VisorBoy wrote: ↑Fri Feb 25, 2022 11:57 pm
She was a sitting senator with an immaculate career resume. You don't like her for her politics, but it's unreasonable to suggest she is not qualified for the job. In fact, that begs the question what you think the qualifications for VP are in the first place. And the racism comes in because you apply a standard to her that is not applied to any other VP, all of whom were white and male.
You see, every person of color and every woman who is selected for a prominent role has an additional hurdle to climb that white men do not have because of comments like these. This is part of white privilege, by the way, so I thank you for providing another example to discuss (Rooney Rule previously addressed). When a white man is considered for a job, his race or gender are never mentioned as reasons why he's being considered. Quayle, Cheney, even Palin: they did not have to deal with questions about their race. However, when a POC or woman is selected, you jump right to the "race, gender" as reasons the person was selected. Do you see where the inequality lies in this dichotomy? Do you see how you are judging people differently based on their race and gender?
The same thing is at play when you think a person is not qualified for their job. "They only got it because they're a woman." As if the President didn't think the person he selected for VP was qualified...
Sometimes I think you just
have to be a parody account. But then I realize you've been like this a long time (and getting worse) and conclude that, no, you're real. LOL
I'll give your word-salad leftist sloganeering a shot.
She was a sitting senator with an immaculate career resume. - And no legislative accomplishments to point to. None. And I'm being very kind when I say her career resume is "checkered" and not at all "immaculate".
You don't like her for her politics, but it's unreasonable to suggest she is not qualified for the job.
You're right, I absolutely abhor her politics. And you're wrong, there is nothing at all unreasonable about suggesting she is not qualified for the job. To suggest it is unreasonable, is, itself, unreasonable.
You think it is unreasonable to examine her
because she's black. I don't think her race matters an iota when the arena of
ideas are being examined. You do. That makes one of us a racist, and it isn't me.
In fact, that begs the question (sic) what you think the qualifications for VP are in the first place. . Looking past the improper use of "begs the question", the qualifications for a VP are varied, but certainly go beyond a color-first consideration. For what you call a "immaculate career resume" it looks like there'd be accomplishment from that resume to put forth. Do you really think her DA experience was a positive one for the citizens to whom she was accountable? You'd be in the minority. As AG? How about how she got in politics in the first place? Nothing immaculate about that at all; in fact, it is disgusting.
And the racism comes in because you apply a standard to her that is not applied to any other VP, all of whom were white and male.
That is utter bullshit. Untrue. And insulting. I expect an apology. When people like you, with your ideology, see everything as raayyycist... then nothing is racist. When everything is racist, nothing is. And ironically, such a view (again) makes you the racist because you only see things through a lens of what others' skin colors are. That is the very definition of racism. Ironically, though you seem like a well-meaning dude, you're a well-meaning racist.
It is the very FACT that I apply the same criteria to her as I do to others, that bugs you.
You see, every person of color and every woman who is selected for a prominent role has an additional hurdle to climb that white men do not have because of comments like these
Utter nonsense. Again, you see POCs and women (and LBGHTSRQs) as victims needing your protection. This is called a plantation mentality. They cannot survive without your support.
There is no "extra hurdle" in 2022. There was in 1950. Sure. I'll buy that. The ONLY hurdle is the one of merit based on accomplishment or ideas. Period.
This is part of white privilege, by the way, so I thank you for providing another example to discuss (Rooney Rule previously addressed). When a white man is considered for a job, his race or gender are never mentioned as reasons why he's being considered.
I don't know if there are enough eye-roll emojis in the basket for ^this^ one.
When a white man is considered for (most jobs) he is considered on the same basis as the black, blue, red, green or yellow man. Ideas. Accomplishments.
What is ironic on your part though, is pointing out the obvious. No white man is going to be elected because he is filling some sort of quota. "We need more whites!" is never a reason. In fact, being white is as likely to be an impediment.
Quayle, Cheney, even Palin: they did not have to deal with questions about their race.
Because none of their supporters were race-first supporters. They
did face questions about accomplishments and ideas. Your implication is that questions about character, ideas, and accomplishments should only be made when evaluating whites. Not black. Blacks, in your view, should not have to answer to such things. They're black. So it is all okay and "unreasonable" to think otherwise.
However, when a POC or woman is selected, you jump right to the "race, gender" as reasons the person was selected.
Well, if the people choosing them are saying they will choose because "race, gender" only, then yeah... it is reasonable to say said person was chosen because of race and gender. And that is exactly what Biden said.
Do you see where the inequality lies in this dichotomy? Do you see how you are judging people differently based on their race and gender?.
Yes! I
do see it, but it isn't MY dichotomy. I don't see it in myself, because it doesn't exist.
But you don't. It is you (and those who think like you) that create that dichotomy. You came right out and said you judge people differently based on race and gender. And you do. So do Biden's handlers. That is the very definition of racism. Part of me wants to say F*ck you for calling me a racist, absent any evidence and based only upon your Khendi-style brain washing. I am calling you racist, and backing it up.
The same thing is at play when you think a person is not qualified for their job. "They only got it because they're a woman." As if the President didn't think the person he selected for VP was qualified...
And again. If the notion is put forth that only a person that is a woman will be qualified, then, yes... that person gets the job because they are a woman (or black, or blue, or red, or yellow...). Qualifying based on an external attribute like color, sex, or quality of dentures is stupid. Qualifying based on merit, ideas and character are not.
A white male protestant would have faced those extra hurdles you're so worried about. Even if his ideology fit hand-in-glove. For something like the vice-presidency, or the Supreme Court, skin color won't have mattered an iota 100 years from now, but ideas, merit and character would have. But people like you are so focused on what's not important, the things that ARE important get shoved aside for the unimportant. Nothing good comes from that.
The irony is that by trying sooo hard to not be racist, people that think your way are incredibly racist. Well meaning, but racist. And horribly detrimental to our (collective) futures.
Just because I'm goofy like that.