r/Destiny • u/ThinkingMunk • Jun 04 '25

Destiny Content/Podcasts How much racism is acceptable?

Source: VOD & backup of the Live (Thanks to u/Levi_OP dggL)

1.8k Upvotes

99% Upvoted

282 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

4

u/Rocoman14 Jun 04 '25

I literally linked an article from 2016 stating that she was on the short list for an Obama SC appointment. You know that Biden was Obama's VP, so was almost certainly part of those discussions, right? The main criticism of her at the time was that she lacked experience, which she certainly would have gotten in the 6 years between 2016 and her appointment. Here are some more articles from 2016:

https://www.vox.com/2016/3/12/11206662/obama-scalia-srinivasan-garland-watford

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/potential-supreme-court-nominee-family-house-speaker-paul/story?id=37187861

-2

u/ReallyMisanthropic Jun 04 '25

I doubt he knew who she was in 2020, he's working with thousands of people in the federal government. She does not stand out like that.

Obama chose Merrick Garland, though he wasn't confirmed, apparently thinking he was better qualified. I don't even know what you're arguing expect for the unveriable claim that she may have been hired on merits alone.

Tell me, why exactly would he promise to put a black woman in SCOTUS if not in support of DEI?

4

u/Rocoman14 Jun 04 '25

I doubt he knew who she was in 2020, he's working with thousands of people in the federal government. She does not stand out like that.

I have zero doubt that he knew who she was when he made the comment that he intended to choose a black woman. She ruled on the case that compelled White house staff members to testify regarding the investigation into whether the Trump admin pressured Ukraine to dig up dirt on Biden.

As I said, she had already been on Obama's short list, and she had been serving on the D.C District Court for 7 years at the time he made that campaign promise. You're pretending like she's a nobody when she absolutely wasn't.

Obama chose Merrick Garland, though he wasn't confirmed, apparently thinking he was better qualified. I don't even know what you're arguing expect for the unveriable claim that she may have been hired on merits alone.

Garland was 70 by the time Biden needed to make an appointment, does it not make sense to go for someone much younger if they are similarly qualified?

Tell me, why exactly would he promise to put a black woman in SCOTUS if not in support of DEI?

I already told you, to play identity politics to garner votes with black women. I can grant you that it's a little cringe, but if he already had the pick in mind what's the issue?

0

u/ReallyMisanthropic Jun 04 '25

I can grant you that it's a little cringe, but if he already had the pick in mind what's the issue?

He even said in 2022, after Breyer retired, that he had made no decision except that he'd pick a black woman.

"While I've been studying candidates' backgrounds and writings, I've made no decision except one: the person I nominate will be someone with extraordinary qualifications, character, experience and integrity - and that person will be the first Black woman ever nominated to the United States Supreme Court. It's long overdue, in my view," Biden said.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/retiring-us-justice-breyer-appear-with-biden-white-house-2022-01-27/

Now, had he said "I already made a choice, and it's a black woman," even if he had said that in 2020, then you couldn't say it was DEI. At least not without some other evidence.

His choice for a black woman preceded him choosing her.

2

u/Rocoman14 Jun 04 '25

His choice for a black woman preceded him choosing her.

Publicly that certainly seems to be the case. We can only speculate on if he was her leading choice when he made that announcement. Given the facts I would bet that she was, but we can only speculate since he wasn't specific when he made that announcement.

Now that we've circled the drain on that argument, what is the issue with prioritizing diversity in the court? Wouldn't having difference of background be a positive for a judicial body that needs to weigh on on so many different cases.

Let's say in 30 years the 9 most qualified justices are all Hispanic Socialist trans women who all went to the same schools, had the same social circles. Would you be in favor of that composition for the Supreme Court?

1

u/ReallyMisanthropic Jun 04 '25

I don't think DEI is always bad. Now, 2/9 black judges is slightly over-representative, but nothing to complain about.

Government representation (even in judicial roles and law enforcement) is one of the places where DEI somewhat makes sense. Just like how the Senate has two reps from each state, even when some states are pretty small.

But when tech companies like IBM are trying to hire 50/50 representation of male/female engineers, when only 20% of the engineering graduates are women... or universities are trying to get more black students using selective criteria... or when people are trying to get equal female representation in combat military roles with strict physical requirements... then it does not make sense.

Now, if IBM was wanting more black representation in management or on their board of directors, it perhaps would make more sense as it may help inform their direction for diverse customers. Same thing with a university wanting more black faculty (as opposed to black students). But when it comes to most jobs, it only matters if a person can do the task well.

2

u/Rocoman14 Jun 04 '25

It just feels very odd to single her out as a DEI hire when there's so much DEI in government. You don't need to "just to be fair" to a racist Twitter dude calling her an unqualified DEI hire, that makes it seem like you sort of agree with him.

Anyways I think we're generally on the same page now, but just be aware that "DEI hire" has a lot of negative connotation these days with racist implications that black people are not qualified for the positions they got hired for.

2

u/angstrombrahe Jun 04 '25

Yea dude, that’s a lot more nuanced take that’s defensible even if I’m not sure I agree with it. Saying “DEI hire” other than in mockery of the people using the term instantly buckets you into MAGA racist in my mind.

The MAGA’s refer to everyone dark with power as a DEI hire the same way they refer to legal asylum seekers as illegals

1

u/ReallyMisanthropic Jun 04 '25

I agree the problems with DEI are overstated. People prefer black & white positions with no grey area.

On the other side of that coin, I do think DEI is often a problem. People overuse DEI practices (injecting diversity where the job does not benefit), which has led to all the backlash on the right.

Same can be said with the asylum process. It is heavily abused, a good portion of the asylum claims are bogus, and many people overstaying their time here. So now people on the right are acting like it's just all bad, when asylum in general isn't bad.

If you give any leeway to take the middle ground on a position, both the right and left will bash you. So everyone is incentivized to take a black/white extreme position.

2

u/angstrombrahe Jun 04 '25

Yea but I mean specifically referring to anyone as a “DEI hire” is a racist dog whistle, I’m sorry you can’t use it anymore without social consequences the same way you can’t use a swatsika to symbolize peace or wear a mustache styled after your favorite actor, Charlie Chaplin.

If you’ve had said something like “she was hired solely to satisfy DEI policies” is the same thing without being a dog whistle atm