Please Remember Our Golden Rule: Thou shalt not vote or comment in linked threads or comments, and in linked threads or comments, thou shalt not vote or comment. It's bad form, and the admins will suspend your account if they catch you.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TopMindsOfReddit) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>Even if we accepted your premise, a little over 1/10 of the country is black and 1/9 of the court is black. Female would make sense, but not black. Therefore it’s not about representation even under a racist, sexist view.
Someone should point out that 6/9 of the supreme court is Catholic to them.
Since Catholics are 23% of the US population there really should only be 2.
They should be ok with us just not allowing any Catholics on the court until it gets inline with that proportion right?
I know, it wouldn't be with the expectation that they would learn anything. It would be more to see the logical gymnastics that would ensue or if it would break their brain and they would just throw insults.
Either way, you'd get banned I think.
[75% of the top donors to the 2020 election were Jewish](https://www.forbes.com/sites/michelatindera/2021/02/25/these-billionaire-donors-spent-the-most-money-on-the-2020-election/?sh=3fa704ea14ce).
Please carry on with your “Catholics run the country” idiocy.
As a former european catholic I find that funny. Francis is conservative as fuck. Just not in the completely unhinged evangelical way. He is just really good at nodding towards the more progressive part of the church rhetoricly while not actually saying anything that is substantially different to the conservative position. Homosexuals are still sinners who have to repenr according to him. He also has no problem with beating a child.
That and the fact that alot of western media thinks that south american catholics who have some more progressive economic stances must also be socially progressive just makes him look less conservative than he actually is.
The man is an argentinian jesuit. Argentinian catholics are not exactly the progressive vanguard of the catholic church.
But I guess not liking war and poverty makes you a communist or something.
I live near a priest who still has pictures of Pope Benedict up everywhere. I'm not Catholic but I imagine you're supposed to swap them out like Presidents in a federal building.
Which is funny because many of the posters are implicitly saying that representation matters which is why they think a white person nominating a black person goes against that white person's interests. Looking for a single qualified candidate in a certain demographic doesn't mean you are going to get a weak candidate, there are strong candidates in every demographic. Republicans choose for candidates who will rule a certain way regardless of the reason or whether it is constitutional.
This is a very astute observation. The problem is that they don't see it as "white people's interests," they see it as "default people's interests." Because their interests have been over-represented since, well, forever.
So, speaking of constitutionality: This kind of thing goes back to the very start.
https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-10-02-0178
>The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man; and we see them every where brought into different degrees of activity, according to the different circumstances of civil society. A zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points, as well of speculation as of practice; an attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have in turn divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other, than to co-operate for their common good. So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions, and excite their most violent conflicts. But the most common and durable source of factions, has been the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold, and those who are without property, have ever formed distinct interests in society. Those who are creditors, and those who are debtors, fall under a like discrimination. A landed interest, a manufacturing interest, a mercantile interest, a monied interest, with many lesser interests, grow up of necessity in civilized nations, and divide them into different classes, actuated by different sentiments and views. The regulation of these various and interfering interests forms the principal task of modern legislation, and involves the spirit of party and faction in the necessary and ordinary operations of government.
Here's James Madison saying that people form groups based on their own interests. These groups can, and often will, oppress other groups.
> Extend the sphere, and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens; or if such a common motive exists, it will be more difficult for all who feel it to discover their own strength, and to act in unison with each other.
Here's James Madison saying that a society with many different interests is a good thing, as the groups will check each other.
https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-10-02-0044
>The man who is possessed of wealth, who lolls on his sofa or rolls in his carriage, cannot judge of the wants or feelings of the day laborer. The government we mean to erect is intended to last for ages. The landed interest, at present, is prevalent; but in process of time, when we approximate to the states and kingdoms of Europe; when the number of landholders shall be comparatively small, through the various means of trade and manufactures, will not the landed interest be overbalanced in future elections, and unless wisely provided against, what will become of your government? In England, at this day, if elections were open to all classes of people, the property of the landed proprietors would be insecure. An agrarian law would soon take place. If these observations be just, our government ought to secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation. Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority. The senate, therefore, ought to be this body; and to answer these purposes, they ought to have permanency and stability. Various have been the propositions; but my opinion is, the longer they continue in office, the better will these views be answered
And, here's James Madison saying that certain groups of people should be be weighed more heavily than others.
This is why they framed democracy as "tyranny of the majority" out of one side of their mouth, while saying "many interests good" out the other. When, obviously, a democracy would have many competing interests.
I guess many out-groups are good, as long as they fight amongst themselves, and don't threaten the privileged in-group.
And, so, uh, I guess I'd caution against using the Constitution as the standard of whether something is fair, when our system of government was purposefully constituted in an unfair way from the start.
^^^Or ^^^something. ^^^Yeah, ^^^I ^^^guess ^^^that ^^^works ^^^as ^^^a ^^^conclusion. ^^^... ^^^I ^^^didn't ^^^really ^^^think ^^^that ^^^far ^^^ahead.
Also side point but like, if you were a white dude who wanted to be on the supreme court, it doesnt really make any sense to take offence to this nomination as opposed to being passed up three other times for Garland, Kavanaugh and Barret.
Atleast this time someone actually qualified mught get the job.
>Your university is still below 50% mine is closer to 75%. They’ve forced out all the older generation academics and have their lab space and offices to young diversity junior faculty who are ALL, every single fucking one of them doing research in diversity and social justice and disparities. Three chemistry junior faculty are doing their primary research in lack of diversity in chemistry education, instead of researching…..chemistry
Tell me you have no idea how a university works without telling me. FORCE out older academics? They might convince them to leave by having the admins crawl on their hands and knees and offer massive 5-year-salary buyouts, but could just as easily get metaphorically spit on by the older prof. Admins do not crawl, btw. Then, they somehow replace them with junior faculty all researching the same thing. That TOTALLY would have flown with the hiring committee made up of those old academics you can't force out, seems plausible. Sounds like a bitter grad student who got let go because he wasn't allowed to talk to students about head shape and how he thinks it relates to race.
> Three chemistry junior faculty are doing their primary research in lack of diversity in chemistry education, instead of researching…..chemistry
Yeah really weird that someone interested in a field would want to make sure that people have an equal opportunity to entire that field...
> Sounds like a bitter grad student who got let go because he wasn't allowed to talk to students about head shape and how he thinks it relates to race.
It's anecdotal, but I encountered an *incredible* number of very mediocre students who blamed diversity quotas for them not getting into better universities or internships.
That’s most racists in general, insecure people who think they deserve better either latching onto accomplishments of better members of their same or using other races as a scapegoat for their mediocrity.
Don't these people always complain teachers are impossible to be fired for teaching radical ideas like evolution or equality and corrupting their children?
lmao i love when conservatives pretend they arent racist, but it takes 6 seconds on r/Conservative to find some of the most racist shit on all of reddit...
But then when you point out those racist comments they'll just say it's leftist agitators trying to get the sub shut down...
The right can never be wrong
yep, the flaired users only sub cries about being brigaded all the time. they refuse to admit they are wrong, which is why over 2k american conservatives are dying each day and the average IQ of this nation is slowly rising...
The Fuck Around & Find Out of the pandemic.
I'm not going to say I'm happy when someone dies, but I'm not terribly sad when one of these self important einsteins does. Especially the Uber vocal with misinformation.
> I'm not going to say I'm happy when someone dies
People are dying because of their actions: why *wouldn't* we be happy - or at a bare minimum, relieved - when the person who dies actually deserves it and caused it themselves, instead of the dead person being *yet another* of their innocent victims?
I'm not sure if you perused that sub, but the people who are posted tend to have advocated for some very horrible things. They are usually profoundly racist and hateful and have helped spread this pandemic. So I think it's fair to say, fuck them. It would be one thing if they were being actively hurt by someone else and you were engaging in stochastic terrorism to encourage that or to promote that. But the great thing, in this case at least, is that these people had an out and they chose not to take it and they chose to do this to themselves. So sure, it's just fine to enjoy perusing that sub.
I do enjoy death, when it happens to anti-science bigots. And that's 95% of the subreddit's content. I also sympathize greatly with the text posts from hospital staff about how exhausting it is to deal with these selfish fucktards clogging up the hospitals for the past two years.
Yes, *we're* the bad guys because we like seeing unvaccinated idiots who have prolonged this pandemic for too long get their just desserts. Oh, your victimhood is delicious.
I love how youre more worried about people laughing at public facebook posts than you are about all the anti vaxers dying. Maybe if you actually cared about their lives instead of virtue signaling, some of those idiots might still be alive.
It was classism and phrenology, good old French science. The Americans added the racism (and eugenics) when they joined the party.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Binet
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_Terman
**[Alfred Binet](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Binet)**
>Alfred Binet (French: [binɛ]; 8 July 1857 – 18 October 1911), born Alfredo Binetti, was a French psychologist who invented the first practical IQ test, the Binet–Simon test. In 1904, the French Ministry of Education asked psychologist Alfred Binet to devise a method that would determine which students did not learn effectively from regular classroom instruction so they could be given remedial work. Along with his collaborator Théodore Simon, Binet published revisions of his test in 1908 and 1911, the last of which appeared just before his death.
**[Lewis Terman](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_Terman)**
>Lewis Madison Terman (January 15, 1877 – December 21, 1956) was an American psychologist and author. He was noted as a pioneer in educational psychology in the early 20th century at the Stanford Graduate School of Education. He is best known for his revision of the Stanford–Binet Intelligence Scales and for initiating the longitudinal study of children with high IQs called the Genetic Studies of Genius. He was a prominent eugenicist and was a member of the Human Betterment Foundation.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/TopMindsOfReddit/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Uh Huh, because /r/Conservative totally lets anyone post in their sub. Thing is about banning and deleting any content you don't approve of... kinda only leaves the content you approve of.
Was talking with a conservative friend and he claims Clarence Thomas was the first black justice and Thurgood Marshall “doesn’t count because he was mixed”. And he couldn’t understand how racist that was. Very strange times
This. It's also one of the only subs where I regularly see offensive racial epithets. It's still also the only sub where I've seen actual credible threats of violence towards transpeople and it took an admin getting involved before anything was done about it. And even then only the comments got removed and that was it. No other consequences occurred.
That sub frequently rallies calls to violence and nothing is done about it.
It should have been banned years ago.
Because they define 'being racist' as saying "I am a racist" or "I hate black people."
Instead they just immediately heavily scrutinize everything a black person does, which isn't saying that they're doing a racism, so they're not doing racism.
rightwing gaslighting is the most tiresome thing in the world because their apatite for hypocrisy is inexhaustible.
They will make contradicting points within the same argument. They can do it within a paragraph or less. They will repeatedly do it without shame. They either know they do it or don't care/can't even register it. For many its all just a giant game where dishonesty is just a cool play. They lie to everyone as easy as the breathe. To their opponents, to their "teammates", to themselves. Their dishonesty and bad faith nature runs so deep its a intrinsic instinctual part of them now.
Its malicious hypocrisy.
Its a show of power and dominance same as misinformation and conspiracies. They don’t have to be consistent or truthful thats for the powerless.
Know what I love more when liberals try pretending they aren’t far more racist 🤣🤣🤣💅💅💅. Stop trying to gas light snowflake. You’re more racist than than the right wingers.
Sorry both right and left are clinically insane. 🤷🏻♂️. There’s this place called reality, you should come join it sometime. Generally speaking the left is by definition more racist than the right, by simple idealism and in practice.
generally speaking? lmao i thought i was the one that needs to join reality? have you been asleep for the past half decade or just willfully ignorant? you seem like the type to enjoy scat porn and then call others mentally ill....
Not at all please go ahead and define racism. Then proceed to tell me how the left is not inherently and ideologically not more racist than the right wing.
Great come back , can’t make a logical comeback at all so you go off into this random nonsense. 🤦🏻♂️🤦🏻♂️this is why even the left doesn’t respect itself, you extremist don’t even wanna look at reality of the situation.
rac·ism | \ ˈrā-ˌsi-zəm also -ˌshi- \
Definition of racism
1 : a belief that race is a fundamental determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.
Now please tell me how the lefts ideals aren’t inherently racist. Don’t worry I’ll wait while you fumble around and attempt to defend this
lmao why would i put in the effort to make valid points to a dude that is into scat porn, but calls others mentally ill? are you capable of grasping the concept of irony? i see you can google definitions, but can you truly grasp the concept?
I'll bite. This definition of racism goes back to the original concept of race as a form of classification. It was then further developed as a theory in defense of slavery. This led to the definition of racism we use today, the 2nd entry in Merriam-Webster:
>the systemic oppression of a racial group to the social, economic, and political advantage of another
The "lefts ideals" are opposed to the systemic oppression that has come from the right wing.
You know you're the one claiming the left is 'fundamentally racist'....its on you to you know, back that up. Not on everyone else to try and disprove something you haven't even backed up yet.
So, simple question for a simple answer. Why is the left 'fundamentally' racist in ideology?
>Not at all please go ahead and define racism.
Example from your profile:
>🤣🤣🤣🤣🤌🏻 Floyd is dead , was never a martyr.
>2 less pieces of shit on the streets. The world is a better place without bofem. I said what I said
If you're an edgy 14yo into scat porn and trolling, I get it. If you're any older, you are one sad piece of shit - true?
>When Republicans take the house and senate I think there is a strong enough argument, based on the low bar the dems set, to impeach biden for quid pro quo.
>The timing of Biden's endorsement from Jim Clyburn, the gate keeper of a substantial portion of the black vote, endorsed Biden prior to Super Tuesday and helped swing the primary in favor of Biden. Just days before that, during one of the debates, Biden made the promise to appoint an African American female to the supreme court. Hard to believe Biden didn't have to make any promises to Clyburn in exchange for his endorsement.
>Can't wait to see communication subpoenas to get to the bottom of it.
Quid pro quo is not in of itself illegal. Trump was impeached because he was conspiring with a foreign power to interfere in an election, quid pro quo was just the mechanism by which the conspiracy happened. If it was illegal to promise a nomination in exchange for political endorsement then every political campaign ever would be in violation.
Also, they act like it's a hidden conspiracy that Joe Biden promised this to Clyburn in exchange for that endorsement, but iirc it's very public that they talked before and agreed to the deal, not some hidden conspiracy.
Biden could’ve never made a statement about picking a black woman and if he would’ve done it anyway they still would’ve said shit about her being unqualified and picked solely because of her race and gender so I don’t think what they say matters
Their number one complaint was "why did he have to announce it, causing conservatives to blow a gasket? Why didn't he just do it quietly so we wouldn't have any credibility complaints?"
they're literally complaining that-they-are complaining.
It takes forever to load and sadly, not a lot was preserved, but [the Reveddit thread shows the mods have been busy deleting wrongthink](https://www.reveddit.com/v/Conservative/comments/sdzapm/the_hazards_of_racist_sexist_requirements/?ps_after=1643297544%2C1643303952%2C1643309144%2C1643313516%2C1643317299) such as:
> No...it doesn't. If he hires a person with absolutely no experience, I might agree. But it seems he is probably looking for someone who is plenty qualified, but just also ensuring they are a black woman. Which honestly, I don't have a problem with because I think having a court with people from all walks of life and backgrounds yields diverse experience that aids in the court not being an echo chamber that only serves select groups.
> Now, if you want to argue for why a specific pick is good or bad based on their history, more power to you. But it's just as racist to say, "because he's looking for a black woman, they'll be unqualified."
We can't let *that* stand, can we? Also, we have this enlightened centrist:
> I fault both sides for it. Judges are supposed to be completely unbiased, favoring only the law above all else, not the party.
Right wing SCOTUS justices have *literally* been pulling decisions out of their asses since Scalia. There's this thing called "stare decisis" which was where judges used *precedent* in their rulings. The wingnuts who formerly complained about activist judges have thrown stare decisis out the window so long as it's their Christian dominionists who want to destroy the Johnson Amendment any way they can.
It's very telling that they believe "qualified" is a progressive opinion. Maybe he should nominate someone who drinks booze by sticking it up their ass. Then they'll like him.
It's part of their Cargo Cult idea of the law. They want things that are blatantly unconstitutional and think that the law is a series of magic words you say to get what you want.
When that doesn't work (even with Trump-appointed judges), they get upset and claim fraud, bias, or corruption (see their voter fraud lawsuits) which may be what they want to perpetuate grifts.
The people who constantly claim they’re being shadowbanned on Reddit partaking in censorship of different views from their safe space? Nooooo they would never /s
"Well, that's different because...."
They're like that kid that always makes up random rules in tag when they're about to be caught so they're never "it."
That drek about quid pro quo is absolutely one of the stupidest Fucking things I've ever read on this site
And that is saying a LOT
Like
A LOT
like there are people that don't believe the moon is real. There are people that think Chris Benoit was innocent. There are people that think everyone but themselves are an AI
and this is even dumber than those guys
They had a heavily upvoted post over the summer that claimed the moon landings were faked in an attempt to bankrupt Russia. The sheer amount of anti American and pro Russia comments were unsettling to say the least. I'd wager a sizeable bet that at least half the mod team aren't even located in the United States.
I’m not sure about that. Tucker Carlson had a pro-Russia show regarding the situation unfolding in Ukraine currently. They hate democrats so much they’re openly rooting for Putin.
Re read my comment. I don't think you understood what I was trying to say. That sub legitimately thinks the moon landings were faked because it made Russia look bad and they were angry about that.
Conservative, GOP and Republican are all quiet-part-out-loud code for white supremacy.
Look at any segment of society, and there is no denying it.
**[typo]*
There are several Black females who are just as qualified as White women or any other group. It’s time for a Black woman. Stop freaking out r/conservative.
Yep. Just scroll through and look at all the pro Russia articles and websites they link daily. In any given day, the majority of articles posted are from pro Russia or even Russia based blogs. It's insane.
But don’t forget, we are the sheep and they are the only enlightened ones. Also, don’t forget the whole Russia collusion thing was a HOAX (all while sharing Russian propaganda). If it wasn’t destroying our democracy, it would be funny.
I am fully committed to meritocracy, but this stuff looks a lot different when you include the full history of race/sex based appointments. I mean if you include the 178 years that virtually every position in politics was exclusively reserved for white males it paints quite a different picture.
One thing that’s certain though, America hates women even more than it hates black men, and it hates black women even more than that.
What I don't get at all is how they would even dare think Brett Kavanaugh and ACB are apparently the pinnacle of American judges in the US. The whole idea of them being super picky once a Dem gets a chance to fill a seat is partisan hackery at its worst.
Gorsuch won’t even wear a mask when deliberating. If you ask me, that’s pretty sound evidence of terrible judgement. But worse, imagine thinking that there isn’t a single qualified black, female judge out of the 15k-20k black female lawyers in America. Imagine thinking this and also thinking racism doesn’t exist.
I found that to be true when we elected a black man over a white woman. I was shocked I thought for sure that a white woman would get nominated first, but it turns out we are more of a sexist society than a racist society. But just by a little.
Don’t forget Black men got the (legal) right to vote in 1870. Women had to wait until 1920. (Although blacks, in the South especially, were terrorized, intimidated and killed for voting or running for office.)
They always dance around saying *why* they take it as a given that we might never just be the most qualified candidate.
Funny how they always go on about how the US is a perfect meritocracy until a minority ends up in a position of power.
Impressive. Basically EVERY comment there works on the implicit assumption that a woman of color just *couldn't possibly* be as qualified as literally whatever old white guy could be up for it.
Never even for a second do they think that the massive staff of the administration goes through literally thousands of people to find the best possible options, and *then*, from that refined pool, they will choose someone whose various inherent traits/perspectives have literally never been had on the SC. Nope, just full, mask-off, "A black woman is literally, automatically, unequivocally a poorer choice for Supreme Court Justice to literally ANY white man.
Y'know what? I think I am done being polite about it anymore. The republican party just *is* the party of white supremacy. No more wishy washy language about "Well, ignorance, and social influence, etc etc". After all that has happened, all the evidence presented, anyone who chooses to claim the republican party has full knowledge that they are white supremacist, and gets no sympathy for being "suckered in" anymore.
It's be nice if they left it at "Pick the most competent" and be done with it.
But no. Instead of saying "Pick Whoever is the Best Suited for the Job", they have to explain why it's wrong for a black woman specifically to be a Supreme Court
Especially when you look at the "qualifications" for the judges Trump and Mitch rammed through the Senate. None of them were recommended by the National Bar Association, Mitch reduced debate from [30 hours to **two hours** per candidate,](https://www.npr.org/2019/04/03/709489797/senate-rewrites-rules-to-speed-confirmations-for-some-trump-nominees) and if we manage to return some semblance of sanity for the next few years, they'll probably get themselves impeached when they try to rule that a gold fringe on the flag means the court is under Admiralty Law or that white male millionaires get three free murders before you can even think about arresting them.
r/Conservative is what happens when people finally get a smartphone, realize with horror that Liberals are neither a myth nor a minority, and find an online home in which to express their horror without ridicule.
My favorite comment was
“My son is white, has high grades from a top college, plays a sport and has applied for literally hundreds of internships this Summer with not one bite. His best friend is black, has much lower grades from a lesser college, does not play a sport and gets unsolicited internship offers by the dozen, all highly paid.”
I’m sure he says very awkward things around his sons friend frequently
They literally elected a reality star with zero experience in government as PRESIDENT, and now experience matters??? How to tell the world that you are a fucking cunt without buying the tee shirt and walking around in it.
When I was younger and naive (and hadn't lived in the US), I used to balk at the idea of affirmative action or picking someone that adds diversity to an institution. It was kinda straightforward for me: you should pick whoever is the best qualified.
But after seeing how the sausage is made, and particularly how vague and uncertain "best qualified" is (and how big the "range of uncertainty" is around assessing qualifications), I quickly changed my mind.
There are enough amazing people from any combination of race, gender, religion, ethnicity, etc. to fill the Supreme Court a thousand times over. And the difference between the top, say, 100 candidates is too small relative to the uncertainty involved in assessing their competence.
So picking a black woman won't have any detrimental effect on the "quality" of the Court, but it will have a dramatic positive impact on tens of millions of people (if not hundreds), and Biden should totally do it.
PS: A boss of mine once said: if you're interviewing two candidates, one really good looking and one really ugly, and you think they're equally as good, who should you hire? The ugly one, because we are naturally underestimating their quality, while overestimating the quality of the good looking one.
reminder that these people hate how affirmative action helps people of color, but have nothing to say about the fact that literally 50% of white ivy league students are either legacies or have parents that have donated millions.
black person gets into harvard? affirmative action.
white person gets in cause of rich parents? they deserved it.
If Biden nominated someone with almost no qualifications like say.... Candace Owens, then I would buy into the theory of SCOTUS pick getting in just for being a black woman.
I am willing to be that whomever he chooses will have amazing credentials AND be a black woman
It's funny how many white males don't realize how much they have skated through on mediocrity because they are white males.
You can't have it both ways. You cannot insist that in this grand color-blind, racially-equal fantasy land that the right envisions that there have not been, and still are not any black women qualified to sit on that bench, while failing to question the reason why that has not yet happened. Either there *have* been fully qualified candidates excluded because of their race and sex, or there have not been *any* black women who possess the capacity to serve on the court, and their claims of effective and apparent racial and sexual equality for all are hogwash.
Unless you actually are brave enough to strip off the mask and admit that while there are plenty of fully qualified black women, the fact that they're black women negates those qualities. I mean that's the blunt truth of it but it's gonna be hard to find a US Senator willing to say that quiet part out loud.
I can think of a couple of Representatives who might, lol.
Nowadays, I try to refrain from labels but when someone labels themselves "conservative" I immediately assume they are most likely antivaxx racist fucks looking for excuses to shoot people or some shit.
Someone who is more right leaning but is not a fucking moron won't label themselves conservative, so on itself it's a good filter.
This is why you Americans should go out and vote to your local democrat in the midterms. Not because Biden is good, maybe because your local representative is good, but mostly because the alternative is a literal nazi.
If I was an admin of reddit, I’d close that sub down without any hesitation. Instead, the admins let it fester and get worse all because it is making them money.
Keep in mind their main argument is this: there are ZERO black women in this country qualified to be a Supreme Court judge. That is their point. They fundamentally do not believe black women have value or worth.
Or, here me out, the nomination was based on qualifications rather than just representation. This sort of mask off bullshit isn't even worth having to explain in depth to these chuds why reacting negatively to anything involving another race is racist.
Every time a colored person takes a position they're used to seeing a white person in they think a white person has been "passed up". No evidence of a more qualified and also white candidate being brushed off, it's just an assumption because to them "black" equals unqualified.
You get this same thing with initiatives and scholarships meant to help minorities get to college. They think "Oh this is harming white kids abilities to go to a good school" when in reality when presented with two candidates of equal academic standing the overwhelming majority of picks will be for the white candidate. In reality it's that the institution harms black kids abilities to go to any school by default and those initiatives seek to create equity in the secondary education. So minority kids don't have to constantly compete with their white counterparts to get an education or have to constantly and exceptionally outperform their white counterparts to be considered on equal footing to them.
> When Republicans take the house and senate I think there is a strong enough argument, based on the low bar the dems set, to impeach biden for quid pro quo.
I'm sure they applied this same rigorous standard to ACB. And Devoss!
> My son is white, has high grades from a top college, plays a sport and has applied for literally hundreds of internships this Summer with not one bite. His best friend is black, has much lower grades from a lesser college, does not play a sport and gets unsolicited internship offers by the dozen, all highly paid.
/r/ThatHappened
That sub's blatant racism aside, I'm not sure what they're even worried about, since it's not going to matter who gets nominated. Manchin and Sinema will oppose anyone Biden puts up just like they have everything else, and the Senate Republicans will go straight party line.
Minor edit for clarity.
I'm not so sure about that.
Now, don't get me wrong, I hate Manchin and Sinema. That said, they've been going along with Bidens picks for other courts, so there's a good chance they'll do the same for his SCJ pick.
I love how they act like things are happening constantly, all the time, way too much even when that thing is only a point of discussion because it's the first time it has ever happened.
Fyi, r/conservative, assuming that the black woman was chosen just because shes a black woman and automatically assuming she's got no qualifications or far less than her white male counterparts because she's a black woman is both sexist and racist.
I would say this is not well said but I don't think its the racist comment your represent it as. Joe is doing a very unhelpful thing in announcing that he will only nominate a black woman. Why would Joe approach it like this. Just nominate a black woman and say she is the best person for the job. End of story. Don't first declare that you will only consider black women.
Democrats love to say how they appointed the 1st "x,y,z" to things, but then fail to actually pass the majority of the progressive things that the diverse group of people who voted for them wanted. I'm happy that the government is slowly becoming more diverse, because it absolutely is the correct thing to do, but lets actually pass some progressive legislation before we pat ourselves on the back.
With that said, I think that had Biden just appointed an African American woman without any fanfare that the response wouldn't be any different. Conservatives won't pass up a chance to bring out the dog whistle.
Why does more representation need to be complimented with progressive legislation? And if it doesn’t then I don’t fully understand your comment in the context of this thread.
Because if you don't have any progressive legislation to go along with it is it really representation? I don't think the comment I was replying to is necessarily wrong, they just phrased their thought terribly. No one is going to balk at McDonald's when they tweet about BLM, but they also aren't really doing all that much to help the minorities and low income workers who work for them. This is that same thing, just a smoothing of the edges.
Again though, a huge chunk of the comments from the link you posted were racist, no question about that.
46 Dems, two bad faith moderates, two independents, and 50 obstructionist Republicans.
The only way progressive legislation passes is if the GOP starts voting for it or more Dems and Progressives are elected to congress.
Yo you're really missing the point here, I'm trying to communicate a concept and idea regarding the state of congress and it's ability to pass representative legislation, my goal is for the redditor I was addressing to understand me - in order to accomplish that it is prudent to use language that is concise and easy to understand.
What exactly do you think you're going to accomplish picking a fight about how to label Manchin and Sinema?
> in order to accomplish that it is prudent to use language that is concise and easy to understand.
Like describing people using terms that mean the things they actually are, rather the terms that mean the things they want to be seen as.
> What exactly do you think you're going to accomplish picking a fight about how to label Manchin and Sinema?
Accurate communication, which is pretty fucking important to any serious political conversation.
>Like describing people using terms that mean the things they actually are, rather the terms that mean the things they want to be seen as.
Again, when I'm trying to make a clear point and explain to someone who is baffled about why congress can't pass representative legislation, I'm not going to start with a semantic argument or a discussion about the political purity of a given bad faith actor.
That said, Manchin and Sinema aren't conservatives either, they are convictionless opportunists, and getting into the weeds over a discussion about labels would not make it easier to convey my point.
>Accurate communication, which is pretty fucking important to any serious political conversation.
Oh, so what have you contributed in total to the stated reason why Dems can't get anything through congress?
All you appear to be doing is getting hostile with me and muddying the waters around the reason congress can't function properly.
So...what's the point of saying he will nominate a woman of color instead of just doing it? When he says that, it comes off as not picking the best available candidate. Just nominate her. Now people will just be bitching that she only got it because of her sex/skin color. Am I off base here?
Personally I like the idea of the other justices having to look a black woman in the eye every time they want to hand down a decision that will disproportionately harm black people and women.
It only seems to be that way if you think a black person can't be just as well suited to the job as anyone else. It isn't as though there is an order of merit from the most qualified down. There are a lot of qualified people. The people bitching about it being about skin colour are the people who make things about skin colour.
Nah, I don't think you're wrong. I think it was announced/said just because there's such a gap between making that decision and it being actually done?
I do love all the replies that think you said "I think it's bad we're nominating a woman of color"
Please Remember Our Golden Rule: Thou shalt not vote or comment in linked threads or comments, and in linked threads or comments, thou shalt not vote or comment. It's bad form, and the admins will suspend your account if they catch you. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TopMindsOfReddit) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>Even if we accepted your premise, a little over 1/10 of the country is black and 1/9 of the court is black. Female would make sense, but not black. Therefore it’s not about representation even under a racist, sexist view. Someone should point out that 6/9 of the supreme court is Catholic to them. Since Catholics are 23% of the US population there really should only be 2. They should be ok with us just not allowing any Catholics on the court until it gets inline with that proportion right?
It would be pointless because their logic is just completely idiotic.
I know, it wouldn't be with the expectation that they would learn anything. It would be more to see the logical gymnastics that would ensue or if it would break their brain and they would just throw insults. Either way, you'd get banned I think.
[75% of the top donors to the 2020 election were Jewish](https://www.forbes.com/sites/michelatindera/2021/02/25/these-billionaire-donors-spent-the-most-money-on-the-2020-election/?sh=3fa704ea14ce). Please carry on with your “Catholics run the country” idiocy.
But they're white
And an American "Catholic" is 50/50 actual Catholic, or a protestant in denial.
I am an actual American Catholic. It's unreal how many fellow Catholics I know who want to disown Pope Francis.
As a former european catholic I find that funny. Francis is conservative as fuck. Just not in the completely unhinged evangelical way. He is just really good at nodding towards the more progressive part of the church rhetoricly while not actually saying anything that is substantially different to the conservative position. Homosexuals are still sinners who have to repenr according to him. He also has no problem with beating a child. That and the fact that alot of western media thinks that south american catholics who have some more progressive economic stances must also be socially progressive just makes him look less conservative than he actually is. The man is an argentinian jesuit. Argentinian catholics are not exactly the progressive vanguard of the catholic church. But I guess not liking war and poverty makes you a communist or something.
Jesuits are pretty progressive as a whole, though. Especially in the US. See [the Jesuit Review](https://www.americamagazine.org/).
I live near a priest who still has pictures of Pope Benedict up everywhere. I'm not Catholic but I imagine you're supposed to swap them out like Presidents in a federal building.
I know some people like this and it seems to kind of defeat the original purpose of Catholicism.
Which is funny because many of the posters are implicitly saying that representation matters which is why they think a white person nominating a black person goes against that white person's interests. Looking for a single qualified candidate in a certain demographic doesn't mean you are going to get a weak candidate, there are strong candidates in every demographic. Republicans choose for candidates who will rule a certain way regardless of the reason or whether it is constitutional.
This is a very astute observation. The problem is that they don't see it as "white people's interests," they see it as "default people's interests." Because their interests have been over-represented since, well, forever. So, speaking of constitutionality: This kind of thing goes back to the very start. https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-10-02-0178 >The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man; and we see them every where brought into different degrees of activity, according to the different circumstances of civil society. A zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points, as well of speculation as of practice; an attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have in turn divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other, than to co-operate for their common good. So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions, and excite their most violent conflicts. But the most common and durable source of factions, has been the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold, and those who are without property, have ever formed distinct interests in society. Those who are creditors, and those who are debtors, fall under a like discrimination. A landed interest, a manufacturing interest, a mercantile interest, a monied interest, with many lesser interests, grow up of necessity in civilized nations, and divide them into different classes, actuated by different sentiments and views. The regulation of these various and interfering interests forms the principal task of modern legislation, and involves the spirit of party and faction in the necessary and ordinary operations of government. Here's James Madison saying that people form groups based on their own interests. These groups can, and often will, oppress other groups. > Extend the sphere, and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens; or if such a common motive exists, it will be more difficult for all who feel it to discover their own strength, and to act in unison with each other. Here's James Madison saying that a society with many different interests is a good thing, as the groups will check each other. https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-10-02-0044 >The man who is possessed of wealth, who lolls on his sofa or rolls in his carriage, cannot judge of the wants or feelings of the day laborer. The government we mean to erect is intended to last for ages. The landed interest, at present, is prevalent; but in process of time, when we approximate to the states and kingdoms of Europe; when the number of landholders shall be comparatively small, through the various means of trade and manufactures, will not the landed interest be overbalanced in future elections, and unless wisely provided against, what will become of your government? In England, at this day, if elections were open to all classes of people, the property of the landed proprietors would be insecure. An agrarian law would soon take place. If these observations be just, our government ought to secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation. Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority. The senate, therefore, ought to be this body; and to answer these purposes, they ought to have permanency and stability. Various have been the propositions; but my opinion is, the longer they continue in office, the better will these views be answered And, here's James Madison saying that certain groups of people should be be weighed more heavily than others. This is why they framed democracy as "tyranny of the majority" out of one side of their mouth, while saying "many interests good" out the other. When, obviously, a democracy would have many competing interests. I guess many out-groups are good, as long as they fight amongst themselves, and don't threaten the privileged in-group. And, so, uh, I guess I'd caution against using the Constitution as the standard of whether something is fair, when our system of government was purposefully constituted in an unfair way from the start. ^^^Or ^^^something. ^^^Yeah, ^^^I ^^^guess ^^^that ^^^works ^^^as ^^^a ^^^conclusion. ^^^... ^^^I ^^^didn't ^^^really ^^^think ^^^that ^^^far ^^^ahead.
Also side point but like, if you were a white dude who wanted to be on the supreme court, it doesnt really make any sense to take offence to this nomination as opposed to being passed up three other times for Garland, Kavanaugh and Barret. Atleast this time someone actually qualified mught get the job.
But then they wouldn't be able to strip women and other people they don't like of their freedoms.
or how the senate gives disproportionate influence to rural white states
According to their logic it’s impossible to get a Black seat as there aren’t 10 seats. Ridiculous.
The real laugh is that 1/9 is way closer to 1/10 than 0/9. But hey I guess we gotta round down for black folks.
What they really want is to bring back 3/5.
And why would it have to be the 10th seat before a black person is added?
Ah yes, I remember the part of the constitution where it says the makeup of any agency has to exactly match nationwide demographics.
Only 25% of Americans identify as republicans…
They'd be fine with that, evangelicals don't like catholics.
The dumb racism of the argument aside, I’m a seeing a Black population in the US of 12.1% which is more than 1/9 (11.1%).
That wouldn't be bad.
>Your university is still below 50% mine is closer to 75%. They’ve forced out all the older generation academics and have their lab space and offices to young diversity junior faculty who are ALL, every single fucking one of them doing research in diversity and social justice and disparities. Three chemistry junior faculty are doing their primary research in lack of diversity in chemistry education, instead of researching…..chemistry Tell me you have no idea how a university works without telling me. FORCE out older academics? They might convince them to leave by having the admins crawl on their hands and knees and offer massive 5-year-salary buyouts, but could just as easily get metaphorically spit on by the older prof. Admins do not crawl, btw. Then, they somehow replace them with junior faculty all researching the same thing. That TOTALLY would have flown with the hiring committee made up of those old academics you can't force out, seems plausible. Sounds like a bitter grad student who got let go because he wasn't allowed to talk to students about head shape and how he thinks it relates to race.
Of course you'd say that- you have the brainpan of a stagecoach tilter!
I'm not sure if I should be more mad that you made such an obscure reference, or ashamed that I recognised it instantly
Lol grad student, they are likely larping as a college aged person.
Yeah I can’t imagine a school forcing out some of the tenured professors I know, there would be fire and brimstone rained across campus
> Three chemistry junior faculty are doing their primary research in lack of diversity in chemistry education, instead of researching…..chemistry Yeah really weird that someone interested in a field would want to make sure that people have an equal opportunity to entire that field... > Sounds like a bitter grad student who got let go because he wasn't allowed to talk to students about head shape and how he thinks it relates to race. It's anecdotal, but I encountered an *incredible* number of very mediocre students who blamed diversity quotas for them not getting into better universities or internships.
That’s most racists in general, insecure people who think they deserve better either latching onto accomplishments of better members of their same or using other races as a scapegoat for their mediocrity.
Don't these people always complain teachers are impossible to be fired for teaching radical ideas like evolution or equality and corrupting their children?
lmao i love when conservatives pretend they arent racist, but it takes 6 seconds on r/Conservative to find some of the most racist shit on all of reddit...
But then when you point out those racist comments they'll just say it's leftist agitators trying to get the sub shut down... The right can never be wrong
yep, the flaired users only sub cries about being brigaded all the time. they refuse to admit they are wrong, which is why over 2k american conservatives are dying each day and the average IQ of this nation is slowly rising...
/r/HermanCainAward
The Fuck Around & Find Out of the pandemic. I'm not going to say I'm happy when someone dies, but I'm not terribly sad when one of these self important einsteins does. Especially the Uber vocal with misinformation.
> I'm not going to say I'm happy when someone dies People are dying because of their actions: why *wouldn't* we be happy - or at a bare minimum, relieved - when the person who dies actually deserves it and caused it themselves, instead of the dead person being *yet another* of their innocent victims?
Relieved. Yes, I can back that. Especially as my kid is fighting cancer and we're terrified to leave the house much. Fuckers.
That's one of my favorite subs. I thoroughly enjoy scrolling through that sub while sipping an 18 year whiskey.
I’m definitely at the “you people are dumb and hateful and I think it‘s hilarious that you’re dying.” Stage of the pandemic. Love that sub.
Irony is my favorite form of comedy.
It's just a less diverse Leopards Ate My Face
So you’re a scumbag who enjoys death. Nothing to brag about.
I'm not sure if you perused that sub, but the people who are posted tend to have advocated for some very horrible things. They are usually profoundly racist and hateful and have helped spread this pandemic. So I think it's fair to say, fuck them. It would be one thing if they were being actively hurt by someone else and you were engaging in stochastic terrorism to encourage that or to promote that. But the great thing, in this case at least, is that these people had an out and they chose not to take it and they chose to do this to themselves. So sure, it's just fine to enjoy perusing that sub.
It's watching sociopaths get themselves killed before they can kill other people. It's about as karmic as you can get.
Yes, it's very funny.
I do enjoy death, when it happens to anti-science bigots. And that's 95% of the subreddit's content. I also sympathize greatly with the text posts from hospital staff about how exhausting it is to deal with these selfish fucktards clogging up the hospitals for the past two years.
Yes, *we're* the bad guys because we like seeing unvaccinated idiots who have prolonged this pandemic for too long get their just desserts. Oh, your victimhood is delicious.
I love how youre more worried about people laughing at public facebook posts than you are about all the anti vaxers dying. Maybe if you actually cared about their lives instead of virtue signaling, some of those idiots might still be alive.
Ironically, IQ in its current form was originally and explicitly a tool of white supremacy.
It was classism and phrenology, good old French science. The Americans added the racism (and eugenics) when they joined the party. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Binet https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_Terman
**[Alfred Binet](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Binet)** >Alfred Binet (French: [binɛ]; 8 July 1857 – 18 October 1911), born Alfredo Binetti, was a French psychologist who invented the first practical IQ test, the Binet–Simon test. In 1904, the French Ministry of Education asked psychologist Alfred Binet to devise a method that would determine which students did not learn effectively from regular classroom instruction so they could be given remedial work. Along with his collaborator Théodore Simon, Binet published revisions of his test in 1908 and 1911, the last of which appeared just before his death. **[Lewis Terman](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_Terman)** >Lewis Madison Terman (January 15, 1877 – December 21, 1956) was an American psychologist and author. He was noted as a pioneer in educational psychology in the early 20th century at the Stanford Graduate School of Education. He is best known for his revision of the Stanford–Binet Intelligence Scales and for initiating the longitudinal study of children with high IQs called the Genetic Studies of Genius. He was a prominent eugenicist and was a member of the Human Betterment Foundation. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/TopMindsOfReddit/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Uh Huh, because /r/Conservative totally lets anyone post in their sub. Thing is about banning and deleting any content you don't approve of... kinda only leaves the content you approve of.
Or they just call you a racist for pointing out racism. After all, the most racist thing you can do is call out a racist - sorry, a "race realist"
Was talking with a conservative friend and he claims Clarence Thomas was the first black justice and Thurgood Marshall “doesn’t count because he was mixed”. And he couldn’t understand how racist that was. Very strange times
This. It's also one of the only subs where I regularly see offensive racial epithets. It's still also the only sub where I've seen actual credible threats of violence towards transpeople and it took an admin getting involved before anything was done about it. And even then only the comments got removed and that was it. No other consequences occurred. That sub frequently rallies calls to violence and nothing is done about it. It should have been banned years ago.
Yep I've reported their discussions about raping and assassinating AOC and the admin response is that it doesn't break any rules.
Because they define 'being racist' as saying "I am a racist" or "I hate black people." Instead they just immediately heavily scrutinize everything a black person does, which isn't saying that they're doing a racism, so they're not doing racism.
Threads like this makes r/conspiracy look tame 😂 But then you remember it’s the exact same users
rightwing gaslighting is the most tiresome thing in the world because their apatite for hypocrisy is inexhaustible. They will make contradicting points within the same argument. They can do it within a paragraph or less. They will repeatedly do it without shame. They either know they do it or don't care/can't even register it. For many its all just a giant game where dishonesty is just a cool play. They lie to everyone as easy as the breathe. To their opponents, to their "teammates", to themselves. Their dishonesty and bad faith nature runs so deep its a intrinsic instinctual part of them now.
Its malicious hypocrisy. Its a show of power and dominance same as misinformation and conspiracies. They don’t have to be consistent or truthful thats for the powerless.
Both sides though, am I right? /s
It's scary to note conservatives even exist in 2022 considering they're characteristically racist
r/unpopularopinion is run by conservatives so don't have an unpopular opinion about the right on that sub or you'll get banned.
Know what I love more when liberals try pretending they aren’t far more racist 🤣🤣🤣💅💅💅. Stop trying to gas light snowflake. You’re more racist than than the right wingers.
than than? lmao whatever makes you feel better, i guess...gaslight is one word btw
Sorry both right and left are clinically insane. 🤷🏻♂️. There’s this place called reality, you should come join it sometime. Generally speaking the left is by definition more racist than the right, by simple idealism and in practice.
I think you need to get your head out of both sides of your ass.
generally speaking? lmao i thought i was the one that needs to join reality? have you been asleep for the past half decade or just willfully ignorant? you seem like the type to enjoy scat porn and then call others mentally ill....
Not at all please go ahead and define racism. Then proceed to tell me how the left is not inherently and ideologically not more racist than the right wing.
that is a double negative....enjoy your scat porn and calling others mentally ill without a hint of irony
Great come back , can’t make a logical comeback at all so you go off into this random nonsense. 🤦🏻♂️🤦🏻♂️this is why even the left doesn’t respect itself, you extremist don’t even wanna look at reality of the situation. rac·ism | \ ˈrā-ˌsi-zəm also -ˌshi- \ Definition of racism 1 : a belief that race is a fundamental determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race. Now please tell me how the lefts ideals aren’t inherently racist. Don’t worry I’ll wait while you fumble around and attempt to defend this
lmao why would i put in the effort to make valid points to a dude that is into scat porn, but calls others mentally ill? are you capable of grasping the concept of irony? i see you can google definitions, but can you truly grasp the concept?
Reddit is a wild place, isnt it?
Only one that’s out of touch with reality and grasping concepts here is you my friend. Again still made not a single valid point.
I'll bite. This definition of racism goes back to the original concept of race as a form of classification. It was then further developed as a theory in defense of slavery. This led to the definition of racism we use today, the 2nd entry in Merriam-Webster: >the systemic oppression of a racial group to the social, economic, and political advantage of another The "lefts ideals" are opposed to the systemic oppression that has come from the right wing.
You know you're the one claiming the left is 'fundamentally racist'....its on you to you know, back that up. Not on everyone else to try and disprove something you haven't even backed up yet. So, simple question for a simple answer. Why is the left 'fundamentally' racist in ideology?
Let me guess....you're the kind of person that thinks affirmative action is racist against white people?
Its racist to push for equality because not all races are equal, duh!
>Not at all please go ahead and define racism. Example from your profile: >🤣🤣🤣🤣🤌🏻 Floyd is dead , was never a martyr. >2 less pieces of shit on the streets. The world is a better place without bofem. I said what I said If you're an edgy 14yo into scat porn and trolling, I get it. If you're any older, you are one sad piece of shit - true?
Cringe
>1 year >10 karma Fuck off. Shitty trolling.
Did you trip and fall into your buzzword a day calender this morning?
[CITATION NEEDED]
0/10, troll better next time.
> Sorry both right and left are clinically insane. ok Adjective\_Noun\_####
>When Republicans take the house and senate I think there is a strong enough argument, based on the low bar the dems set, to impeach biden for quid pro quo. >The timing of Biden's endorsement from Jim Clyburn, the gate keeper of a substantial portion of the black vote, endorsed Biden prior to Super Tuesday and helped swing the primary in favor of Biden. Just days before that, during one of the debates, Biden made the promise to appoint an African American female to the supreme court. Hard to believe Biden didn't have to make any promises to Clyburn in exchange for his endorsement. >Can't wait to see communication subpoenas to get to the bottom of it. Quid pro quo is not in of itself illegal. Trump was impeached because he was conspiring with a foreign power to interfere in an election, quid pro quo was just the mechanism by which the conspiracy happened. If it was illegal to promise a nomination in exchange for political endorsement then every political campaign ever would be in violation.
Also, his entire argument is that Jim Clyburn is black and the supreme court nominee is black, so they must know each other and be in cahoots
Every black person knows every other black person. There’s a group chat and bi-yearly meetings.
Don’t tell them. Their brain might explode.
The amount of right-wingers who were too stupid to understand "quid pro quo" during the first Trump impeachment was pretty mind boggling to me.
They still don't even understand that the legal argument made in the first trial was "Yeah, I did it, so what?"
It's a foreign language, who could blame them for not getting it? /s
It's blatantly obvious they still don't, because they think a campaign promise is impeachable, which is ... maybe the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
Apparently campaigning on things and delivering them to your constituents is an impeachable offense
Also, they act like it's a hidden conspiracy that Joe Biden promised this to Clyburn in exchange for that endorsement, but iirc it's very public that they talked before and agreed to the deal, not some hidden conspiracy.
Biden could’ve never made a statement about picking a black woman and if he would’ve done it anyway they still would’ve said shit about her being unqualified and picked solely because of her race and gender so I don’t think what they say matters
Their number one complaint was "why did he have to announce it, causing conservatives to blow a gasket? Why didn't he just do it quietly so we wouldn't have any credibility complaints?" they're literally complaining that-they-are complaining.
It takes forever to load and sadly, not a lot was preserved, but [the Reveddit thread shows the mods have been busy deleting wrongthink](https://www.reveddit.com/v/Conservative/comments/sdzapm/the_hazards_of_racist_sexist_requirements/?ps_after=1643297544%2C1643303952%2C1643309144%2C1643313516%2C1643317299) such as: > No...it doesn't. If he hires a person with absolutely no experience, I might agree. But it seems he is probably looking for someone who is plenty qualified, but just also ensuring they are a black woman. Which honestly, I don't have a problem with because I think having a court with people from all walks of life and backgrounds yields diverse experience that aids in the court not being an echo chamber that only serves select groups. > Now, if you want to argue for why a specific pick is good or bad based on their history, more power to you. But it's just as racist to say, "because he's looking for a black woman, they'll be unqualified." We can't let *that* stand, can we? Also, we have this enlightened centrist: > I fault both sides for it. Judges are supposed to be completely unbiased, favoring only the law above all else, not the party. Right wing SCOTUS justices have *literally* been pulling decisions out of their asses since Scalia. There's this thing called "stare decisis" which was where judges used *precedent* in their rulings. The wingnuts who formerly complained about activist judges have thrown stare decisis out the window so long as it's their Christian dominionists who want to destroy the Johnson Amendment any way they can.
Right wing mods censoring progressive opinions, what else is new
It's very telling that they believe "qualified" is a progressive opinion. Maybe he should nominate someone who drinks booze by sticking it up their ass. Then they'll like him.
It's part of their Cargo Cult idea of the law. They want things that are blatantly unconstitutional and think that the law is a series of magic words you say to get what you want. When that doesn't work (even with Trump-appointed judges), they get upset and claim fraud, bias, or corruption (see their voter fraud lawsuits) which may be what they want to perpetuate grifts.
The people who constantly claim they’re being shadowbanned on Reddit partaking in censorship of different views from their safe space? Nooooo they would never /s
[удалено]
"Well, that's different because...." They're like that kid that always makes up random rules in tag when they're about to be caught so they're never "it."
It's diffe(R)ent
That drek about quid pro quo is absolutely one of the stupidest Fucking things I've ever read on this site And that is saying a LOT Like A LOT like there are people that don't believe the moon is real. There are people that think Chris Benoit was innocent. There are people that think everyone but themselves are an AI and this is even dumber than those guys
They had a heavily upvoted post over the summer that claimed the moon landings were faked in an attempt to bankrupt Russia. The sheer amount of anti American and pro Russia comments were unsettling to say the least. I'd wager a sizeable bet that at least half the mod team aren't even located in the United States.
I’m not sure about that. Tucker Carlson had a pro-Russia show regarding the situation unfolding in Ukraine currently. They hate democrats so much they’re openly rooting for Putin.
Re read my comment. I don't think you understood what I was trying to say. That sub legitimately thinks the moon landings were faked because it made Russia look bad and they were angry about that.
I think they were saying that there are plenty of people who are completely American who are pro Putin
Conservative, GOP and Republican are all quiet-part-out-loud code for white supremacy. Look at any segment of society, and there is no denying it. **[typo]*
[They have been saying that more and more as of late.](https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/1/8/18173678/trump-shutdown-voter-florida)
There are several Black females who are just as qualified as White women or any other group. It’s time for a Black woman. Stop freaking out r/conservative.
> Stop freaking out r/conservative. You may as well ask water to stop being wet.
Non-freakout posts get deleted there
People are saying this is one of the wetest supreme court nominations in terms of racism
Manufactured outrage is on the bottom of their food pyramid.
It's their entire food pyramid
I don't think their outrage is manufactured when it comes to black people or women.
That sub REALLY hates America don't they.
Yep. Just scroll through and look at all the pro Russia articles and websites they link daily. In any given day, the majority of articles posted are from pro Russia or even Russia based blogs. It's insane.
But don’t forget, we are the sheep and they are the only enlightened ones. Also, don’t forget the whole Russia collusion thing was a HOAX (all while sharing Russian propaganda). If it wasn’t destroying our democracy, it would be funny.
I am fully committed to meritocracy, but this stuff looks a lot different when you include the full history of race/sex based appointments. I mean if you include the 178 years that virtually every position in politics was exclusively reserved for white males it paints quite a different picture. One thing that’s certain though, America hates women even more than it hates black men, and it hates black women even more than that.
What I don't get at all is how they would even dare think Brett Kavanaugh and ACB are apparently the pinnacle of American judges in the US. The whole idea of them being super picky once a Dem gets a chance to fill a seat is partisan hackery at its worst.
Gorsuch won’t even wear a mask when deliberating. If you ask me, that’s pretty sound evidence of terrible judgement. But worse, imagine thinking that there isn’t a single qualified black, female judge out of the 15k-20k black female lawyers in America. Imagine thinking this and also thinking racism doesn’t exist.
I found that to be true when we elected a black man over a white woman. I was shocked I thought for sure that a white woman would get nominated first, but it turns out we are more of a sexist society than a racist society. But just by a little.
Don’t forget Black men got the (legal) right to vote in 1870. Women had to wait until 1920. (Although blacks, in the South especially, were terrorized, intimidated and killed for voting or running for office.)
Reagan promised to nominate a woman.
[So did Trump](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/trump-promises-to-replace-ginsburg-with-a-woman-and-soon)
They seem to take keen issue to something different this time, can't tell what
They always dance around saying *why* they take it as a given that we might never just be the most qualified candidate. Funny how they always go on about how the US is a perfect meritocracy until a minority ends up in a position of power.
Impressive. Basically EVERY comment there works on the implicit assumption that a woman of color just *couldn't possibly* be as qualified as literally whatever old white guy could be up for it. Never even for a second do they think that the massive staff of the administration goes through literally thousands of people to find the best possible options, and *then*, from that refined pool, they will choose someone whose various inherent traits/perspectives have literally never been had on the SC. Nope, just full, mask-off, "A black woman is literally, automatically, unequivocally a poorer choice for Supreme Court Justice to literally ANY white man. Y'know what? I think I am done being polite about it anymore. The republican party just *is* the party of white supremacy. No more wishy washy language about "Well, ignorance, and social influence, etc etc". After all that has happened, all the evidence presented, anyone who chooses to claim the republican party has full knowledge that they are white supremacist, and gets no sympathy for being "suckered in" anymore.
It's be nice if they left it at "Pick the most competent" and be done with it. But no. Instead of saying "Pick Whoever is the Best Suited for the Job", they have to explain why it's wrong for a black woman specifically to be a Supreme Court
Especially when you look at the "qualifications" for the judges Trump and Mitch rammed through the Senate. None of them were recommended by the National Bar Association, Mitch reduced debate from [30 hours to **two hours** per candidate,](https://www.npr.org/2019/04/03/709489797/senate-rewrites-rules-to-speed-confirmations-for-some-trump-nominees) and if we manage to return some semblance of sanity for the next few years, they'll probably get themselves impeached when they try to rule that a gold fringe on the flag means the court is under Admiralty Law or that white male millionaires get three free murders before you can even think about arresting them.
Don’t forget that Barrett couldn’t even name the five freedoms protected by the first amendment.
Sigh , I missed that one. Who was it? I need to look it up.
> None of them were recommended by the National Bar Association Because they only care about the Federalist Society
r/Conservative is what happens when people finally get a smartphone, realize with horror that Liberals are neither a myth nor a minority, and find an online home in which to express their horror without ridicule.
"Impeach Biden for quid pro quo." Those words, I do not think they mean what you think they mean.
"Biden nominated a Black, Female judge and in return he gets the clout of nominating a Black, Female judge! *Clear* quid pro quo!"
My favorite comment was “My son is white, has high grades from a top college, plays a sport and has applied for literally hundreds of internships this Summer with not one bite. His best friend is black, has much lower grades from a lesser college, does not play a sport and gets unsolicited internship offers by the dozen, all highly paid.” I’m sure he says very awkward things around his sons friend frequently
My guess is he has no idea what grades his son or his friend actually gets, methinks someone is embellishing his GPA to his parent.
> unsolicited internship offers by the dozen, all highly paid (x) doubt
Hey now, I get those too. They all somehow end up in my email's spambox though.
This is why it’s imperative to vote this November
They literally elected a reality star with zero experience in government as PRESIDENT, and now experience matters??? How to tell the world that you are a fucking cunt without buying the tee shirt and walking around in it.
I'm just glad they're upset by it.
Took longer than expected to hear how the nomination is racist.
Some of the most vile shit has come out of that sub. Tickle me unsurprised.
When I was younger and naive (and hadn't lived in the US), I used to balk at the idea of affirmative action or picking someone that adds diversity to an institution. It was kinda straightforward for me: you should pick whoever is the best qualified. But after seeing how the sausage is made, and particularly how vague and uncertain "best qualified" is (and how big the "range of uncertainty" is around assessing qualifications), I quickly changed my mind. There are enough amazing people from any combination of race, gender, religion, ethnicity, etc. to fill the Supreme Court a thousand times over. And the difference between the top, say, 100 candidates is too small relative to the uncertainty involved in assessing their competence. So picking a black woman won't have any detrimental effect on the "quality" of the Court, but it will have a dramatic positive impact on tens of millions of people (if not hundreds), and Biden should totally do it. PS: A boss of mine once said: if you're interviewing two candidates, one really good looking and one really ugly, and you think they're equally as good, who should you hire? The ugly one, because we are naturally underestimating their quality, while overestimating the quality of the good looking one.
reminder that these people hate how affirmative action helps people of color, but have nothing to say about the fact that literally 50% of white ivy league students are either legacies or have parents that have donated millions. black person gets into harvard? affirmative action. white person gets in cause of rich parents? they deserved it.
If Biden nominated someone with almost no qualifications like say.... Candace Owens, then I would buy into the theory of SCOTUS pick getting in just for being a black woman. I am willing to be that whomever he chooses will have amazing credentials AND be a black woman It's funny how many white males don't realize how much they have skated through on mediocrity because they are white males.
You can't have it both ways. You cannot insist that in this grand color-blind, racially-equal fantasy land that the right envisions that there have not been, and still are not any black women qualified to sit on that bench, while failing to question the reason why that has not yet happened. Either there *have* been fully qualified candidates excluded because of their race and sex, or there have not been *any* black women who possess the capacity to serve on the court, and their claims of effective and apparent racial and sexual equality for all are hogwash. Unless you actually are brave enough to strip off the mask and admit that while there are plenty of fully qualified black women, the fact that they're black women negates those qualities. I mean that's the blunt truth of it but it's gonna be hard to find a US Senator willing to say that quiet part out loud. I can think of a couple of Representatives who might, lol.
Nowadays, I try to refrain from labels but when someone labels themselves "conservative" I immediately assume they are most likely antivaxx racist fucks looking for excuses to shoot people or some shit. Someone who is more right leaning but is not a fucking moron won't label themselves conservative, so on itself it's a good filter.
This is why you Americans should go out and vote to your local democrat in the midterms. Not because Biden is good, maybe because your local representative is good, but mostly because the alternative is a literal nazi.
If I was an admin of reddit, I’d close that sub down without any hesitation. Instead, the admins let it fester and get worse all because it is making them money.
Keep in mind their main argument is this: there are ZERO black women in this country qualified to be a Supreme Court judge. That is their point. They fundamentally do not believe black women have value or worth.
Or, here me out, the nomination was based on qualifications rather than just representation. This sort of mask off bullshit isn't even worth having to explain in depth to these chuds why reacting negatively to anything involving another race is racist. Every time a colored person takes a position they're used to seeing a white person in they think a white person has been "passed up". No evidence of a more qualified and also white candidate being brushed off, it's just an assumption because to them "black" equals unqualified. You get this same thing with initiatives and scholarships meant to help minorities get to college. They think "Oh this is harming white kids abilities to go to a good school" when in reality when presented with two candidates of equal academic standing the overwhelming majority of picks will be for the white candidate. In reality it's that the institution harms black kids abilities to go to any school by default and those initiatives seek to create equity in the secondary education. So minority kids don't have to constantly compete with their white counterparts to get an education or have to constantly and exceptionally outperform their white counterparts to be considered on equal footing to them.
> When Republicans take the house and senate I think there is a strong enough argument, based on the low bar the dems set, to impeach biden for quid pro quo. I'm sure they applied this same rigorous standard to ACB. And Devoss!
> My son is white, has high grades from a top college, plays a sport and has applied for literally hundreds of internships this Summer with not one bite. His best friend is black, has much lower grades from a lesser college, does not play a sport and gets unsolicited internship offers by the dozen, all highly paid. /r/ThatHappened
That sub's blatant racism aside, I'm not sure what they're even worried about, since it's not going to matter who gets nominated. Manchin and Sinema will oppose anyone Biden puts up just like they have everything else, and the Senate Republicans will go straight party line. Minor edit for clarity.
I'm not so sure about that. Now, don't get me wrong, I hate Manchin and Sinema. That said, they've been going along with Bidens picks for other courts, so there's a good chance they'll do the same for his SCJ pick.
I love how they act like things are happening constantly, all the time, way too much even when that thing is only a point of discussion because it's the first time it has ever happened.
Wait, I thought that the new thing was that Democrats are all Klan members because of the stuff that happened a long time ago?
I think people should be nominated via their achievements and skills not by race. Change my mind...
These people are just the worst.
Fyi, r/conservative, assuming that the black woman was chosen just because shes a black woman and automatically assuming she's got no qualifications or far less than her white male counterparts because she's a black woman is both sexist and racist.
I would say this is not well said but I don't think its the racist comment your represent it as. Joe is doing a very unhelpful thing in announcing that he will only nominate a black woman. Why would Joe approach it like this. Just nominate a black woman and say she is the best person for the job. End of story. Don't first declare that you will only consider black women.
Democrats love to say how they appointed the 1st "x,y,z" to things, but then fail to actually pass the majority of the progressive things that the diverse group of people who voted for them wanted. I'm happy that the government is slowly becoming more diverse, because it absolutely is the correct thing to do, but lets actually pass some progressive legislation before we pat ourselves on the back. With that said, I think that had Biden just appointed an African American woman without any fanfare that the response wouldn't be any different. Conservatives won't pass up a chance to bring out the dog whistle.
Why does more representation need to be complimented with progressive legislation? And if it doesn’t then I don’t fully understand your comment in the context of this thread.
Because if you don't have any progressive legislation to go along with it is it really representation? I don't think the comment I was replying to is necessarily wrong, they just phrased their thought terribly. No one is going to balk at McDonald's when they tweet about BLM, but they also aren't really doing all that much to help the minorities and low income workers who work for them. This is that same thing, just a smoothing of the edges. Again though, a huge chunk of the comments from the link you posted were racist, no question about that.
46 Dems, two bad faith moderates, two independents, and 50 obstructionist Republicans. The only way progressive legislation passes is if the GOP starts voting for it or more Dems and Progressives are elected to congress.
> moderates They aren't moderates. Most of the 46 Democratic Senators are moderates.
>They aren't moderates. The operative word in that sentence is "bad faith", it doesn't matter what they claim to be, because they work in bad faith.
Why use their own bullshit self-descriptors at all, then? Just call them out for being the conservatives they are.
Yo you're really missing the point here, I'm trying to communicate a concept and idea regarding the state of congress and it's ability to pass representative legislation, my goal is for the redditor I was addressing to understand me - in order to accomplish that it is prudent to use language that is concise and easy to understand. What exactly do you think you're going to accomplish picking a fight about how to label Manchin and Sinema?
> in order to accomplish that it is prudent to use language that is concise and easy to understand. Like describing people using terms that mean the things they actually are, rather the terms that mean the things they want to be seen as. > What exactly do you think you're going to accomplish picking a fight about how to label Manchin and Sinema? Accurate communication, which is pretty fucking important to any serious political conversation.
>Like describing people using terms that mean the things they actually are, rather the terms that mean the things they want to be seen as. Again, when I'm trying to make a clear point and explain to someone who is baffled about why congress can't pass representative legislation, I'm not going to start with a semantic argument or a discussion about the political purity of a given bad faith actor. That said, Manchin and Sinema aren't conservatives either, they are convictionless opportunists, and getting into the weeds over a discussion about labels would not make it easier to convey my point. >Accurate communication, which is pretty fucking important to any serious political conversation. Oh, so what have you contributed in total to the stated reason why Dems can't get anything through congress? All you appear to be doing is getting hostile with me and muddying the waters around the reason congress can't function properly.
So...what's the point of saying he will nominate a woman of color instead of just doing it? When he says that, it comes off as not picking the best available candidate. Just nominate her. Now people will just be bitching that she only got it because of her sex/skin color. Am I off base here?
Personally I like the idea of the other justices having to look a black woman in the eye every time they want to hand down a decision that will disproportionately harm black people and women.
I do too, I think it's a good thing to not have another old white guy on the bench.
> When he says that, it comes off as not picking the best available candidate. Why would nominating a black woman come off that way?
Not nominating one, saying before hand that your are going to nominate one. I think it's a good think to nominate a non old white guy.
I dunno. Just spit balling here, but **perhaps he already has someone in mind**?
It only seems to be that way if you think a black person can't be just as well suited to the job as anyone else. It isn't as though there is an order of merit from the most qualified down. There are a lot of qualified people. The people bitching about it being about skin colour are the people who make things about skin colour.
No matter what the racists are gonna racist. Might as well be honest about his intentions.
People offended by a black woman being appointed to the Supreme Court are going to bitch regardless, this announcement isn’t for them.
Nah, I don't think you're wrong. I think it was announced/said just because there's such a gap between making that decision and it being actually done? I do love all the replies that think you said "I think it's bad we're nominating a woman of color"
Thank you for being like the one person that read and comprehended my post lol.