I do want conservatives on here

[farce©]

I have changed multiple positions because of my engagement. Multiple. Over couple decades. Death penalty. Gay marriage. Prosecution of drug crimes. Confederate memorials and more. That is why I still lurk. I need to return to just that.

I wish you would participate more.

 

[CallMeTyler]

I didn’t read that to agree with all or even most racial attacks on Harris, but to argue that when you announce race is a key consideration in picking a candidate you are open to an argument that race is valued over other qualifications.

I think there is a reasonable debate to be had about the costs and benefits of viewing everyone through a prism of demographics, but it is nearly impossible to so without things devolving into outrage and outrageous behavior.

Perhaps, but that wasn't initially what the exchange pertained to.

He suggested the thread about racial attacks on Kamala was a gateway to labeling any criticism of her as a racial attack. I don't think anyone within reason would suggest all attacks are driven by racism but a way to highlight those obvious attempts to delegitimize her and what she's earned in her career. Biden's desire to introduce more diversity isn't a doorway for racism to enter through; that doesn't suddenly make the position more defendable.

79 sidestepped acknowledgement of the racial attacks and even doubled-down on the DEI critique. Notice that qualifications are never the first or even fifth example used to criticize Kamala? It's all very obvious coded language.

The right continues to discriminate and disqualify a successful, professional black woman based completely on her race and that's frankly unacceptable.

 

[CallMeTyler]

I have changed multiple positions because of my engagement. Multiple. Over couple decades. Death penalty. Gay marriage. Prosecution of drug crimes. Confederate memorials and more. That is why I still lurk. I need to return to just that.

Then you're doing more than most, and that's a good thing.

It sounds like you approach much of the discussion with an open mind. I appreciate that and hope you continue to do so.

 

[nycfan]

Perhaps, but that wasn't initially what the exchange pertained to.

He suggested the thread about racial attacks on Kamala was a gateway to labeling any criticism of her as a racial attack. I don't think anyone within reason would suggest all attacks are driven by racism but a way to highlight those obvious attempts to delegitimize her and what she's earned in her career. Biden's desire to introduce more diversity isn't a doorway for racism to enter through; that doesn't suddenly make the position more defendable.

79 sidestepped acknowledgement of the racial attacks and even doubled-down on the DEI critique. Notice that qualifications are never the first or even fifth example used to criticize Kamala? It's all very obvious coded language.

The right continues to discriminate and disqualify a successful, professional black woman based completely on her race and that's frankly unacceptable.

I agree that it is obvious that MAGA and too many in the right are using DEI as a catch-all slur for everybody but straight white men, and that racial animus animates a lot of MAGA supporters and is tolerated to encouraged but too many other conservative politicians and donors. It is disgusting and makes it hard to presume good faith of any conservative poster who addresses the issue.

I get where you are coming from and am bringing a personal history of good will toward 79 from a lot of years of posting on and off with him that lead me to believe he is a good faith poster, even though we often disagree quite significantly on various matters.

Obviously, it doesn’t mean I’m right — I’ve always preferred to challenge my own beliefs, especially my most firmly held beliefs, against the views of people who don’t share my beliefs. It’s what’s makes the online troll personalities so particularly frustrating to me. They just want to destroy conversations and any POV they don’t share, not debate, convince, consider or grow. They cannot tolerate the mere existence of other POVs. A lot of times the allegation of an “echo chamber” indicates a view that the mere existence of other POVs is an attack on a person’s own preferences and beliefs, as well as a complete failure to recognize that the alleged echo is people with wide-ranging opinions are united only in rejecting such intolerance. To such people, it seems that defending their world view is not a matter of discussion, debate and growth but a call to destroy all other views and opinions.

 

[Kraftyheel89]

Pretending that the VP choice is like a technical highly skilled job posting where "the most qualified applicant" should be hired is absurd.

VP choices are made for all sorts of reasons. The difference in the case of Harris is that Biden shared his reason, to get credit for it.

These are not facts but just my general perceptions. I believe Pence was chosen because he was a balance to Trump's bullying, foul mouth aggressive nature, and childish antics with constant lies and a history of unethical criminal practices. Pence was just the opposite, straight laced, ethical (until he enabled and excused Trump), a non spouse cheater, fairly honest (until tied to Trump), well respected and familiar with inner workings of DC.

Was he the most qualified? Probably not but he served a purpose.

VP choices are often based on certain regions that are toss ups.

There is no need to harp on these reasons for selection, especially in a way that trashes a group of people (devout Christians that don't cheat on spouses and and act civilly - Pence). Or bashing midwesterners, or any other tossup region, by claiming they were only chosen for that reason and not because most qualified.

Does anyone believe Vance is the most qualified? How about Palin? There is no explanation for her selection.

 

[CallMeTyler]

I agree that it is obvious that MAGA and too many in the right are using DEI as a catch-all slur for everybody but straight white men, and that racial animus animates a lot of MAGA supporters and is tolerated to encouraged but too many other conservative politicians and donors. It is disgusting and makes it hard to presume good faith of any conservative poster who addresses the issue.

I get where you are coming from and am bringing a personal history of good will toward 79 from a lot of years of posting on and off with him that lead me to believe he is a good faith poster, even though we often disagree quite significantly on various matters.

Obviously, it doesn’t mean I’m right — I’ve always preferred to challenge my own beliefs, especially my most firmly held beliefs, against the views of people who don’t share my beliefs. It’s what’s makes the online troll personalities so particularly frustrating to me. They just want to destroy conversations and any POV they don’t share, not debate, convince, consider or grow. They cannot tolerate the mere existence of other POVs. A lot of times the allegation of an “echo chamber” indicates a view that the mere existence of other POVs is an attack on a person’s own preferences and beliefs, as well as a complete failure to recognize that the alleged echo is people with wide-ranging opinions are united only in rejecting such intolerance. To such people, it seems that defending their world view is not a matter of discussion, debate and growth but a call to destroy all other views and opinions.

It has definitely become a distraction to all other reasonable discourse and I've found my patience wane as a consequence.

I'm trying to rebuild my pathways for dialogue but MAGA has really impacted my intolerance for BS to the point I'll dismiss out of hand because I've seen these topics resurface time and again, knowing exactly the route they'll eventually take.

 

[HeelYeah2012]

Calling Harris a whore or a hoe is obviously not ok. Calling her a DEI hire is fair game IMO. That’s what she was. I thought liberals saw value in DEI, so why do they even take that as offensive?

 

[lawtig02]

Calling Harris a whore or a hoe is obviously not ok. Calling her a DEI hire is fair game IMO. That’s what she was. I thought liberals saw value in DEI, so why do they even take that as offensive?

Because the right’s implication, when they say “DEI hire,” is that she was not fully qualified for the job. They’re just not courageous enough to say why they think a former state AG and US Senator was not fully qualified to be VP. We all know what people like Trump are saying, though.

 

[CallMeTyler]

Calling Harris a whore or a hoe is obviously not ok. Calling her a DEI hire is fair game IMO. That’s what she was. I thought liberals saw value in DEI, so why do they even take that as offensive?

It's the implication that DEI hires mean candidates were unqualified minus their obvious racial identifiers. You understand this to be a racist dog whistle - nobody needs to explain it further.

 

[HeelYeah2012]

Because the right’s implication, when they say “DEI hire,” is that she was not fully qualified for the job. They’re just not courageous enough to say why they think a former state AG and US Senator was not fully qualified to be VP. We all know what people like Trump are saying, though.

So I think what I’m saying here is that both the left and right should agree she’s a DEI hire. The debate should be that some people feel DEI hires help organizations and others think DEI hires hurt organizations. But it’s pretty clear she was a DEI hire in the sense that her race and gender absolutely played a big role in her selection as VP. Joe Biden never even tried to hide that when he was making the pick.

 

[CallMeTyler]

So I think what I’m saying here is that both the left and right should agree she’s a DEI hire. The debate should be that some people feel DEI hires help organizations and others think DEI hires hurt organizations. But it’s pretty clear she was a DEI hire in the sense that her race and gender absolutely played a big role in her selection as VP. Joe Biden never even tried to hide that when he was making the pick.

How does DEI hurt organizations?

 

[Bigs23]

So I think what I’m saying here is that both the left and right should agree she’s a DEI hire. The debate should be that some people feel DEI hires help organizations and others think DEI hires hurt organizations. But it’s pretty clear she was a DEI hire in the sense that her race and gender absolutely played a big role in her selection as VP. Joe Biden never even tried to hide that when he was making the pick.

You’re still implying that she wasn’t qualified for the job or took it from someone more deserving and still using DEI as a smear.
Was Vance picked because he’s a straight, white, male? How is that any different?

 

[Icky Mettle]

One titled will their racism backfire? So to participate I guess you have to stipulate any critic of Harris is racist. There is plenty to criticize her for. The border failure but also her aggressive prosecution of POC on marijuana and other drug charges. That post is not in good faith.

I don’t want to derail this thread, but you should fact check the assertion that Harris aggressively prosecuted POC on marijuana charges. It is inaccurate.

 

[HeelYeah2012]

How does DEI hurt organizations?

I believe it can either help or hurt. It can help when done correctly by bringing new perspectives. It can hurt when done incorrectly if more qualified candidates are passed over on the basis of not checking the race, gender, or whatever other boxes the organization is trying to check.

An obvious example of DEI hurting an organization would be female referees in the NBA. There’s no benefit to the NBA to having female refs, and performance-wise the female refs for the most part have been atrocious.

 

[nycfan]

So I think what I’m saying here is that both the left and right should agree she’s a DEI hire. The debate should be that some people feel DEI hires help organizations and others think DEI hires hurt organizations. But it’s pretty clear she was a DEI hire in the sense that her race and gender absolutely played a big role in her selection as VP. Joe Biden never even tried to hide that when he was making the pick.

Do you accept/agree with the “Didn’t Earn It” version of DEI widely used by MAGA that uses DEI to mean unqualified for anyone in any position of authority who is not a straight white man?

 

[CFordUNC]

I don’t recall anyone calling Condoleeza Rice or Colin Powell “DEI hires.” The problem with the right wing’s implication of someone being a “DEI hire” is that it is an insinuation that the person was completely unqualified for the job to which they were hired. Let’s all be very honest about that. The implication in calling Harris a DEI hire is that she was completely unqualified to be nominated as a vice presidential candidate, which is obviously absurd on its considering that she was the attorney general of the largest state in the union, and a United States Senator after that. There is not one single person who can credibly impugn those credentials and qualifications as “meritless.”

 

[lawtig02]

So I think what I’m saying here is that both the left and right should agree she’s a DEI hire. The debate should be that some people feel DEI hires help organizations and others think DEI hires hurt organizations. But it’s pretty clear she was a DEI hire in the sense that her race and gender absolutely played a big role in her selection as VP. Joe Biden never even tried to hide that when he was making the pick.

Is that your quote from earlier in the thread? Sorry if I missed it. In any event, that’s a convenient recasting of the way the right has engaged in this conversation. When you persistently use “DEI” as a pejorative in the same category as CRT and all the other modern conservative bogeymen, you can’t suddenly pivot and make the discussion about whether DEI is “good for organizations.” We all know what Trump and his acolytes mean when they say “DEI hire.” It has nothing to do with improving the “hiring” process for the VP of the United States.

Second, Dems should not agree Kamala was a DEI hire, even if we believe DEI is a very good and important principle for social change. Kamala’s race and gender made her an even more appealing candidate for VP, but they’re like the cherry on top of the sundae. Kamala would have been a terrific candidate if she were a white man. Calling her a DEI hire would be like putting a “maraschino cherry sundae” on the menu. You might be happy when you see the cherry, but that’s not why you ordered the dish.

 

[HeelYeah2012]

Do you accept/agree with the “Didn’t Earn It” version of DEI widely used by MAGA that uses DEI to mean unqualified for anyone in any position of authority who is not a straight white man?

See my post directly above yours for my thoughts on DEI. Basically I think it’s good for companies and the like to not be run solely by old white guys, so in that regard there’s a place for considering diversity that can absolutely help bring fresh perspectives.

But any time you deal with affirmative action or similar, there is also the risk that you start being too prejudiced in your hires and start passing up the best candidates.

Generally the companies I have worked for have thought about diversity in ways that I find are helpful. But Joe Biden announcing to the world that he was going to hire a black woman to the Supreme Court (or VP) is absurd and significantly undermined the credibility of both women. Even though both of them were actually perfectly qualified to just be chosen based on merit and not their race/gender.

Does that answer your question?

 

[CFordUNC]

Speaking of “Didn’t Earn It” how do right wingers feel about the merits and qualifications of Donald Trump Jr. , Eric Trump, and Ivanka Trump having had official advisor roles with associated security clearances in the previous presidential administration? In what way were those people qualified, aside from being the children of the sitting president?

Maybe DEI stands for “Don Jr., Eric, and Ivanka”!

 

[CallMeTyler]

I believe it can either help or hurt. It can help when done correctly by bringing new perspectives. It can hurt when done incorrectly if more qualified candidates are passed over on the basis of not checking the race, gender, or whatever other boxes the organization is trying to check.

An obvious example of DEI hurting an organization would be female referees in the NBA. There’s no benefit to the NBA to having female refs, and performance-wise the female refs for the most part have been atrocious.

Your example is referees in the NBA? Referees are criticized almost daily, most being male, and you use a sample size of 8% of the total referees to highlight where DEI goes wrong?

Sorry, but that's probably the least compelling case for DEI being harmful that I've seen introduced.

A population that's diverse requires representation. The spirit of DEI provides for a wide range of ideas and experiences to be introduced, broadening and improving everyone's experience. That's a hallmark of our democracy.

And that still doesn't justify the use of DEI to disqualify Kamala Harris, either before or after her ascension to VP.