So-called Anti-Woke, Anti-DEI policy catch-all

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 726
  • Views: 16K
  • Politics 
lawtig02 said:
Trump put two white men on the Supreme Court. And I had no issue with that and thought at least Gorsuch should have been confirmed because, although I completely disagree with his politics, he was reasonably qualified. I understand why many think Kav should not have been confirmed, although even that was about his personal conduct and not his politics. It’s the president’s choice. There’s no policy that encourages presidents to consider diverse candidates. There’s no program that attempts to put diverse candidates on equal footing. It’s just nothing remotely comparable to DEI.
Click to expand...
I'm not arguing the process of selecting/confirming justices. I'm saying that making race and sex a requirement, which is what Biden did, is discriminatory and ridiculous. That is the part of DEI that we should all be against.

Absolutely nobody should care that Biden picked a black, female justice, as long as she's qualified. Everybody should care that he specifically made race and sex a requirement to fill the opening.
 
Last edited:
1moretimeagain said:
That makes Amy Coney Barrett another discriminatory DEI Justice on the Supreme Court, as was Sandra Day O’Connor. I suppose it was just a coincidence, rather than discriminatory DEI, that resulted in Clarence Thomas replacing Thurgood Marshall.
Click to expand...
Nope. Trump picked a qualified justice who happened to be white, female, straight, cis (I assume). He didn't make any of those irrelevant traits a requirement for filling the opening...like Biden did.
 
ZenMode said:
Nope. Trump picked a qualified justice who happened to be white, female, straight, cis (I assume). He didn't make any of those irrelevant traits a requirement for filling the opening...like Biden did.
Click to expand...
What you’re complaining about is something more like affirmative action, although it’s not that either. But it’s not even in the same ballpark as DEI.
 
ZenMode said:
Nope. Trump picked a qualified justice who happened to be white, female, straight, cis (I assume). He didn't make any of those irrelevant traits a requirement for filling the opening...like Biden did.
Click to expand...
Trump vowed to appoint a woman to replace RBG, Reagan made a campaign promise to appoint a woman to the Supreme Court. Their discriminatory DEI process eliminated half the population from consideration, rather than selecting the best possible candidate.
 
Paine said:
Unless you’re implying that KBJ is unqualified for the position, I don’t see why it matters.

The whole premise of the conservative critique of DEIA (which doesn’t even seem to understand what the practice entails) is that unqualified people are being appointed/hired for positions due to their race, sex, gender, or disability.

KBJ is clearly qualified for the position, so what’s your real critique? You want to have your racist cake and eat it too.
Click to expand...
Presidents should picked the most qualified judges to fill SCOTUS openings. If the most qualified justice happens to be a black, Jewish, homosexual transgender man... fine, but making race and sex a requirement is discriminatory because it is irrelevant as far as qualifications are concerned.
 
1moretimeagain said:
Trump vowed to appoint a woman to replace RBG, Reagan made a campaign promise to appoint a woman to the Supreme Court. Their discriminatory DEI process eliminated half the population from consideration, rather than selecting the best possible candidate.
Click to expand...
Agree.
 
lawtig02 said:
What you’re complaining about is something more like affirmative action, although it’s not that either. But it’s not even in the same ballpark as DEI.
Click to expand...
It IS affirmative action with the addition of sex, gender, etc.
 
1moretimeagain said:
Trump vowed to appoint a woman to replace RBG, Reagan made a campaign promise to appoint a woman to the Supreme Court. Their discriminatory DEI process eliminated half the population from consideration, rather than selecting the best possible candidate.
Click to expand...
This is true. Ergo, DEI hire.
 
lawtig02 said:
The divide is that MAGAs don’t understand DEI policies and programs don’t do that.
Click to expand...
Some of them do. I get that some dei policies are about education and stating things like we won't discriminate based on if a person is a minority or a woman or gay or whatever. I think we hear about some of the wackadoodle education standards that teach white men are automatically racist or whatever but I would bet a lot of the education is real anti-bias training and is much more valuable. I think all that's probably fine.

But when you discriminate based on ethnicity or sex or sexual orientation by promoting people in those categories over white straight males, it's just that. Discrimination. Everyone on an equal playing field, would be more widely accepted.

I think if advocates had gotten rid of those types of discriminatory policies and gotten rid of some of the more vindictive education, dei would have had a much longer run. As of now, dei is a poison term, but it could be repackaged with a different name, removing some of the less popular elements, and get much wider support.
 
gtyellowjacket said:
Some of them do. I get that some dei policies are about education and stating things like we won't discriminate based on if a person is a minority or a woman or gay or whatever. I think we hear about some of the wackadoodle education standards that teach white men are automatically racist or whatever but I would bet a lot of the education is real anti-bias training and is much more valuable. I think all that's probably fine.

But when you discriminate based on ethnicity or sex or sexual orientation by promoting people in those categories over white straight males, it's just that. Discrimination. Everyone on an equal playing field, would be more widely accepted.

I think if advocates had gotten rid of those types of discriminatory policies and gotten rid of some of the more vindictive education, dei would have had a much longer run. As of now, dei is a poison term, but it could be repackaged with a different name, removing some of the less popular elements, and get much wider support.
Click to expand...
Exactly. The solution for "traditional" conservative discrimination isn't a new form of liberal discrimination. I want skin color, sex, gender, etc to be as meaningless as hair color. If a President ever said "You know, I think we need someone with red hair on SCOTUS", the country would rightfully lose its collective mind because it would be such a ridiculous premise.
 
ZenMode said:
Nope. Trump picked a qualified justice who happened to be white, female, straight, cis (I assume). He didn't make any of those irrelevant traits a requirement for filling the opening...like Biden did.
Click to expand...
I can tell you with 100% certainty that Barrett was picked because she was a woman. They were always going with a woman for that seat. By always, I mean that it's been the plan for a decade. And I can tell you how I know this: from conversations with the people actually making these decisions.

You know who Clarence Thomas replaced on the Supreme Court? Thurgood Marshall. That was no accident. They picked Clarence to fill that seat specifically so he could use the "high-tech lynching" defense. It was the most cynical use of the "race card" I've ever seen.

So they were going to replace RBG -- the feminist pioneer -- with a conservative white woman. They didn't know if they would have the opportunity but they knew what to do when it came.

Guess who they have lined up should Sotomayor have to leave?
 
gtyellowjacket said:
Some of them do. I get that some dei policies are about education and stating things like we won't discriminate based on if a person is a minority or a woman or gay or whatever. I think we hear about some of the wackadoodle education standards that teach white men are automatically racist or whatever but I would bet a lot of the education is real anti-bias training and is much more valuable. I think all that's probably fine.

But when you discriminate based on ethnicity or sex or sexual orientation by promoting people in those categories over white straight males, it's just that. Discrimination. Everyone on an equal playing field, would be more widely accepted.

I think if advocates had gotten rid of those types of discriminatory policies and gotten rid of some of the more vindictive education, dei would have had a much longer run. As of now, dei is a poison term, but it could be repackaged with a different name, removing some of the less popular elements, and get much wider support.
Click to expand...
1. There are no education standards teaching that white men are automatically racist. You just made that up.
2. No DEI programs promote people in those "categories" over white men.
3. Remember when you were saying that the EPA was simply reacting to evidence of fraud by climate groups or Habitat For Humanity? Then I brought facts to the thread. What was your response?
 
superrific said:
I can tell you with 100% certainty that Barrett was picked because she was a woman. They were always going with a woman for that seat. By always, I mean that it's been the plan for a decade. And I can tell you how I know this: from conversations with the people actually making these decisions.

You know who Clarence Thomas replaced on the Supreme Court? Thurgood Marshall. That was no accident. They picked Clarence to fill that seat specifically so he could use the "high-tech lynching" defense. It was the most cynical use of the "race card" I've ever seen.

So they were going to replace RBG -- the feminist pioneer -- with a conservative white woman. They didn't know if they would have the opportunity but they knew what to do when it came.

Guess who they have lined up should Sotomayor have to leave?
Click to expand...
I don't agree with any selection based on superficial, irrelevant characteristics, including Trump's female selection.
 
ZenMode said:
I don't agree with any selection based on superficial, irrelevant characteristics, including Trump's female selection.
Click to expand...
Well, at least you've acknowledged it's not a Dem thing only. BTW, Eisenhower picked Brennan because he was Catholic; Reagan picked Scalia because he was Italian. Anyway, the big question:

What about Neil Gorsuch? Was he selected based on superficial, irrelevant characteristics? Or does the DEI stigma only attach to minorities? I think you're actually creating a system in which white men are seen as the default and a decision to hire, promote, appoint, etc., a white man can't be based on superficial characteristics. Alone among people, the white man enjoys the presumption of merit even where it is plainly inappropriate. Gorsuch was not well known, and to the extent he had a reputation, it was mostly as a fringe judge with bizarre views. So why was he the choice?

Why has the modern GOP never nominated a minority candidate to the Supreme Court, with the exception of the obviously token hire Clarence Thomas? Is that DEI? Or is it only minorities who have to battle that perception?
 
ZenMode said:
Exactly. The solution for "traditional" conservative discrimination isn't a new form of liberal discrimination. I want skin color, sex, gender, etc to be as meaningless as hair color. If a President ever said "You know, I think we need someone with red hair on SCOTUS", the country would rightfully lose its collective mind because it would be such a ridiculous premise.
Click to expand...
I'm close to that but I want African Americans and Mexican-Americans to be more like Italian-Americans or Greek-Americans or Indian-Americans. Have a cultural fest, maybe have a parade, take the kids to see the old country, but at the end of the day you're an American and you're treated as such. No substantive difference from any other American.

I think removing dei/affirmative action is one step to that process but also things like improving policing and k-12 education resources.
 
gtyellowjacket said:
I'm close to that but I want African Americans and Mexican-Americans to be more like Italian-Americans or Greek-Americans or Indian-Americans.
Click to expand...
I was married to an Indian woman. One night we stayed in a hotel in West Virginia. My wife briefly used the pool after check-in, and then told the staff she would be using the pool in the morning. Overnight, someone chlorinated the water by something like 10x. Her black bathing suit started bleaching out its color almost immediately after she went in the pool, and the water burned her skin.

Everywhere in West Virginia, and the part of Southern Virginia we drove through to get to the Chapel Hill area, we got shoddy treatment. Far shoddier than I've ever received on my own. And there were people side-eyeing us.

Take your "Americans love Indians" and shove it. You saw the right's reaction to Usha Vance.

Also, if you don't think that Indian-Americans preserve their culture when they come here, you have no clue.
 
gtyellowjacket said:
I'm close to that but I want African Americans and Mexican-Americans to be more like Italian-Americans or Greek-Americans or Indian-Americans. Have a cultural fest, maybe have a parade, take the kids to see the old country, but at the end of the day you're an American and you're treated as such. No substantive difference from any other American.

I think removing dei/affirmative action is one step to that process but also things like improving policing and K-12 education resources.
Click to expand...

Dagoes/Wops/Guineas were treated like crap when they moved to NY from Italy and Sicily, especially the olive/brown skinned Sicilians. No one would hire them above the lighter skinned Europeans brought in to work in factories, because the insutrialists didn't want to hire blacks moving up from the south. Some Sicilians moved into organized crime to make a living.

Irish immigrants (Micks) were discriminated against as punks, drunks, and worst of all Catholics.. There were laws that banned hiring of Irish. Many were bonded with lifetime debt. The destitute parents hoped that one son might be a policeman, and the other a priest, because the 3rd son was in a gang. Micks were unhireable.

Trump's family hated them all, just like Archie Bunker and from the same area of OG Queens. They (Italians, Irish, black) "poisoned the blood." Then the Puerto Ricans moved in!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top