haroldminer
Distinguished Member
- Messages
- 334
That’s not a good thing.
DEI and Misogynistic & Foreign/Other Political Attacks on Harris
- Thread starter nycfan
- Start date
- Replies: 320
- Views: 9K
- Politics
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.
lawtig02
Inconceivable Member
- Messages
- 4,950
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.
lawtig02
Inconceivable Member
- Messages
- 4,950
ZenMode
Legend of ZZL
- Messages
- 5,109
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:
No.
You’re a misogynist and/or racist because you think, not wonder, that the person isn’t qualified.
ZenMode
Legend of ZZL
- Messages
- 5,109
Where did I say that?
- Messages
- 1,117
It kind of oozes out of you like sweat or pus.
CRHeel94
Honored Member
- Messages
- 785
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.
4thgenheel
Iconic Member
- Messages
- 1,713
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.
- Messages
- 1,061
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.
- Messages
- 3,416
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:
UNCBAdookJD
Distinguished Member
- Messages
- 472
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.
ZenMode
Legend of ZZL
- Messages
- 5,109
I don't care about her gender or race.
The point is, DEI and Affirmative Action "say" the same thing that Biden said out loud which, in the case of universities, means things like skin color, nationality, income will be used to INCLUDE people and EXCLUDE people and to be labeled a racist and misogynist for pointing out what we all know to be the case, is ridiculous.
Last edited:
haroldminer
Distinguished Member
- Messages
- 334
Diversity is now exclusion. Lol.
- Messages
- 1,629
superrific
Master of the ZZLverse
- Messages
- 10,655
Once again you center yourself in this discussion, as if the "social consequences" to you are relevant to the discussion.
It's like this: you can't make people like you by whining about the unfairness of them not liking you. It doesn't even matter whether or not you are "right" in some abstract sense, if your righteousness is off-putting. I speak from experience. Now, if you're sure that you're correct, you'd be fully justified in saying, "fuck all y'all, I'm tired of this shit" and going to post elsewhere. I do that from time to time. I had a colleague who went full MAGA. I stopped caring what he thought about me.
It's also like this: people don't have infinite time. We come across more people in our lives than we have time to fully assess. Message boards only exacerbate that problem. So we use shortcuts -- one of which is our past experience with other people who present similarly to the person in question. Our past experience with people who whine about DEI is that they are bitter, crusty and pretty selfish (and self-focused). Maybe you could think a little bit about why the DEI whiners come across that way, but more importantly, it's your job to differentiate yourself from them. If you aren't bitter, crusty and selfish, then you need to show us how. Expecting everyone to judge you anew without reference to their personal experience is a good ticket to frustration and foolishness.
I'm anticipating your reply: isn't this stereotyping? Not really, no. Stereotyping is when you impute a characteristic to a person based on another, unrelated characteristic. Like work ethic and skin color. Or criminality and skin color. Or pretty much anything and skin color. But even if it is stereotyping, it's not objectionable in the way that race or gender stereotypes are, because of this simple fact: YOUR EXPRESSED OPINIONS ARE WITHIN YOUR CONTROL. Skin color and parentage is not. It's also less objectionable because the inferences we are making aren't really intertwined with the pseudo-scientific bullshit that has long been a foundation of racism. These are judgments being made based on people's actions or words, not on some weird theories about the shape of heads.
The reality is that wearing a MAGA hat in public is a choice. It is a choice with predictable consequences: people who loathe MAGA aren't going to have a great impression of you. As with most choices, you are showing the world who you are. There's no moral, natural or statutory law requiring other people to like the person you put on display. If you post the same shit about DEI that we've seen countless times from assholes, then you should expect to get a similar reaction unless you do something to differentiate yourself. And again, if that MAGA hat is important to you, then why are you hanging out with us? Say fuck all y'all and go hang out with other MAGAs.
At a minimum, stop whining. I mean, seriously. There was a time in this country when some people were excluded from various institutions, types of public participation and even education based on their skin color or gender. Some of that still goes on, in the white country clubs or coop boards who are open to admitting minorities if they get "the right applicant." You are not being excluded. You are fully welcome to speak your mind. You can participate just like the rest of us. And like the rest of us, you might or might not be liked based on the opinions you express. Get over yourself and grow up.