Random Politics Thread

[Vendrah]

Forgot to clarify on this...low agreeableness was shown to be a predictive factor in success, which isn't necessarily the same thing as it being a desirable trait for success. Basically, the competition gets rough, and things can get rather cutthroat or dog-eat-dog. This suggests that the root of the problem could be in the way things are operated within the workplace, as opposed to gender bias. Businesses may need to find different approaches to selecting people to take the positions they take. As it stands currently, the corrupt ones win.

Yes, success is one thing, job performance is another thing. It does not have much to do with Job performance... And there is more about it on my private blog (the personal one).

 

[Z Buck McFate]

Electing someone for being white and male is racist and sexist.
Yet, somehow, electing someone for being black and/or female isn't?

Sigh, thankful I'll be out of this country soon. I don't want to deal with the pendulum swing in this particular social movement.

Representation is important. If there weren't a single white guy on SCOTUS, then it'd be equally reasonable to prioritize finding a talented and qualified white guy to fill the position.

 

[Kephalos]

The best way to deal with protests like the Canadian "Freedom" Convoy is to let them run their course and then supress them.

The best strategy is to let the truckers disrupt life, block supplies, paralyze the economy and social life. In general let them cause as much damage as possible so as to turn the population against them. Let them be themselves, let them expose themselves for what they are. Let them get radicalized as much as possible so as to push them and push anyone who says anything remotely favorable about the truckers to the political fringe. Let them alienate as many people as possible.

When the truckers have absolutely discredited themselves, when they are left with no friends, when they have confirmed and acted out every single stereotype, when they have become pariahs, when the evidence is there for all to see, when even the truckers' relatives will be willing to turn them over to the authorities, that is the right moment for the government and law enforcement to safely and swiftly pounce on them. The only catch is (and this is the mistake the Democrats made after Jan. 6) that the crackdown has to be thorough, it has to be real (as in you have to arrest, prosecute and imprison them and dismantle their organizational structure), and it has to be done while the anti-protest sentiment is still fresh in the minds of the public.

 

[Mind Maverick]

Representation is important. If there weren't a single white guy on SCOTUS, then it'd be equally reasonable to prioritize finding a talented and qualified white guy to fill the position.

Why is it important?

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Representation is important. If there weren't a single white guy on SCOTUS, then it'd be equally reasonable to prioritize finding a talented and qualified white guy to fill the position.

Clarence Thomas and Amy Coney Barrett were great picks, then?

I think people make a mistake of assuming that demography is everything and if you have the right demographics, they are going to support the same things we do. Frankly we've seen this exploited by the right enough times by now so I'm not sure why people keep making this argument. It just kinda makes everyone look foolish and hypocritical when the next Clarence Thomas or Amy Coney Barrett comes forth.

I think the discussion should really be about people's ideas rather than what group they belong to, because there's usually enough diversity of views within a group to find outliers to support positions opposed to yours. No group is really monolithic in terms of opinions. They are tendencies more than absolute laws.

 

[Kephalos]

@Infinite Metamorphosis

What does a black woman have to do to prove to you that she is "qualified"? Is there anything that will satisfy you? What are the criteria (be specific)? Are these different criteria for a non-black and/or non-female nominee? If so, how different?

I am not being fascetious here. I want to try to determine whether your arguments objections are made in good faith.

 

[Mind Maverick]

@Infinite Metamorphosis

What does a black woman have to do to prove to you that she is "qualified"? Is there anything that will satisfy you? What are the criteria (be specific)? Are these different criteria for a non-black and/or non-female nominee? If so, how different?

I am not being fascetious here. I want to try to determine whether your arguments objections are made in good faith.

Same exact criteria as everyone else.

You're basically asking me if I'm racist/sexist. No, I'm not...and I am also a woman myself. Some of us just find it not only hypocritical, but also patronizing to gain something due to a handicap rather than because we earned it.

 

[Mind Maverick]

Clarence Thomas and Amy Coney Barrett were great picks, then?

I think people make a mistake of assuming that demography is everything and if you have the right demographics, they are going to support the same things we do. Frankly we've seen this exploited by the right enough times by now so I'm not sure why people keep making this argument. It just kinda makes everyone look foolish and hypocritical when the next Clarence Thomas or Amy Coney Barrett comes forth.

I think the discussion should really be about people's ideas rather than what group they belong to

Exactly. Representation for your [insert whatever] doesn't need to come from an [insert that thing]. It's such a linear way of thinking. Plenty of males represent women's equality/rights, plenty of whites represent blacks, etc. When I show support for someone representing me, I don't look to their skin color or their gender. I look to their heart, their words, their mind. To focus on the former is shallow, skin deep.

I'm not sure why people act like just because they are X they represent X people, either. I don't care whether it's trans, homosexual, male, female, black, latino/a, indian, asian, whatever: just because you have those things in common doesn't mean you represent the views of all of those people. Hell, I don't even agree with my own grandmother's views of white women...why would I expect that some random white woman I've never even waved hello to or laid eyes on in person will, and treat them as though they have authority on the topic? I've listened to older white men support women's equality more than my own white grandmother. The same can be said of any demographic. I guess nobody learned from Hitler, a Jew, and the Holocaust?

 

[Mind Maverick]

It irks me to focus on skin color as much as I did in that post. Talking about these issues = me noticing/mentioning it more than I ever do in my daily life. My views are basically the same as Morgan Freeman's. (Imagine that, a black male reflecting the perspectives of a white female better than many, many white females do...)

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Exactly. Representation for your [insert whatever] doesn't need to come from an [insert that thing]. It's such a linear way of thinking. Plenty of males represent women's equality/rights, plenty of whites represent blacks, etc. When I show support for someone representing me, I don't look to their skin color or their gender. I look to their heart, their words, their mind. To focus on the former is shallow, skin deep.

I'm not sure why people act like just because they are X they represent X people, either. I don't care whether it's trans, homosexual, male, female, black, latino/a, indian, asian, whatever: just because you have those things in common doesn't mean you represent the views of all of those people. Hell, I don't even agree with my own grandmother's views of white women...why would I expect that some random white woman I've never even waved hello to or laid eyes on in person will, and treat them as though they have authority on the topic? I've listened to older white men support women's equality more than my own white grandmother. The same can be said of any demographic. I guess nobody learned from Hitler, a Jew, and the Holocaust?

Hitler wasn't Jewish though. That's a myth. But otherwise, spot on.

 

[Kephalos]

Same exact criteria as everyone else.

You're basically asking me if I'm racist/sexist. No, I'm not...and I am also a woman myself. Some of us just find it not only hypocritical, but also patronizing to gain something due to a handicap rather than because we earned it.

Be specific. What are the criteria? Spell them out and that way we can make an objective determination of whether any proposed nominee fits the criteria or not.

With a list of criteria one can make a list of possible candidates for nomination and with inside that pool of qualified candidates we can find a qualified (according to the specific enumeration of criteria that you provide) candidate who also happens to be black and/or a woman and whatever and nominate them. In fact, with such a nominee (who would by definition be qualifed) a confirmation process would be a mere formality -- as they would be qualified according to objective criteria.

 

[Mind Maverick]

Hitler wasn't Jewish though. That's a myth. But otherwise, spot on.

Ahh...so, when I looked it up, it seems it may or may not be true, and remains unknown.

LOL, he was apparently a Christian, though. Tell that to just about any Christian and ask if they support Hitler's views.

 

[Mind Maverick]

Be specific. What are the criteria? Spell them out and that way we can make an objective determination of whether any proposed nominess fulfills the criteria or not.

Why don't you look them up yourself? And if they don't, you can advocate for changing them here.

 

[Kephalos]

Why don't you look them up yourself? And if they don't, you can advocate for changing them here.

You are saying that you want "qualified" nominees. Define your terms. Be precise in your speech. Is not that one of the Rules?

 

[Mind Maverick]

Kim Jong-Un doesn't represent all North Koreans. Trump doesn't represent all white men. The examples are superfluous. So why is anyone being nominated based on skin color, gender, or anything else? If there is not even proof that these people will represent the views of other people in this demographic favorably, nor is it contributing to any other ideal that factual evidence suggests this move would promote, then it is for a biased opinion about the specified demographics. That's called racism/sexism (in the context of nominating a black woman just for being a black woman).

 

[Z Buck McFate]

Why is it important?

Because these people make important decisions about laws, and there's a good argument to be had that demographics who will be effected by those laws should participate in that process.

Clarence Thomas and Amy Coney Barrett were great picks, then?

I think people make a mistake of assuming that demography is everything and if you have the right demographics, they are going to support the same things we do. Frankly we've seen this exploited by the right enough times by now so I'm not sure why people keep making this argument. It just kinda makes everyone look foolish and hypocritical when the next Clarence Thomas or Amy Coney Barrett comes forth.

I think the discussion should really be about people's ideas rather than what group they belong to, because there's usually enough diversity of views within a group to find outliers to support positions opposed to yours. No group is really monolithic in terms of opinions. They are tendencies more than absolute laws.

In a perfect world (a world perfect enough to be genuinely color-blind without *any* gender power displacement), maybe. And yeah, the right has somehow found such incredibly shitty examples of demographic that the vast majority of that demographic do not feel represented by them. Regardless: women and Black men within that minority whose values are reflected by these two examples probably feel slightly better represented than if their SCOTUS values counterparts were all white men.

ETA: And the better represented people feel by their law-making officials, the more respect they ultimately have for the laws.

 

[Mind Maverick]

Because these people make important decisions about laws, and there's a good argument to be had that demographics who will be effected by those laws should participate in that process.


In a perfect world (a world perfect enough to be genuinely color-blind without *any* gender power displacement), maybe. And yeah, the right has somehow found such incredibly shitty examples of demographic that the vast majority of that demographic do not feel represented by them. Regardless: women and Black men within that minority whose values are reflected by these two examples probably feel slightly better represented than if their SCOTUS values counterparts were all white men.

ETA: And the better represented people feel by their law-making officials, the more respect they ultimately have for the laws.

Yeah, a lot of people think that, but I'll reiterate: that's a linear way of thinking about it. In theory, that's all fine, but in practice, there are many things that factor into the equation. The first example that comes to mind is that many women from older generations still retain highly prejudiced/sexist views. They are value based societal constructs that they have been fed so much that it's too deeply ingrained to shake them out of it. They were pretty much brainwashed by society to agree with sexist views against their own sex. My own grandmother is fresh on my mind because I recently called her out, and as I was talking with some friends, they were saying they've heard the same pattern from older people a lot as well. She was going on about how when men curse she doesn't like it, but when a woman does it, she just loses respect for them because it basically disgraces and defiles them. Her reason was that women are softer and men are rougher. I straight out told her that's sexist, and that the vocabulary people choose to use is not a demonstration of the character they have. We discussed it a bit more after that, but it really didn't matter what I said to her, she just disagrees and that's that. Why? Tradition, herd mentality, lack of critical/independent thinking. Like most people, she is a sheeple, someone who just follows societal norms, traditions, or values, without thinking for herself. There are all sorts of biases that may potentially emerge from firsthand experiences.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Because these people make important decisions about laws, and there's a good argument to be had that demographics who will be effected by those laws should participate in that process.


In a perfect world (a world perfect enough to be genuinely color-blind without *any* gender power displacement), maybe. And yeah, the right has somehow found such incredibly shitty examples of demographic that the vast majority of that demographic do not feel represented by them. Regardless: women and Black men within that minority whose values are reflected by these two examples probably feel slightly better represented than if their SCOTUS values counterparts were all white men.

ETA: And the better represented people feel by their law-making officials, the more respect they ultimately have for the laws.

I'm also not opposed to making decisions based on diversity. I do think it would be suspect if an institution for, instance, claimed to value gender equality but only men had power; that would suggest hypocrisy on the part of the men. I just get really bothered by lines of thinking (or at least arguments that are being made) that seem to regard as the chief item of importance. I mean do we want Candace Owens on the Supreme Court?

I do think there is a benefit to including other perspectives but I think there are other things I don't hear people talk about that people probably should talk about. It's not that I doubt qualification but I would like to know what people's views are. How do they stand on say, issues of campaign finance?

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

And then there are things like this for indicating why diversity of representation can be important.

UK medical student creates handbook to show clinical symptoms on darker skin

Doctors may be missing fatal illnesses because medical textbooks are biased toward white skin.

bigthink.com

Look in a medical textbook for the symptoms of a rash and you’ll probably find “red bumps.” Look up oxygen deprivation and you’ll get “blue lips” as a common sign. Melanin typically alters those colors, so those diagnostics don’t always apply to non-white skin — i.e., most of the world’s population. And it can have fatal consequences.

 

[Mind Maverick]

I'm not against it either, but what I am against is making that a priority over more important factors. I'm against Person A being chosen based on demographics while Person B is more qualified/better suited for the position, or perhaps even reflects the views of the public more.

I also think it's sad when it is more important for someone to be chosen based on skin color than their integrity, btw. All of these corrupt leaders, but what color a person is, is what we speak up this way about? Not that these things are disparate...not discriminating is part of moral fiber...but all these "leaders" exploiting us to fatten the wallets of the rich, not much of a dispute to that.

Why do people even make such a big deal over superficial traits like this in the first place? It's so rudimentary/asinine. Like seriously, who gives a fuck what people look like on the outside? It's what's inside that makes all the difference. Sometimes I underestimate how unintelligent the human race is.