?

No. not at all. Some hyperbole, but nobody has produced evidence for the narrative that Biden did not do any due diligence before the announcement, and there is evidence that he did.

[iNow]

6 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Can you not see that unnecessary racializing is also feeding the hate. Do you ever stop to wonder why many are tiring of it?

I asked a similar question more than once earlier in this thread and have yet to receive a satisfactory answer.

Racialization has occurred for centuries. It was something earlier presidents did as recently as 4 years ago, but fairly consistently so did majority of presidents before them, too. This is an objective statement of fact, not an argument in favor.

So… If THAT is what you detest, why did you wait until NOW with THIS president on THIS one historic nomination to express your passionate outrage and concern about it?

What’s driving your timing and the timing of all these millions of others raging out about it, do you think? Is it purely an organic desire for us to reach our long missed ideals… just a coincidence that it was THIS time everyone collectively stood up to say “enough is enough?”

Edited April 20, 2022 by iNow

[Phi for All]

11 hours ago, MigL said:

So, if you don't want to educate your fellow citizens as to the 'better' way, what do you propose to do with them ?

Why do you think I don't want them to be less ignorant? Trying to show a better way to those who think the way you do about this SCOTUS appointment has gotten 11 pages of pushback, and you're not even close to the most toxic of your kind. 

11 hours ago, MigL said:

How long can you guys keep butting heads with the opposition ?

Why do you want us to embrace these psychopaths like brothers? Why do you think we should accept the hostility and degrading behavior of racists and homophobes? Why do you insist on framing them simply as "opposition" when it's becoming more and more clear they're tired of not getting their way fairly so they want to burn our democracy down? Why do you think this is simple "butting heads" when this authoritarian approach to race has already ripped the US apart and left our allies vulnerable to even more authoritarian regimes? 

What evangelism, Trump, and QAnon have done to this country is criminal, and the mindset of the extremists that believe in them doesn't need coddling or acceptance, imo. There's nothing about it I think deserves to be salvaged, do you?

 

[swansont]

12 hours ago, MigL said:

How long can you guys keep butting heads with the opposition ?
Until another Jan 6 incident finally works, and destroys your democracy ?

A. As long as it takes, and B. Do you really think that not doing so will make them stop trying to take over the government and dismantle democracy? (If so, what evidence do you have?)

And, as a general followup (i.e. I'm asking everyone), why is it incumbent on the left to "be nice" when the right is not held to the same standard?

[Peterkin]

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

Why do you want us to embrace these psychopaths like brothers?

No -- just keep appeasing them, knowing that an inch, a foot, a yard, a mile can never be enough.

28 minutes ago, swansont said:

why is it incumbent on the left to "be nice" when the right is not held to the same standard?

Because we're L osers. Evil always wins, because it's unhampered by scruples, manners, compassion or shame.

[MSC]

32 minutes ago, swansont said:

And, as a general followup (i.e. I'm asking everyone), why is it incumbent on the left to "be nice" when the right is not held to the same standard?

Especially when "being nice" or considerate, generous etc, gets you called do-gooder or some variation of in a pejorative way. 

Quote

We're so sick of nice people"

- Donald J Trump

 

[MigL]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

And, as a general followup (i.e. I'm asking everyone), why is it incumbent on the left to "be nice" when the right is not held to the same standard?

Soooooo
We should all be V Putins ?
I thought we expected better from 'our' side.