DEI and Misogynistic & Foreign/Other Political Attacks on Harris

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 322
  • Views: 5K
  • Politics 
superrific said:
1. You can wonder anything you want. It's when you start to act or form beliefs on the basis of that rank speculation that things get dicey.
2. It actually doesn't matter if the person is there because of race-based initiatives. The whole point of those programs is to correct for bias in the standard credentialing. At my son's HS, kids took 8, 9, 10 AP courses. My son took 7 AP exams (5 on all of them!). The rural HS my wife attended had zero AP classes when she was there, and now it has two.

So if you use the standard credentialing process, in which 7 AP courses > 1 or 2 AP courses, the kid at my wife's old HS would never have a chance. The DEI programs that help rural white kids in addition to minorities are correcting for that bias.

What you want to know about a black MIT student is the same thing you want to know about anyone: are they successful in school, and after.

3. I am virtually certain that DEI was how JD Vance got into Yale Law School. I don't begrudge him that, but it is really bad taste for him to be railing against them now. Sorta like Clarence Thomas.
Click to expand...
I'm not looking to debate affirmative action or DEI. I think there are valid arguments on both sides.

And yes, I can wonder anything that I want, but I think The reaction to that wondering, even though it makes perfect sense, comes with social consequences And it's not only on this forum or the previous ZZL political forum.
 
Lando said:
I assume it’s white privilege. Assuming white people only achieve things due to privilege is fair, right? I mean it’s the same thought process as assuming DEI is responsible for non-white success.
Click to expand...
Who has made that assertion?

The bad thing is that some are using DEI in a racist way. That sucks. The point of inclusion is to give everyone opportunity. If they take advantage of the opportunity it is a success not a negative.
 
Last edited:
ZenMode said:
I'm not looking to debate affirmative action or DEI. I think there are valid arguments on both sides.

And yes, I can wonder anything that I want, but I think The reaction to that wondering, even though it makes perfect sense, comes with social consequences And it's not only on this forum or the previous ZZL political forum.
Click to expand...
That you wonder a POC or female is there because of their race or gender is a tell that you’re a racist and/or misogynistic.
 
nycfan said:
In real life, when there is a human behind the meme

Click to expand...

I’m really not sure we’ve seen a national politician with worse political instincts in decades. If you told me Vance is a Dem plant to throw the race for Kamala, I wouldn’t think twice about it. He’s like the Borat of VP candidates, but he’s not playing a role.
 
Zoo_View said:
That you wonder a POC or female is there because of their race or gender is a tell that you’re a racist and/or misogynistic.
Click to expand...
Thanks for proving my point.

So, when Biden says "I'm going to appoint a black female to SCOTUS" I'm a racist/misogynist for wondering if the black female was appointed because of her gender and race?
 
Last edited:
StoneColdHeel said:
Probably the same at dook, or any other private school.
Click to expand...

Might even be higher at Duke. They give a big bump to legacy.

Think lumping all those categories muddles things a bit. I had seen the academic stats for admitted legacy kids and they were just as good as non-legacy kids. IIRC, athletes were the big laggard in that department.
 
nycfan said:
In real life, when there is a human behind the meme

Click to expand...

that is really, really sad. i've laughed at that countless times.

it doesn't surprise me that she's a trump supporter.

you'd think maybe she would've learned something from her experience but clearly not - too much ingrained sakkerlina beauty queen ignorance to overcome.
 
ZenMode said:
Thanks for proving my point.

So, when Biden says "I'm going to appoint a black female to SCOTUS" I'm a racist/misogynist for wondering if the black female was appointed because of her gender and race?
Click to expand...

No, you'd be a "racist/misogynist" for wondering if the black female was appointed *only* because of her gender and race.

I don't think you're a racist or misogynist. But you're choosing a really weird hill to die on here, so who knows.
 
ZenMode said:
Thanks for proving my point.

So, when Biden says "I'm going to appoint a black female to SCOTUS" I'm a racist/misogynist for wondering if the black female was appointed because of her gender and race?
Click to expand...
Of course she was appointed for her gender and race. He said he was going to do that. The issue is making an assumption or "wondering" if her gender and race were her only qualifications. It sort of goes without saying that among the qualified candidates, you know, people who had impeccable resumes and had distinguished themselves as judges at the appellate or district level for years, he was going to select a black woman from among that group.

In the entire history of our country, there has never been a black female Supreme Court justice. Why does making sure that demographic is finally represented after 250 years piss so many people off? Obviously she met all the other qualifications.

Just compare her resume to Amy Coney Barrett who was nominated to the Supreme Court for a single reason, her ardent opposition to abortion. Did any Republicans "wonder" if she was the most qualified of any potential nominees? Trump outsourced his Court nominations to Leonard Leo but the black woman is the one people "wonder" about.
 
Last edited:
farce© said:
Of course she was appointed for her gender and race. He said he was going to do that. The issue is making an assumption or "wondering" if her gender and race were her only qualifications. It sort of goes without saying that among the qualified candidates, you know, people who had impeccable resumes and had distinguished themselves as judges at the appellate or district level for years, he was going to select a black woman from among that group.

In the entire history of our country, there has never been a black female Supreme Court justice. Why does making sure that demographic is finally represented after 250 years piss so many people off. Obviously she met all the other qualifications.

Just compare her resume to Amy Coney Barrett who was nominated to the Supreme Court for a single reason, her ardent opposition to abortion. Did any Republicans "wonder" if she was the most qualified of any potential nominees? Trump outsourced his Court nominations to Leonard Leo but the black woman is the one people "wonder" about.
Click to expand...
Yup. The issue here is that there is a belief among many that somehow there is only a single person who is the “best” person for a job. In reality we are country with 350 million people, 179 serving as federal circuit court judges, and several hundred state Supreme Court justices. There are people who are beyond qualified from every major demographic. Choosing from that pool of imminently qualified individuals to ensure underrepresented demographics get some representation is a good thing. We have to stop gatekeeping jobs by acting like there is only one person qualified for a job. Even that job.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top