Now and again, a conversation takes place that is so dumb that I just can’t resist sharing it with you. This is one such conversation. In my article, The Unbearable Tokenism of Joe Biden, I criticised Joe Biden’s choice to yet again put the “race” and sex of a high profile nominee front and centre. In this case, his Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson.
As for the Supreme Court pick, I'm not of one mind but I lean a lot closer to righting the imbalance, for one one simple reason.
And that is that there exists no shortage of amply qualified and legally objective candidates for the nomination. There are hundreds of legal mind far better qualified than Kavanaugh and far more impartial than Barrett and I don't even need mention the turbocharged mediocrity of Clarence Thomas (OK, I just did).
Jackson is well qualified to be the next Supreme Court justice. And we can redress the historical absence of black women on the bench without the racist invocation of affirmative action or, in dog-whistle, "quotas."
Edit: re-reading your post I emphatically agree that Biden should make no mention whatsoever of her race or gender. "This is my nominee." The bigots will have plenty to say about that; let Biden soar above such things.
"I emphatically agree that Biden should make no mention whatsoever of her race or gender. "This is my nominee." The bigots will have plenty to say about that; let Biden soar above such things."
Yeah, this is the whole point. I'm always happy to see greater diversity. Across *all* metrics. But I'm simultaneously against pointing at it every time it happens. And especially *before* it happens. Pick smart, qualified people. Talk about how smart and qualified they are. The end.
As others have said, why would you waste your time here? I’ll take it one step further - why would you waste MY time telling me about it? Please, more of the insights that your readers subscribe for!
First of all, my goal here is to explore the process of thinking. Beyond race, beyond politics, beyond trans issues or anything else, my guiding question is, how can we think and communicate better. If I only ever engaged with people who I saw as clear thinkers, I'd engage with vanishingly few people. And our conversations would pretty much always be the two of us going back and forth saying, "Yes, I agree."
I want to understand why Allan thinks the way he does precisely *because* his thinking seems so ridiculous to me. Because there are many other people for who this "confirmation bias disguised as research (https://steveqj.substack.com/p/you-offered-no-valid-proof-other)" is standard practice.
That's why I pointed out that Allan's...let's call it lazy thinking, is at the root of a lot of many types of bigotry. His "the way it is is the way it must be," thinking is at the root of a lot of racism, but also at the root of a lot of "Afro-pessimism." The "white people tacitly endorsed open discrimination against black people, so they always will," style thinking. There are insights to be gained from every single conversation. Because they give us a window into the cognitive flaws lurking in all kinds of other positions. Including our own.
Sorry you didn't take much from this conversation. Rest assured that conversations like these won't become the norm here (not least because, thankfully, people as extreme as Allan are pretty rare). But I'd think more carefully before dismissing understanding people like these as a waste of time. They're out there whether we acknowledge them or not. In many different forms.
I love that you do this but I am a student of root causes in human behavior. I think you bring light to something most people don't even consider and it's very important that you do this work. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. :-)
Plus, you are correct when you stipulate that the thought process used by Allan to indict women and blacks is identical to the thought process used by woke identarians to indict whites. This thought process must NOT be allowed to gain the upper hand for obvious reasons.
I am also grateful that someone as pro-humanist and as articulate as yourself is asking these questions and sparking these conversations. Please keep on keepin’ on…
I can only wonder why an intelligent man like you wastes his time with someone like this. His grammar alone is intolerable.
As for psychological gender differences, only one survives scientific measurement. No, men are not more aggressive and women are not more social. Or more emotional. The only difference with evidence to back it is that men are more competitive, and they will perform more strongly in most any endeavor when in competitive conditions. That's it. ALL other psychological stereotypes about gender disappear when measured.
"I can only wonder why an intelligent man like you wastes his time with someone like this. His grammar alone is intolerable."
I've gone into detail in another reply, but beyond all the sensible reasons, I have to admit, I find people like Allan fascinating! It's like I'm interacting with some hitherto un-contacted species of human.😅
As for psychological differences, aggression also seems to survive scientific measurement. It's not that men are always more aggressive than women, it's that the most aggressive people are always male. We see this across cultures, societies, even animal species. It's the reason why, for example, it's so important that we don't lose sight of the difference between males and females when considering issues of safety.
Steve, why did you waste your time with this guy? It's a waste of your talent.
By the way, there had to be people in Biden's camp who had to be aware of the humiliating position Biden put Judge Jackson in despite her impeccable background. Makes me wonder about the contents of the conversation between Rep. Clyburn and Biden's people that produced the icebreaking Clyburn endorsement in the primary. Did Clyburn make Biden promise to commit publicly to nominate an African American female? We may never know, but that would explain what is otherwise inexplicably insensitive and stupid on Biden's part.
"Did Clyburn make Biden promise to commit publicly to nominate an African American female?"
Yeah, I wasn't aware of this, one of my readers mentioned Clyburn's part in making Biden commit to an African American female in a comment, but I haven't spent much time "digging into it"😁 But as you say, there had to be people who understood the position he was putting his eventual nominee in by publicly declaring these criteria.
If he makes deals like this behind closed doors? Fine. I'm sure these kinds of machinations take place in every case. But to highlight these selection criteria publicly, especially as there were so many other more relevant considerations he could have highlighted, is pretty damning.
I've gone into a little more details on why I engage with people like Allan in another reply. But it's good to know that if I want all my readers to tell me how smart and talented I am, all I need to do is engage with the occasional idiot.😁
I've got nothing to add to Allan's words, but I do have something to say about the original idea.
I use votesmart.org and have used it for years. There is no need to mention Ketanji Brown Jackson's race or gender, that is obvious without mention. Here is what's she's about, her political history (except in her case since she is not a politician, there is none) and her qualifications. Everything needed to "back up claims" or sink them like a lead balloon. I wish more people used the resource. Unfortunately, in the case of judges, votesmart doesn't track rulings that could point to political bias. It does list impressive qualifications and experience.
What a great resource! Thanks Dave, I'm sure I'll be using this a lot in future. And yes, Jackson has plenty to recommender her, including her almost unique experience as a public defender. I wish this has been what Biden led with. It would still have drawn criticism, but criticism at least for reasons she could defend.
Dave, thanks for posting the votesmart resource. I am always interested in expanding my "trusted resources" list. My go-to site for information on politicians, ballot measures, etc. is ballotpedia.org. They do an excellent job providing candidate, policy, and election information. See: https://ballotpedia.org/Ketanji_Brown_Jackson
Research on Jackson's rulings is more challenging; the raw data is available but takes a lot of time to sift through. I rely on trusted experts to distill all that information. One of the unique perspectives Jackson brings to the Supreme Court, is that she will be the first justice to have served as a public defender.
Interesting that he wonders who decided "the Rothschilds" etc should be in charge, but doesn't then wonder who said men should be in charge. Or white people, for that matter.
That, alone, would make me give up on him, despite having a long standing hobby of yanking these peoples' chains, with a view to maybe getting one of them to think for themselves one day.
They aren't all that stupid, or uneducated. I hope.
"Interesting that he wonders who decided "the Rothschilds" etc should be in charge, but doesn't then wonder who said men should be in charge. Or white people, for that matter"
Ding, ding, ding! As with so many issues, and I mean literally any issue in society today, we're much better at questioning the viewpoints we disagree with than those that conform to our vision of how the world should be. I wasn't really engaging with Allan's views, just thought I'd at least have a little fun whilst offering him the opportunity to see the incoherence in his position. He didn't take it, but at least I offered it.😅
It is clear to me that Allan, and people like him, are not interested in discussion. I appreciate that you tried, since it did expose just how entrenched he is, but I don't thing it was worth your time. Time much better spent on the excellent content you produce, and engaging with people who want to discuss, and learn, other viewpoints.
"can you comment on Clyburn's demand that Biden nominate a black woman?"
As I said to Miguelitro above, I wasn't aware of that, so I don't know much about it. But I think issues like that should simply be resolved behind closed doors. Whatever is agreed in private, in public, just find a candidate, nominate her, and talk about her qualifications. Simple.
If Johnson could do it with Thurgood Marshall in 1967, with all the racial tension back then, Biden could manage it today.
I'd just like to note that it was a crowd consisting of rather a lot of men who attacked the Capitol in a violent tantrum because they didn't get their way in an election.
Thanks for the thoughtful reply, Steve. I dropped a snarky line, but you applied your usual careful and nuanced approach to responding. I really appreciate that. And, of course, you’re right. I think I’ve seen enough of these conversations play out (and participated in my share) that my blinders went on and I became dismissive. I try really hard to NOT do that, but in this case, I failed.
I apologize in advance for stealing the phrase "I wait patiently for your adept, muscular insights". :)
😁 Use it in good health!
Some days the fish just give you the finger from the barrel and you just gotta shoot them :)
😆
As for the Supreme Court pick, I'm not of one mind but I lean a lot closer to righting the imbalance, for one one simple reason.
And that is that there exists no shortage of amply qualified and legally objective candidates for the nomination. There are hundreds of legal mind far better qualified than Kavanaugh and far more impartial than Barrett and I don't even need mention the turbocharged mediocrity of Clarence Thomas (OK, I just did).
Jackson is well qualified to be the next Supreme Court justice. And we can redress the historical absence of black women on the bench without the racist invocation of affirmative action or, in dog-whistle, "quotas."
Edit: re-reading your post I emphatically agree that Biden should make no mention whatsoever of her race or gender. "This is my nominee." The bigots will have plenty to say about that; let Biden soar above such things.
"I emphatically agree that Biden should make no mention whatsoever of her race or gender. "This is my nominee." The bigots will have plenty to say about that; let Biden soar above such things."
Yeah, this is the whole point. I'm always happy to see greater diversity. Across *all* metrics. But I'm simultaneously against pointing at it every time it happens. And especially *before* it happens. Pick smart, qualified people. Talk about how smart and qualified they are. The end.
As others have said, why would you waste your time here? I’ll take it one step further - why would you waste MY time telling me about it? Please, more of the insights that your readers subscribe for!
Hmm, excellent and fair question.
First of all, my goal here is to explore the process of thinking. Beyond race, beyond politics, beyond trans issues or anything else, my guiding question is, how can we think and communicate better. If I only ever engaged with people who I saw as clear thinkers, I'd engage with vanishingly few people. And our conversations would pretty much always be the two of us going back and forth saying, "Yes, I agree."
I want to understand why Allan thinks the way he does precisely *because* his thinking seems so ridiculous to me. Because there are many other people for who this "confirmation bias disguised as research (https://steveqj.substack.com/p/you-offered-no-valid-proof-other)" is standard practice.
Conspiracy theorists are easy to make fun of, because the things they believe are so bigoted in ways that are outside the mainstream. But I see the "thought" process here as identical to the thought process of somebody who says "all white people are racist (https://steveqj.substack.com/p/black-people-should-realise-you-cannot)." Or "white supremacy is the root of all evil (https://steveqj.substack.com/p/you-can-join-candace-owens-in-deluded)."
That's why I pointed out that Allan's...let's call it lazy thinking, is at the root of a lot of many types of bigotry. His "the way it is is the way it must be," thinking is at the root of a lot of racism, but also at the root of a lot of "Afro-pessimism." The "white people tacitly endorsed open discrimination against black people, so they always will," style thinking. There are insights to be gained from every single conversation. Because they give us a window into the cognitive flaws lurking in all kinds of other positions. Including our own.
Sorry you didn't take much from this conversation. Rest assured that conversations like these won't become the norm here (not least because, thankfully, people as extreme as Allan are pretty rare). But I'd think more carefully before dismissing understanding people like these as a waste of time. They're out there whether we acknowledge them or not. In many different forms.
I love that you do this but I am a student of root causes in human behavior. I think you bring light to something most people don't even consider and it's very important that you do this work. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. :-)
Plus, you are correct when you stipulate that the thought process used by Allan to indict women and blacks is identical to the thought process used by woke identarians to indict whites. This thought process must NOT be allowed to gain the upper hand for obvious reasons.
I am also grateful that someone as pro-humanist and as articulate as yourself is asking these questions and sparking these conversations. Please keep on keepin’ on…
I can only wonder why an intelligent man like you wastes his time with someone like this. His grammar alone is intolerable.
As for psychological gender differences, only one survives scientific measurement. No, men are not more aggressive and women are not more social. Or more emotional. The only difference with evidence to back it is that men are more competitive, and they will perform more strongly in most any endeavor when in competitive conditions. That's it. ALL other psychological stereotypes about gender disappear when measured.
Maybe Allan should do some digging.
"I can only wonder why an intelligent man like you wastes his time with someone like this. His grammar alone is intolerable."
I've gone into detail in another reply, but beyond all the sensible reasons, I have to admit, I find people like Allan fascinating! It's like I'm interacting with some hitherto un-contacted species of human.😅
As for psychological differences, aggression also seems to survive scientific measurement. It's not that men are always more aggressive than women, it's that the most aggressive people are always male. We see this across cultures, societies, even animal species. It's the reason why, for example, it's so important that we don't lose sight of the difference between males and females when considering issues of safety.
Steve, why did you waste your time with this guy? It's a waste of your talent.
By the way, there had to be people in Biden's camp who had to be aware of the humiliating position Biden put Judge Jackson in despite her impeccable background. Makes me wonder about the contents of the conversation between Rep. Clyburn and Biden's people that produced the icebreaking Clyburn endorsement in the primary. Did Clyburn make Biden promise to commit publicly to nominate an African American female? We may never know, but that would explain what is otherwise inexplicably insensitive and stupid on Biden's part.
"Did Clyburn make Biden promise to commit publicly to nominate an African American female?"
Yeah, I wasn't aware of this, one of my readers mentioned Clyburn's part in making Biden commit to an African American female in a comment, but I haven't spent much time "digging into it"😁 But as you say, there had to be people who understood the position he was putting his eventual nominee in by publicly declaring these criteria.
If he makes deals like this behind closed doors? Fine. I'm sure these kinds of machinations take place in every case. But to highlight these selection criteria publicly, especially as there were so many other more relevant considerations he could have highlighted, is pretty damning.
I've gone into a little more details on why I engage with people like Allan in another reply. But it's good to know that if I want all my readers to tell me how smart and talented I am, all I need to do is engage with the occasional idiot.😁
He could have (and should have) led with other selection criteria. That would have been the politically astute (and mature) choice.
I've got nothing to add to Allan's words, but I do have something to say about the original idea.
I use votesmart.org and have used it for years. There is no need to mention Ketanji Brown Jackson's race or gender, that is obvious without mention. Here is what's she's about, her political history (except in her case since she is not a politician, there is none) and her qualifications. Everything needed to "back up claims" or sink them like a lead balloon. I wish more people used the resource. Unfortunately, in the case of judges, votesmart doesn't track rulings that could point to political bias. It does list impressive qualifications and experience.
https://justfacts.votesmart.org/candidate/biography/144477/ketanji-jackson
What a great resource! Thanks Dave, I'm sure I'll be using this a lot in future. And yes, Jackson has plenty to recommender her, including her almost unique experience as a public defender. I wish this has been what Biden led with. It would still have drawn criticism, but criticism at least for reasons she could defend.
Dave, thanks for posting the votesmart resource. I am always interested in expanding my "trusted resources" list. My go-to site for information on politicians, ballot measures, etc. is ballotpedia.org. They do an excellent job providing candidate, policy, and election information. See: https://ballotpedia.org/Ketanji_Brown_Jackson
Research on Jackson's rulings is more challenging; the raw data is available but takes a lot of time to sift through. I rely on trusted experts to distill all that information. One of the unique perspectives Jackson brings to the Supreme Court, is that she will be the first justice to have served as a public defender.
Bookmarked and will be wielded in battle, whether it's a forthcoming election or a Twitstorm :)
Interesting that he wonders who decided "the Rothschilds" etc should be in charge, but doesn't then wonder who said men should be in charge. Or white people, for that matter.
That, alone, would make me give up on him, despite having a long standing hobby of yanking these peoples' chains, with a view to maybe getting one of them to think for themselves one day.
They aren't all that stupid, or uneducated. I hope.
"Interesting that he wonders who decided "the Rothschilds" etc should be in charge, but doesn't then wonder who said men should be in charge. Or white people, for that matter"
Ding, ding, ding! As with so many issues, and I mean literally any issue in society today, we're much better at questioning the viewpoints we disagree with than those that conform to our vision of how the world should be. I wasn't really engaging with Allan's views, just thought I'd at least have a little fun whilst offering him the opportunity to see the incoherence in his position. He didn't take it, but at least I offered it.😅
It is clear to me that Allan, and people like him, are not interested in discussion. I appreciate that you tried, since it did expose just how entrenched he is, but I don't thing it was worth your time. Time much better spent on the excellent content you produce, and engaging with people who want to discuss, and learn, other viewpoints.
>shit-bags/arse-holes
Well, this has reduced my estimation of the UK education system.
>"the best man for the job". Yes MAN!
I presume that Allen is angry that a woman gave birth to him. After all, someone should have found the best man for the job. Yes MAN!
On a more serious note, can you comment on Clyburn's demand that Biden nominate a black woman? Biden is an old school patronage Dem.
"can you comment on Clyburn's demand that Biden nominate a black woman?"
As I said to Miguelitro above, I wasn't aware of that, so I don't know much about it. But I think issues like that should simply be resolved behind closed doors. Whatever is agreed in private, in public, just find a candidate, nominate her, and talk about her qualifications. Simple.
If Johnson could do it with Thurgood Marshall in 1967, with all the racial tension back then, Biden could manage it today.
I'd just like to note that it was a crowd consisting of rather a lot of men who attacked the Capitol in a violent tantrum because they didn't get their way in an election.
I didn't say that Clyburn made the demand; only that it is possible.
Thanks for the thoughtful reply, Steve. I dropped a snarky line, but you applied your usual careful and nuanced approach to responding. I really appreciate that. And, of course, you’re right. I think I’ve seen enough of these conversations play out (and participated in my share) that my blinders went on and I became dismissive. I try really hard to NOT do that, but in this case, I failed.
Sometimes we need to choose our battles, and this one was not worth it, so you did well not to engage with him further. Reading this was painful.