www.ditl.org

Tyyr wrote:She's latina, therefore her experience are richer and her judgment better than a white guy.

That's arguing a point tangential to the actual issue. To apply what she said would be to say that her experience is richer and judgement better than those of a white guy with limited experience and poor judgement. The fact that she's latina has nothing to do with that, and frankly shouldn't have been even mentioned.

Tyyr wrote:And if that's your stance that's fine. I have far more problems with her than just that.

And as I said, I have other problems with her than that. The problem is that there isn't a possible candidate for appointment who doesn't have those (or equivalent) problems.

Mikey wrote:That's arguing a point tangential to the actual issue. To apply what she said would be to say that her experience is richer and judgement better than those of a white guy with limited experience and poor judgement. The fact that she's latina has nothing to do with that, and frankly shouldn't have been even mentioned.

It's not tangential. Her assumption is that because of the color of her skin and the color of someone else's she can make judgments about them. That. Is. Racism. She's casting aspersions about people and her sole basis for making those statements is their race and sex. That. Is. Racism.

And as I said, I have other problems with her than that. The problem is that there isn't a possible candidate for appointment who doesn't have those (or equivalent) problems.

No, but this one seems to be getting a pass on something any other candidate would have been crucified for.

Tyyr wrote:It's not tangential. Her assumption is that because of the color of her skin and the color of someone else's she can make judgments about them. That. Is. Racism. She's casting aspersions about people and her sole basis for making those statements is their race and sex. That. Is. Racism.

It would be racism, if that were the case. She never said that as a Latina, she automatically has more experience and better judgement than a white man. She said she has better judgement and more experience than a white man with limited experience and poor judgement. I agree that the fact of her heritage had no business in the statement, but the statement still wasn't what you're spinning.

Tyyr wrote:No, but this one seems to be getting a pass on something any other candidate would have been crucified for.

She was roasted for this. I guess that's still considered "getting a pass" if her ideology is to the left of the aisle.

Mikey wrote:U The facts of having a qualifiying exam, and letting the facts determine the outcome regardless of race, being the ultimate in non-bigotry is generally lost on the public at large.

Well while I'd like that it goes against the spirit of affirmative action. Which was expressed pretty well by Lyndon Johnson:

"You do not take a person who, for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line of a race and then say, 'you are free to compete with all the others,' and still justly believe that you have been completely fair"

And since an underclass tends to breed an underclass there is some good sense in following that. The question is when to apply it and when to knock it off. Since her decision in the court case wasn't directly related to some affirmative action, but her apparant underlying belief in the process or somesuch it makes me worried she'll never let up and go beyond what she ought.

Mikey wrote: She was roasted for this. I guess that's still considered "getting a pass" if her ideology is to the left of the aisle.

She got a pass from the Dems, but that's to be expected.

Similarly it almost seems silly to complain about any liberal leaning stances in general with her. That the new justices would have that bent for at least about two years was decided some time ago. I don't like a lot of her judgements, but it could be worse.

At least they have yet to cut to the chase and started nominating senators to the supreme court.

Tyyr wrote:

GrahamKennedy wrote:But she's not, though. What she's saying is that a greater richness of experience means a person will make better decisions, and that being a latina woman does tend to bring a richness of experience whilst being a white male may not. Not necessarily WILL not, by the way, but MAY not.

Basically what she's saying is that life tends to dump on ethnic minorities and that gives them valuable experiences, so if all else is equal then that is an advantage.

She absolutely does not say "latina women make better decisions than white men" as a blanket statement.

Come on Graham, you're spinning in circles.

Being a Latina may tend to bring a richness of experience being a white male may not?

Not what I said. What I said was that she said being a Latina woman DOES tend to bring a richness of experience whilst being a white male may or may not.

Being a black male also may tend to make you a stereo stealing, watermelon eating, fried chicken loving, welfare recipient.

Yes it may. That doesn't contradict what I said.

Tossing "may" in front of a statement doesn't make it any less racist. Her entire argument is based on her skin color. She's latina, therefore her experience are richer and her judgment better than a white guy. Toss a may in there if it will make you feel better, either way it's racist idea.

That is not what she said and not what I said. Why do you refuse to address what the woman actually said and instead attack your own modified version of it?

I can only imagine it is because you want to think of this woman as a racist, regardless of the facts.

Graham, I read the whole damn speech. I'm not attacking a modified version of what she said.

You flip it around and have a white male say the same thing about a latina and guess what, the guy gets crucified. If its racists one way its racist the other.

Tyyr wrote:Graham, I read the whole damn speech. I'm not attacking a modified version of what she said.

Yeah, you really, really are. You may not realise it, but read back on the last exchange. You totally ignored what I actually said, substituted a completely different argument, and attacked that instead.

You flip it around and have a white male say the same thing about a latina and guess what, the guy gets crucified. If its racists one way its racist the other.

If a white guy said the same thing it wouldn't be racist either. It would, however, be inaccurate.

If a white guy with years of judicial experience and a long record of fair and ubiased judgements were to say, "My experience and and ability make me a better candidate than an inexperienced and incapable Latina," it wouldn't be racist - it would be true. The fact that some Latinos may call it racist doesn't make it so. Again it would be just an unnecessary reference to race, the same as Sotomayor's comment.

Yeah, the primary difference is that if a white man said that, a number of minority rights groups would go nuts, and the guy would be lucky to remain on the bench at all. He sure wouldn't be a Supreme Court nominee.

And that, folks, is a double standard.

Tsukiyumi wrote:Yeah, the primary difference is that if a white man said that, a number of minority rights groups would go nuts, and the guy would be lucky to remain on the bench at all. He sure wouldn't be a Supreme Court nominee.

And that, folks, is a double standard.

All true. The key point is that in either situation, it would be misinterpreted as racism. That doesn't make it racism, however.

It appears to be a moot point; after four days of nothing substantive, the GOP has cleared Sotomayor's nomination to go to vote.

Mikey wrote:All true. The key point is that in either situation, it would be misinterpreted as racism. That doesn't make it racism, however.

Funny, I thought racism was whatever an ethnic group says it is.

Mikey wrote:It appears to be a moot point; after four days of nothing substantive, the GOP has cleared Sotomayor's nomination to go to vote.

Well, there we go.

Tsukiyumi wrote:racism was whatever an minority ethnic group says it is.

Edited for greater clarity of sarcasm and cynicism.

She's being sworn in Saturday.

No, wait, I mean: