The Face of Racism

[Moonbeam]

Perknose tried this tack already and failed. Maybe you will do better. Please tell me how suggesting that race should not be considered when selecting a person for a job is bigoted or racist.

Wait, I will be glad to answer that but how is that a question? You claim the author is suggesting that Obama pick a candidate based on race. I want to know where you read that in what he said. Please first show me where that is the intention of the article. I read it as an explanation of the issues in the black community regarding the nomination. Some blacks want a black woman on the court. Where does the author say he wants Obama to pick a black woman. What I read was that Obama's ignoring race in his selection has got some blacks to question whether he cares about their interests.

 

[CycloWizard]

Wait, I will be glad to answer that but how is that a question? You claim the author is suggesting that Obama pick a candidate based on race. I want to know where you read that in what he said. Please first show me where that is the intention of the article. I read it as an explanation of the issues in the black community regarding the nomination. Some blacks want a black woman on the court. Where does the author say he wants Obama to pick a black woman. What I read was that Obama's ignoring race in his selection has got some blacks to question whether he cares about their interests.

Try reading my post again - I didn't say it was a question. My claim is that it is racist to consider race in hiring anyone. Your claim was that my claim makes me a racist. Tell me why this claim makes me racist or just admit that you're playing the race card.

 

[Moonbeam]

Try reading my post again - I didn't say it was a question. My claim is that it is racist to consider race in hiring anyone. Your claim was that my claim makes me a racist. Tell me why this claim makes me racist or just admit that you're playing the race card.

Your claim was: "You want racism? Here it is. According to Roland Martin, Obama should have appointed a black woman to the Supreme Court simply for being a black woman."

I want to know where Roland Martin makes such a claim?

 

[werepossum]

There's a reason you study sociology and I teach engineering, and it's not only because I'm older.

Ooh, burn!

Sociology is beyond a soft science, it's downright squishy and can thus be easily molded into whatever shape one wants.

I didn't bring up the example to say that the SC is an all non-black organization, or that Thomas is an Uncle Tom - I did to make a point about minority representation. In this case, Martin is calling for a black female, a minority that has never been represented on the court, to have been at least under consideration. That is not necessarily racist.

Granted, but in an organization of nine a black female is not going to be represented most of the time. Looking at the number of black female judges (or using Kagan's example, and black female lawyer who shares the President's values) and the chance of representation goes way down. I agree that Martin's call is not necessarily racist, but certainly it requires looking first at skin color and only then at the person inside that skin.

 

[CycloWizard]

Your claim was: "You want racism? Here it is. According to Roland Martin, Obama should have appointed a black woman to the Supreme Court simply for being a black woman."

I want to know where Roland Martin makes such a claim?

I suppose it's impossible to use words to convince you of anything since you believe words have no meaning except that which you give them.

 

[Tab]

There's a reason you study sociology and I teach engineering, and it's not only because I'm older.

The reason I study sociology is because it's a general education requirement of my university, otherwise I have no interest in taking a sociology course when I'm a CompSci major.

I'm guessing you're a engineer not because you excelled so well in sociology.

Your Jedi mind tricks won't work on me, so you can stop waving your hand and saying, "Nothing to see here."

Wow, some comes up with a decent argument and you completely ignore them.

Congratulations!

Your claim was: "You want racism? Here it is. According to Roland Martin, Obama should have appointed a black woman to the Supreme Court simply for being a black woman."

I want to know where Roland Martin makes such a claim?

No shit, I've been wondering the same thing myself for the entire thread.

 

[dank69]

Your comments are misleading. Nowhere in the article does it say that 'a black person deserves the nomination.' It says that black candidates were not considered because the whitehouse staff feared that they would immediately be attacked for nominating a black person. Cyclo, this is what Moonbeam is trying to point out to you. Please remove your head from your ass.

 

[Tab]

I suppose it's impossible to use words to convince you of anything since you believe words have no meaning except that which you give them.

Translation : Oh shit, got caught with my pants down. Better throw out those insults!

Yet this time, for highly qualified African-American female judges, such as Leah Ward Sears, the retired chief justice of the Georgia Supreme Court, to never make the cut for a face-to-face interview with the president has ticked off a number of leaders I've talked with over the last several days.

Clearly, Ronald Martian is angry that Obama didn't even give a chance to a supposedly equal or even better candidate that happened to be black. Angering the black community and political leaders.

 

[Tab]

Your comments are misleading. Nowhere in the article does it say that 'a black person deserves the nomination.' It says that black candidates were not considered because the whitehouse staff feared that they would immediately be attacked for nominating a black person. Cyclo, this is what Moonbeam is trying to point out to you. Please remove your head from your ass.

You'll need to develop, design and test a process before he'll do this. He's a engineer you know?

 

[dank69]

He engineered a way to get it in there, I'm sure he can engineer it out again. I just don't think he wants to. He enjoys the taste of his own ass too much.

 

[Tab]

He engineered a way to get it in there, I'm sure he can engineer it out again. I just don't think he wants to. He enjoys the taste of his own ass too much.

omg burn! burn! lolololololololol

 

[cwjerome]

Right you were just echoing that meme outloud but aren't taking that position, just a little devil's advocacy then.....

"It's interesting that....."X", though I don't really care."

Ok boss.

Holy shit, what is wrong with you people? Quit projecting your own fears and doubts... like I said in my first post, I can care less if there's no Protestants on the court, I just thought it was a semi-interesting fact considering the % of Protestants in the population.

I am not religious at all.
I do not think every institution must reflect the general population.
I do not think affirmative action is a good idea.

I hope that's clear enough for you boss.

 

[rjl]

I didn't bring up the example to say that the SC is an all non-black organization, or that Thomas is an Uncle Tom - I did to make a point about minority representation. In this case, Martin is calling for a black female, a minority that has never been represented on the court, to have been at least under consideration. That is not necessarily racist.

Why didn't he call for an Asian? Or a Pacific-Islander? Native American? Surely they need to be represented in order for the SC to operate effectively and fairly?

What's really interesting are Obama's mushy criteria for a nominee to the Supreme Court:

"We need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that's the criterion by which I'm going to be selecting my judges."

Sort of underscores what a crock of shit the SC really is.

 

[dank69]

Why didn't he call for an Asian? Or a Pacific-Islander? Native American? Surely they need to be represented in order for the SC to operate effectively and fairly?

What's really interesting are Obama's mushy criteria for a nominee to the Supreme Court:

"We need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that's the criterion by which I'm going to be selecting my judges."

Sort of underscores what a crock of shit the SC really is.

You are missing the point. The point is that qualified black candidates were deliberately ignored.

 

[CycloWizard]

For all of you pseudo-literate twits, I'll again quote the title of the article for your enjoyment: "Why no black female court nominee?" The article is concerned with why a black woman was not nominated to the Supreme Court. Period. The presumable basis for your complaint is Roland's statement, "The nomination of Kagan has become a flash point in this uneasy relationship, because this is the second time in a year that President Obama has made a Supreme Court appointment and his administration didn't seriously consider an African-American woman for the job." However, this is simply a demonstration of a failure in your ability to read and understand, as the president does not publish a list of people he has considered for this position - the only name made public is the nominee herself. Therefore, he is pissed because a black woman wasn't nominated. Any claim to the contrary is simply an admission of your own illiteracy. Any personal attack on me on this basis is therefore laughable as a demonstration of your own idiocy.

Of course, if a such list of people Obama considered for the nomination exists, the ten of you knuckledraggers should be able to track it down, right? Let me save you the trouble - it is right here: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/slideshow/photos-president-obama-supreme-court-short-list-10360995
I'm not an ethnologist, but it appears that two of the nine people on the rumored list were, indeed, black women. This seems to support my claim that Roland is railing against Obama simply for not appointing one of these two. Tell me why I'm wrong.

 

[dank69]

For all of you pseudo-literate twits, I'll again quote the title of the article for your enjoyment: "Why no black female court nominee?" The article is concerned with why a black woman was not nominated to the Supreme Court. Period. The presumable basis for your complaint is Roland's statement, "The nomination of Kagan has become a flash point in this uneasy relationship, because this is the second time in a year that President Obama has made a Supreme Court appointment and his administration didn't seriously consider an African-American woman for the job." However, this is simply a demonstration of a failure in your ability to read and understand, as the president does not publish a list of people he has considered for this position - the only name made public is the nominee herself. Therefore, he is pissed because a black woman wasn't nominated. Any claim to the contrary is simply an admission of your own illiteracy. Any personal attack on me on this basis is therefore laughable as a demonstration of your own idiocy.

Of course, if a such list of people Obama considered for the nomination exists, the ten of you knuckledraggers should be able to track it down, right? Let me save you the trouble - it is right here: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/slideshow/photos-president-obama-supreme-court-short-list-10360995
I'm not an ethnologist, but it appears that two of the nine people on the rumored list were, indeed, black women. This seems to support my claim that Roland is railing against Obama simply for not appointing one of these two. Tell me why I'm wrong.

It is right there in your original quote:

The nomination of Kagan has become a flash point in this uneasy relationship, because this is the second time in a year that President Obama has made a Supreme Court appointment and his administration didn't seriously consider an African-American woman for the job.

The nomination of Sonia Sotomayor certainly was historic in that she became the first Hispanic to sit on the high court, and it was embraced by civil rights groups. Yet this time, for highly qualified African-American female judges, such as Leah Ward Sears, the retired chief justice of the Georgia Supreme Court, to never make the cut for a face-to-face interview with the president has ticked off a number of leaders I've talked with over the last several days.

 

[woolfe9999]

The definition you landed on by choosing dictionary.com is simply very politically "corrected," which I think you'll find in quite a few of the entries on that site. Another definition is, "Any attitude, action or institutional structure which systematically treats an individual or group of individuals differently because of their race." I would say that using race as a basis for any decision is contrary to the principle of justice and should be condemned accordingly whether you want to call it racism or something else.

Where did you get that particular definition from?

In any event, you are quite right to recognize this as an issue of semantics. But the issue of semantics is highly relevant here because there is a charge of hypocrisy being made. The charge is basically that certain people refer to others as racist but they, themselves, are racist. That charge only stands if the definition of racism holds consistent between the two counter-examples. I suggest that when the term racist is used in this society, it necessarily connotes some sort of animus based on race. Broader definitions may sometimes be used, but are not in the mainstream. In any event, for the charge of hypocrisy to hold, the definition must be the same in both cases.

As to whether it is "injustice" as you call it, that is actually quite a separate issue. It would be germaine if the principle purpose of your post was just to criticize this particular person's views, but you were making a broader point. You were saying how can you call other people racist when you have a problem of racism in your own midst and you are not speaking up about it. The answer to that question is obvious - we have two things which are different. One, allegedly, has to do with racial animus while the other, at least on the surface, does not. Perhaps both things are wrong, but the two are not necessarily the same, and hence the case for hypocrisy is problematic.

- wolf

 

[Tab]

Cylcowizard, thank you for clearly showing the entire forum how an quite intelligent individual can be so wrong on another subject - even if it's at a basic level. As, your posts in the highly technical section are quite well done but this one not so much.

 

[Tab]

It is right there in your original quote:

I already quoted that, and he, like he always does throws out insults and continues to ignore them.

 

[CycloWizard]

It is right there in your original quote:

I thought maybe you would care to look at the short list I posted and addressed in the post you just quoted. Instead, you've simply demonstrated my point. Thanks for playing along so nicely.

 

[Tab]

I thought maybe you would care to look at the short list I posted and addressed in the post you just quoted. Instead, you've simply demonstrated my point. Thanks for playing along so nicely.

Yes. That short listed based off rumors.

Curious, are this much of an intellectually dishonest douche in real life or just the internet?

 

[rjl]

You are missing the point. The point is that qualified black candidates were deliberately ignored.

Is there some kind of evidence that "qualified black candidates were deliberately ignored"?

The original article's suggestion that the Obama administration cannot or will not appoint an African-American candidate seems pretty flawed to me. Who is he afraid of offending? The so-called right who already despise him?

How specific are we going to get to insure equal representation as a realized concept? Midgets? Dwarves? People with attached earlobes?

As long as large segments of our society--black, white or whatever--organizes itself around race and identity politics, we are in trouble. People like Roland Martin make their living trading in this divisive currency.

 

[Tab]

Is there some kind of evidence that "qualified black candidates were deliberately ignored"?

The original article's suggestion that the Obama administration cannot or will not appoint an African-American candidate seems pretty flawed to me. Who is he afraid of offending? The so-called right who already despise him?

How specific are we going to get to insure equal representation as a realized concept? Midgets? Dwarves? People with attached earlobes?

As long as large segments of our society--black, white or whatever--organizes itself around race and identity politics, we are in trouble. People like Roland Martin make their living trading in this divisive currency.

There does, seem and appear to be some evidence point in that direction.

The right is already offended by literally everything Obama does but that's totally not even relevant - he didn't give a black women who may have been qualified or even more qualified pissing off black political leaders and the black community. While, we shouldn't organize ourself around "race politics" the world is obliviously not that simple.

 

[rjl]

There does, seem and appear to be some evidence point in that direction.

The right is already offended by literally everything Obama does but that's totally not even relevant - he didn't give a black women who may have been qualified or even more qualified pissing off black political leaders and the black community. While, we shouldn't organize ourself around "race politics" the world is obliviously not that simple.

What is the evidence? Can you or anyone else PROVE that qualified, female, black candidates for the pending vacant seat on the SC were deliberately ignored by the Obama administration? Memos? E-mails? Taped conversations?

If this administration isn't worried about pissing off the right, then why on Earth would they ignore qualified black candidates? Now there's no evidence that they deliberately ignored qualified black candidates--that I've seen anyway--but let's just say they did deliberately ignore qualified black candidates. Why would they do that?

 

[dank69]

What is the evidence? Can you or anyone else PROVE that qualified, female, black candidates for the pending vacant seat on the SC were deliberately ignored by the Obama administration? Memos? E-mails? Taped conversations?

If this administration isn't worried about pissing off the right, then why on Earth would they ignore qualified black candidates? Now there's no evidence that they deliberately ignored qualified black candidates--that I've seen anyway--but let's just say they did deliberately ignore qualified black candidates. Why would they do that?

I cannot speak for everyone else, but I am not claiming that she was qualified or not. Just pointing out that Cyclo can't read past the title to see what the article is actually claiming. It's like he has never seen a misleading title before. On top of that, he calls *us* illiterate when he is the one not comprehending his own mistake.