4 ms·
> policies like promising to appoint a Black woman to the Supreme Court (or other political bodies with a public representative function) strike me as obviously
by agensaequivocum 5y ago
> policies like promising to appoint a Black woman to the Supreme Court (or other political bodies with a public representative function) strike me as obviously sensible.
So he thinks racism is ok. And contrary to what he says in his linked article I don't think his choice will necessarily be unqualified but to use race as the primary metric is by definition racist. If Trump said said he would only choose a white man, that policy would aptly be decried as racist.
- bradbatt 5y agoRacism definition: "a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to dominate others or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others." No, it isn't "by definition racist"
- legolas2412 5y agoYeah, OP should have said that the policy is racially discriminatory
- ameminator 5y agoFor most people, "racism" and "racial discrimination" are the same thing.
- triactual 5y agoThis is racial discrimination for the Right Reasons, apparently. As long as everyone agrees on when we can and cannot discriminate by race, it should go very well.
- ameminator 5y agoI'm not convinced that our society has had that wider debate. I myself am not convinced that these "Right Reasons" are good and fair, even if they are so widespread.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- 30339975 5y agoThere certainly are good reasons to discriminate based on race, this just happens to be one where there’s a wide variety of opinions about whether the reasons are just.
- ameminator 5y agoI'll be straight - the only reason I can think of to discriminate based on race is for medical reasons - and that is by their doctor to diagnose specific illnesses. Can you give some more good reasons?
- 30339975 5y agoI think you’re on the right track. I replied to a sibling comment with some other good reasons for discriminating based on race. Basically, race is a pretty good shorthand for a shared experience of a group, and there are genuine instances where that shared experience can be leveraged to do good things.
- matt-attack 5y ago> race is a pretty good shorthand Except when it’s not. Why not just say “I want to fill this seat with someone who has had experiences in line with many poor black individuals.”
- parkingrift 5y agoDiscrimination is absolutely never the answer. Inequality is a hard problem to solve but that doesn’t mean we should take the lazy route and embed discrimination into all areas of life. You cannot solve discrimination with discrimination. Democrats have been trying the lazy route for 40 years with no progress. Perhaps we would have been better off trying to solve the root causes instead of uselessly chasing quick fixes?
- 30339975 5y agoDiscrimination itself is not something that needs to be “solved.” Unjust discrimination, yes, for example instances where that discrimination actively harms, as first or second order effect, without sufficient remedy. But there are quite a few instances where discrimination is warranted, and just. For example, when recruiting for medical studies where the disease being studied is common in one race but not another; in acting, where the character being portrayed is of a particular race and that characteristic is essential to encoding that character’s motivations; in certain public interaction roles like therapy, community organizing, policing or public health outreach, where the target demographic is a traditionally underserved minority. The there are situations where the selection of an individual puts no others at any disadvantage, such as the selection of a Supreme Court judge. In those situations, there is neither justice nor injustice in racial discrimination: it is simply a matter of what set of experiences the President wishes to see on the bench. All races of people are equal in there inherent value as individuals, but they are not equal in their experiences, situations, or needs. To deny the common experience of racial groups in order to optimize for “discrimination” is naive. Discrimination is not inherently unjust, it is a consequence of a universe which has finite resources in time, money, attention, and power.
- birdyrooster 5y agoDepends if you are a reactionary libertarian, then the definition of racism changes.
- TulliusCicero 5y agorac·ism /ˈrāˌsizəm/ noun prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized.
- daniel-cussen 5y agoYou know there's multiple definitions even if you restrict yourself to a single dictionary, don't you? Oxford's definition will change between 1950 and 2020, after all it is an obvious target for--not exactly infiltrating, that's too strong a word--but yeah, it is subject to change. Dictionaries are political speech. Spanish ones under Franco didn't have the words "huelga" or "sindicato" which mean "strike" or "union."
- sjg007 5y agoWell the Supreme Court has become a joke of an institution with really no credibility left. We made some progressive progress but now we are at a crossroads about to go backwards. However, appointing a black women to the Court is not racist.
- AnimalMuppet 5y agoThe measure of the Supreme Court is not how well it drives "progressive progress". That's not the Supreme Court's job.
- sjg007 5y agoHow do you measure it then?
- AnimalMuppet 5y agoBefore I answer that, let me give another wrong answer: We do not measure it by how well it advances a conservative agenda. That should expose what the problem is. The referee should not be one of the players, on either side. "Progressive progress" is the opposite of how we should judge the Supreme Court, just as "conservative progress" would be. And that should tell us the answer. We measure how well the Supreme Court does by how well it impartially judges based on the cases and the law, not based on any agenda. Now, judging that is obviously hard. Everyone is inclined to think the Supreme Court is biased against their position whenever it judges in a way they don't like. And maybe that's the only way to really measure it: If both sides think it's biased against them, then it might be doing rather well.
- sjg007 5y agoI think you are confusing progressive progress with left wing Progressives, which is not the case I am making. I mean it as: making progress toward better conditions; employing or advocating more enlightened or liberal ideas, new or experimental methods, etc.: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/progressive https://www.dictionary.com/browse/progressive So in the light that Brown vs Board of Education was progressive progress.
- Tostino 5y agoWhat are your thoughts about Regan promising to appoint a woman to the Supreme Court in his campaign?