Jump to content

The Next President is...


disgruntledemployee

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, drewpey said:

Also important to be able to identify true journalism and not junk entertainment.

Doesn't make a difference to me. It's all junk. You just have to know what that publication is junk for and read between the lines. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It goes without saying that Sim would only post extremely biased, out of context, bullshit. But I went through the trouble of figuring out what was manipulated, so I might as well share it.

The context that’s missing is that, immediately before this clip starts, he says “If we can not make significant progress on racial equity, this country is doomed...” He’s saying the country is doomed if the growing minority groups continue to be treated unfairly, and they need to work together if they want to fix it.

If you want to check, watch the whole video. This is at ~1:14:30

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Negatory said:

The context that’s missing is that, immediately before this clip starts, he says “If we can not make significant progress on racial equity, this country is doomed...” He’s saying the country is doomed if the growing minority groups continue to be treated unfairly, and they need to work together if they want to fix it.

That is not what "equity" means. It has nothing to do with "fair treatment".

Equity means "equality of outcome".

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sim said:

Low effort screed.  Why when someone of color is put into a position the assumption becomes that they do not meet the requisites for the job?  Haven't the last 4 years shown that the bar for political offices are embarrassingly low anyways?

Also, I'm glad the right has woken up and started actually examining qualifications of nominations now. We don't want any green judges to get lifetime appointments, or a defense contractor exec the SEFDEF.  That would be pretty embarrassing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, drewpey said:

Low effort screed.

Agreed, links and a sentence don’t do much to foster conversation. Then again, the same people in here keep having the same debate so... maybe he’s onto something.

4 hours ago, drewpey said:

Why when someone of color is put into a position the assumption becomes that they do not meet the requisites for the job?  Haven't the last 4 years shown that the bar for political offices are embarrassingly low anyways?

Also, I'm glad the right has woken up and started actually examining qualifications of nominations now. We don't want any green judges to get lifetime appointments, or a defense contractor exec the SEFDEF.  That would be pretty embarrassing.

1) When someone is primarily selected for any reason other than competence (making the cabinet look like America is the goal, not the best qualified cabinet) then they’re automatically under scrutiny. It’s just human nature. If we started sending pilots to Weapons School based on their hair color, I’m pretty sure people would instantly assume they weren’t the brightest cherry in the bunch. This isn’t a race argument, that’s just the metric D’s want to use for screening.

However, this is Biden’s gig. If you think Kamala Harris is the best qualified VP simply due to her being a “female of color” then you’re going to think picking anyone who isn’t white is a great plan.

2) Hate to break it to you... but American history didn’t begin in 2016. There were incompetent appointments in D and R administrations prior, and there will be some moving forward. But this goal of picking an entire cabinet based on their race first is a new one, so it deserves scrutiny.

Btw, you’re getting better at not saying “But Trump!” directly. Glad to see Trump Derangement Syndrome is finally wearing off a bit. 😂

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Kiloalpha said:

Agreed, links and a sentence don’t do much to foster conversation. Then again, the same people in here keep having the same debate so... maybe he’s onto something.

1) When someone is primarily selected for any reason other than competence (making the cabinet look like America is the goal, not the best qualified cabinet) then they’re automatically under scrutiny. It’s just human nature. If we started sending pilots to Weapons School based on their hair color, I’m pretty sure people would instantly assume they weren’t the brightest cherry in the bunch. This isn’t a race argument, that’s just the metric D’s want to use for screening.

However, this is Biden’s gig. If you think Kamala Harris is the best qualified VP simply due to her being a “female of color” then you’re going to think picking anyone who isn’t white is a great plan.

2) Hate to break it to you... but American history didn’t begin in 2016. There were incompetent appointments in D and R administrations prior, and there will be some moving forward. But this goal of picking an entire cabinet based on their race first is a new one, so it deserves scrutiny.

Btw, you’re getting better at not saying “But Trump!” directly. Glad to see Trump Derangement Syndrome is finally wearing off a bit. 😂

I didn't really disdain Esper. He honestly made a lot of decent changes; and the dude wasn't unqualified. He was an Army officer for over a decade, and took his skills to the worlds largest defense supplier. Given that the US war machine runs on industry, this isn't a terrible perspective to hold.

So many people acted like just because he was a Boeing exec he was going to sell out, but the dude never resigned the rank of Major. Are people on here really so jaded that they believe once an officer separates they can't be professional enough to resume their Hippocratic duties if they ever return to the government fold? 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/23/2020 at 9:58 AM, slackline said:


https://www.dictionary.com/browse/equity

“the quality of being fair or impartial”

Maybe I’m misunderstanding the point you’re tying to make.

You are.

It isn't about the dictionary definition of equity. 

Just as how the social justice crowd has re-defined "racism" to hinge on power, "equity" has been re-defined to mean equality of outcome, usually with respect to money but also frequently with respect to social power.   So, when the term is used in the context of that video, they are talking about social power, and not fair treatment in front of the law.

It is a loaded codeword that is intended to sound like "equality" to those not paying attention.

This new definition is used commonly in the social science sphere.

Here's what Bret Weinstein, a self-identified progressive university professor says about equity:

Quote

Nobody's going to define the term equity for you. Do you know why? Because it's not a word. Equity to most of us is supposed to be a word. It has a definition and it has a lot to do with equality. But because this is effectively a plan for rapidly gaining power for effectively transferring power and wellbeing from one population to another, the term must never be defined.

What you will get are examples. If we had equity, it would look like X and so you'll be given an example that seems like nobody could oppose it. There's a cartoon you will see circulated with kids looking at a baseball game, and there's a short kid and a medium-height kid and a tall kid. The short kid can't see the game and the medium kid is on his toes looking over the fence and the tall kid can see it. Then, there are some boxes and there's a distribution of the boxes that renders everybody able to see the game. Who could oppose that?

But what is implied is false. What they really want is to turn the tables of oppression, and it's not even the real tables of oppression. They want to turn the imagined tables of oppression so that those who were privileged are now subordinate and those who were, in their own minds, most oppressed, will be the most well resourced and powerful. If they were honest about that, nobody would listen. It's obviously a preposterous plan.

 

Edited by Hacker
  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Hacker said:

You are.

It isn't about the dictionary definition of equity. 

Just as how the social justice crowd has re-defined "racism" to hinge on power, "equity" has been re-defined to mean equality of outcome, usually with respect to money but also frequently with respect to social power.   So, when the term is used in the context of that video, they are talking about social power, and not fair treatment in front of the law.

It is a loaded codeword that is intended to sound like "equality" to those not paying attention.

This new definition is used commonly in the social science sphere.

Here's what Bret Weinstein, a self-identified progressive university professor says about equity:

 

This seems to be the biggest disconnect in the conversation these days. Well-intentioned liberal voters are unaware of the the doctrine being espoused by the "intellectuals" driving their party. Makes the conversation difficult when the conservatives are more knowledgeable of what the progressives are pushing than the liberal voter engaged in the discussion. 

 

Another common retort is that such terminology and the associated arguments represent the crazy fringe of the party. But I don't think it's fair to argue that Ta'-Nehisi Coates, Robin DiAngelo, or Ibram X. Kendi are "fringe" anymore. They are thought leaders being quoted at the highest levels of power.

 

So when a liberal cites the dictionary, it demonstrates immediately that they don't even know what "their side" is preaching.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lord Ratner said:

This seems to be the biggest disconnect in the conversation these days. Well-intentioned liberal voters are unaware of the the doctrine being espoused by the "intellectuals" driving their party. Makes the conversation difficult when the conservatives are more knowledgeable of what the progressives are pushing than the liberal voter engaged in the discussion. 

 

Another common retort is that such terminology and the associated arguments represent the crazy fringe of the party. But I don't think it's fair to argue that Ta'-Nehisi Coates, Robin DiAngelo, or Ibram X. Kendi are "fringe" anymore. They are thought leaders being quoted at the highest levels of power.

 

So when a liberal cites the dictionary, it demonstrates immediately that they don't even know what "their side" is preaching.

So you argue that this is "mainstream", yet we "don't even know" what our side wants...?  I'm not sure you understand mainstream.  People with a book deal or twitter account does not translate to being the "thought leader".  I'm sure we could drum up some terrifying examples of "thought leaders" for the right, but that doesn't do anyone any good.

People can use whatever terminology they want, but we just want folks to be treated equally.  That actually polls quite well, so the right has to highlight these caricatures of progressivists to terrify conservatives from approaching reasonable and popular ideas.

We like to act like all democrats are super SJWs and want to cancel Christmas, but I have yet to ever meet this caricature.  I'm sure one day I will, but generally they are few and far between and most of us are not the extremists we are made out to be and just feel that the rich and corporations don't pull their weight and the government could adjust the scales a bit to help out the less fortunate, particularly if in the long run it would likely make fiscal sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, drewpey said:

So you argue that this is "mainstream", yet we "don't even know" what our side wants...?  I'm not sure you understand mainstream.  People with a book deal or twitter account does not translate to being the "thought leader".  I'm sure we could drum up some terrifying examples of "thought leaders" for the right, but that doesn't do anyone any good.

People can use whatever terminology they want, but we just want folks to be treated equally.  That actually polls quite well, so the right has to highlight these caricatures of progressivists to terrify conservatives from approaching reasonable and popular ideas.

We like to act like all democrats are super SJWs and want to cancel Christmas, but I have yet to ever meet this caricature.  I'm sure one day I will, but generally they are few and far between and most of us are not the extremists we are made out to be and just feel that the rich and corporations don't pull their weight and the government could adjust the scales a bit to help out the less fortunate, particularly if in the long run it would likely make fiscal sense.

Well, thank you for proving my point.

 

I didn't say mainstream, specifically. And in fact I made it pretty obvious that I don't think all Democrats are SJW lunatics. So, let's stick with what I did say.

 

The ideological engine of the party (not the voters) is being driven by exactly these types of lunatics. That you are unaware of them is irrelevant. They are *everywhere* in academia, politics, media, and especially big tech companies. While you go on with your life, blissfully unaware, they are whispering in the ears off those making the decisions. Critical race theory, anti-racism, equity... There are a ton of pseudo-intellectual theories that are gaining traction. You shrug them off because you're a rational human, but this curriculum is being taught in classrooms and boardrooms across the nation, and many people are buying the dogma. Again, regardless of your ignorance to the philosophy.

 

White Fragility has been a Best Seller for over a year. That's not fringe. Read it and tell me it's not the most insane shit you've ever read. Yet, it's definitely relevant on the institutional left.

 

So, exactly like I said in my post, liberal voters don't know what their own party is espousing. There's no conservative equivalent right now. If Richard Spencer was making huge book deals and having his lectures quoted by sitting senators and presidential candidates, I'd agree with you. But that's not what's happening.

 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, drewpey said:

We like to act like all democrats are super SJWs and want to cancel Christmas, but I have yet to ever meet this caricature.  I'm sure one day I will, but generally they are few and far between and most of us are not the extremists we are made out to be  

Does that apply to the homophobic, transphobic, xenophobic, sexist, racist and bigoted Nazis on the right as well?  

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Assholes are everywhere,  but they don’t define 90% of us. The unfortunate part is so many of the 90% have forgotten that and have determined if you don’t see something exactly their way/challenge their opinion (and by extension their political team), you are the enemy and “on the other side.” It’s amazing how incredibly narrow minded people get when they fall to this and aggressively defend/argue their side’s talking points while completely ignoring any counterpoint presented. That’s not to say we should all have to agree to be “a good society,” but the vitriol hate “for the other side” is crushing us, and we’re all letting it every time we do as the media/some dipshit congressman says, or in conversation completely ignore someone’s words because we’re too busy developing our counterattack to actually listen to/read what someone else has presented. My hope for this next year is the people wake up and realize we don’t have to let ourselves play this bullshit game anymore. They actually have no power over us if we just say, “yeah go fuck yourself” and be cool with each other, even when we disagree. 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, brabus said:

but they don’t define 90% of us.

Sadly opposite party defines each other. GOP/DNC will not define what they stand for since it will exclude some folks. (shitty and cowardly strategy)

So it's rather comical when legacy media defines conservatives with all of "isms" mentioned above your post.  Not much discussion will happen there. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, drewpey said:

we just want folks to be treated equally.

The root of the issue lies in what people interpret "treated equally" to mean.

The philosophers upon whose tenets western society has been built interpret that to mean "all individuals treated equally before the law".

Unfortunately that is not a definition that is shared across the political and philosophical spectrum, and that is the crux.

  • Upvote 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/27/2020 at 2:31 AM, lloyd christmas said:

Does that apply to the homophobic, transphobic, xenophobic, sexist, racist and bigoted Nazis on the right as well?  

It does, but when your keystone party policies are themselves homophobic, transphobic, sexist and racist the line often gets blurred.  The democratic party isn't trying to force SJW justice down your throat in legislature.  It may feel like it with a SJW brigade on twitter, but again as mentioned before just because someone has a lot of followers on twitter doesn't automatically make them the spokesperson for the entire Democratic party.

 

On 12/27/2020 at 1:08 PM, Hacker said:

The root of the issue lies in what people interpret "treated equally" to mean.

The philosophers upon whose tenets western society has been built interpret that to mean "all individuals treated equally before the law".

I think that's exactly what the BLM protests were about.  I think the messaging was hijacked by bad actors and the right to make them out to be "the real racists" but in the end with events like the death of George Floyd, Brianna Taylor or Philando Castille and see a different treatment before the law.  Do you think the law treats everyone equally?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/26/2020 at 9:59 PM, Lord Ratner said:

Well, thank you for proving my point.

 

I didn't say mainstream, specifically. And in fact I made it pretty obvious that I don't think all Democrats are SJW lunatics. So, let's stick with what I did say.

 

The ideological engine of the party (not the voters) is being driven by exactly these types of lunatics. That you are unaware of them is irrelevant. They are *everywhere* in academia, politics, media, and especially big tech companies. While you go on with your life, blissfully unaware, they are whispering in the ears off those making the decisions. Critical race theory, anti-racism, equity... There are a ton of pseudo-intellectual theories that are gaining traction. You shrug them off because you're a rational human, but this curriculum is being taught in classrooms and boardrooms across the nation, and many people are buying the dogma. Again, regardless of your ignorance to the philosophy.

 

White Fragility has been a Best Seller for over a year. That's not fringe. Read it and tell me it's not the most insane shit you've ever read. Yet, it's definitely relevant on the institutional left.

 

So, exactly like I said in my post, liberal voters don't know what their own party is espousing. There's no conservative equivalent right now. If Richard Spencer was making huge book deals and having his lectures quoted by sitting senators and presidential candidates, I'd agree with you. But that's not what's happening.

 

This isn't remotely true though.  The Democratic party tried to float several progressive candidates this past election and most of them failed miserably.  Even now in this day in age the Democratic party remains fairly centrist.  Yes it's a big tent and there are lots of folks across the spectrum on the left that want various things, and many of those things scare you, but idealogically the left hasn't moved much, as evidenced by just electing Biden our most oldest, whitest most milquetoast candidate and guys like Bernie Sanders are still outcasts within the DNC.

If you see the Democrats receding to the left at breakneck speed, remember all speed is relative and it's more likely your Republican party is the one hurdling towards fascism as Trump's followers are in hordes begging him to declare martial law and invalidate an entire election because he didn't win...but no, we should be scared of some SJW on twitter instead....ok....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, drewpey said:

I think that's exactly what the BLM protests were about. 

Not by a long shot.

BLM is protesting for a forced Marxist-style transfer of social power and financial wealth from whom they perceive are the "haves" to whom they perceive are the "have nots"...in the name of "equity" (e.g. equality of outcome; where we all have the same social power and we all have the same financial means).

That has absolutely zero to do with the status of being "equal before the law", which is what actual "equality" is in a western democracy. Equality and liberty in a free society comes with no promise of social status or financial wealth, good or bad.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, drewpey said:

 Do you think the law treats everyone equally?

There are bad actors who make bad decisions in the judicial system, that have resulted in unequal and unfair treatment, obviously.

To distort that to mean the system itself is fundamentally flawed, or that the system is rigged against a particular identity group of people, is not a logical step.

Even worse, to declare that the current system is so broken that it has to be torn down and replaced with something more "fair", without being able to specify what exactly is broken with the current system, or what the specifics of that other system that would replace it might be, is a bunch of postmodernist nonsense.

BLM isn't at all interested in simply ending police brutality.

Quote

Every day, we recommit to healing ourselves and each other, and to co-creating alongside comrades, allies, and family a culture where each person feels seen, heard, and supported.

We acknowledge, respect, and celebrate differences and commonalities.

We work vigorously for freedom and justice for Black people and, by extension, all people.

We intentionally build and nurture a beloved community that is bonded together through a beautiful struggle that is restorative, not depleting.

We are unapologetically Black in our positioning. In affirming that Black Lives Matter, we need not qualify our position. To love and desire freedom and justice for ourselves is a prerequisite for wanting the same for others.

We see ourselves as part of the global Black family, and we are aware of the different ways we are impacted or privileged as Black people who exist in different parts of the world.

We are guided by the fact that all Black lives matter, regardless of actual or perceived sexual identity, gender identity, gender expression, economic status, ability, disability, religious beliefs or disbeliefs, immigration status, or location.

We make space for transgender brothers and sisters to participate and lead.

We are self-reflexive and do the work required to dismantle cisgender privilege and uplift Black trans folk, especially Black trans women who continue to be disproportionately impacted by trans-antagonistic violence.

We build a space that affirms Black women and is free from sexism, misogyny, and environments in which men are centered.

We practice empathy. We engage comrades with the intent to learn about and connect with their contexts.

We make our spaces family-friendly and enable parents to fully participate with their children. We dismantle the patriarchal practice that requires mothers to work “double shifts” so that they can mother in private even as they participate in public justice work.

We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable.

We foster a queer‐affirming network. When we gather, we do so with the intention of freeing ourselves from the tight grip of heteronormative thinking, or rather, the belief that all in the world are heterosexual (unless s/he or they disclose otherwise).

We cultivate an intergenerational and communal network free from ageism. We believe that all people, regardless of age, show up with the capacity to lead and learn.

We embody and practice justice, liberation, and peace in our engagements with one another.

 

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...