Based on the definitions I related, I don't think the nomination is racist. To be racist, it seems you must contend that a particular race is superior than another; that must be the basis of the distinction made. If the nomination isn't based on a belief in the superiority of a black woman over others because she's black or a woman, it doesn't appear to come within the definitions. I think you have an uncommon definition of racism.
So-called “positive” race discrimination suggests a belief in the inferiority of the races they are designed to help. But this nomination isn’t a form of affirmative action, and it isn’t clear that Biden thinks women with darker complexions are inferior. — NOS4A2
Neither is it about racial justice. Biden worked really hard to filibuster Judge Janice Brown back in the Bush days, and threatened to do the same if she was ever nominated for Supreme Court. He actively and explicitly opposed the nomination of a black woman, so if it was about racial justice let’s just say he missed that opportunity 20 years ago. — NOS4A2
Rather, it is about identity politics, in this case using race and gender to score political points in the hopes of retaining political power now and in the future, the ethics of racial discrimination be damned. — NOS4A2
You can see the justification of this form of discrimination in this very thread, complete with essentialist notions about her experience, different knowledge, and different ways of thinking, which are racist assumptions if I’ve ever seen them. So if it isn’t racist according to your definition, it soon will be. — NOS4A2
Positive iscrimination is a way to redress past wrongs and an attempt at creating equal starting positions. It has nothing to do with inferiority or superiority.
Not different ways of thinking but different perspectives. Having different perspectives represented might lead to better in the sense of better informed legal judgments. In the US there is also the matter of judgment before ones peers to be kept in mind. That does deal with equal representation. Considered in the long term would it not also be representationally fair if a woman of color gets a chance to shape the law of the land? Law is, as I have tried to show a hermeneutic enterprise in which the presence of a plethora of background assumptions is beneficial. Now it is not by necessity that a woman or a or a black person brings a different perspective to the table, but it is more likely than that a white man does.
You’d have to assume she’s been wronged, and base it on nothing other than the color of her skin. So already you place her on a lower rung in a racial hierarchy. — NOS4A2
Upon what assumption do you assume she has a different perspective? — NOS4A2
pseudoscientific racial distinctions and nothing besides — NOS4A2
indeedbut perhaps I’m wrong — NOS4A2
I’m not lawyer, but I assume that the only perspective that matters in a court is the word of the law. — NOS4A2
No I only need to assume that there is a privilege to being white. All in research I know of confirms that privilege.
Of course not, they are based on cultural hierarchies reiterated in discourse and practice.
And you are again wrong. Read my discussion with mr Atheist. The law does not speak. Judges do, they interpret the law.
Just another racial hierarchy upon which you place people with darker complexions on a lower rung. — NOS4A2
What does the spectrum of complexion have to do with culture? — NOS4A2
The law does not speak, sure, but it is spoken. A judge cannot interpret her way out of it. — NOS4A2
... if it was about racial justice let’s just say he missed that opportunity 20 years ago. — NOS4A2
(https://civilrights.org/resource/oppose-the-confirmation-of-janice-rogers-brown/)On behalf of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights (LCCR), the nation’s oldest, largest, and most diverse civil and human rights coalition, with more than 180 member organizations, we write to express continued opposition to the confirmation of Janice Rogers Brown to the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Brown’s record as a California Supreme Court justice demonstrates a strong, persistent, and disturbing hostility toward affirmative action, civil rights, the rights of individuals with disabilities, workers’ rights, and the fairness of the criminal justice system.
Why is that? Because I think people with a white skin get hired easier, are less often deemed suspects in criminal cases, get shot by police less often, I somehow place people with a darker complexion on a lower rung? No I simply think there is a lot of prejudice against people with a darker skin and that that means they have fewer chances in life and are required to prove themselves more than people with a light complexion. Those are cultural traits.
You are not a lawyer eh? Best leave it at that. I am not going into that because I am used to being paid to give legal education. What you can do is read a few pages back in the thread, read the article Atheist provided and my comments and you may have an inkling what lawyers can and cannot do. This remark is just intellectual laziness.
I still do not understand ... — NOS4A2
I see it like this: you've grouped people under superficial racial categories of which there is no scientific basis, look for the disparities between them, and use the results to position them, one on top of the other, in a hierarchy of superficial racial categories of which there is no scientific basis. That right there is the methodology that has unleashed racism upon the world. It results in assumptions about people on the basis of their complexion, in injustice, and finally, in racial supremacy and inferiority. — NOS4A2
We cannot in fact infer how much prejudice, discrimination, hostility, someone has faced by the mere fact of their complexion alone, for the same reason we cannot know what position they occupy in the economy, in ability, in intelligence, and so on. — NOS4A2
While your ability to train students to give legal advice and draft documents are far superior to mine, I see no reason to abide by your authority in other aspects of law and Justice. — NOS4A2
I haven't grouped people, they are grouped by everyday social practices. There is no scientific basis for me being grouped among the category of Dutch people as well and I have to show a Dutch passport when I want to enter my country nonetheless. I am the first to agree with you that there is no scientific basis for the concept of race, but the historical categorization has present day consequences. — Tobias
Based on the definitions I related, I don't think the nomination is racist. To be racist, it seems you must contend that a particular race is superior than another; that must be the basis of the distinction made. If the nomination isn't based on a belief in the superiority of a black woman over others because she's black or a woman, it doesn't appear to come within the definitions. I think you have an uncommon definition of racism. — Ciceronianus
Of course not, since no one is "entitled" to that job by "birth right". — 180 Proof
Besides, for at least the last century there have been many "other qualified people of different races/genders" than Straight White Christian Men not even considered for appointment to the high court — 180 Proof
Redressing past wrongs and making starting positions qual is not the methodology that caused racism, thinking some races were inferior and some superior did. — Tobias
No. A candidate from a pool of 'well-qualified black women' is preferred by an old white man who, by the way, owes his presidency in no insignificant part to black women voters and supporters.Yet a black female is somehow entitled to this position? — Pinprick
My first post on this thread (p.1) references 'patriarchal white supremacy' precisely for the central fact you mention which has driven American political and social history into the dirt.Wouldn’t you agree that minorities have in fact been harmed by not being considered viable candidates for a plethora of positions?
Yeah, I also believe in "world peace", but ... :roll:Do you agree with the equal opportunity acts?
Right. And it was wrong that they were excluded. I would also say it was racist, but the dictionary disagrees. — Pinprick
I think racial discrimination has to be included here. It is the mechanism through which racist beliefs are put into practice, and the actual actions are what causes harm. — Pinprick
As we see in the current example, racist thoughts need not accompany racial discrimination, but that doesn’t make the act any less harmful, disadvantageous, or unfair. — Pinprick
There is a yawning gap in your understanding. Biden opposed Brown's nomination because of her human rights record as detailed above. Being a black woman is not sufficient grounds for supporting a judicial nominee. To think otherwise is tokenism. To nominate a candidate who is a qualified black woman whose judicial philosophy and record he approves of is not.
For instance the idea that your grades in uni make you a better lawyer and so you get hired easier. It advantages people who score good grades on exam questions... It says nothing about all kinds of other qualities. — Tobias
I completely agree. Biden explicitly stated his nominee will be a black woman, all of which is irrelevant to qualifications. — NOS4A2
What can one black woman do in a group of ten white people? — Agent Smith
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.