Racism And Kamala Harris

[Cheerful Charlie]

Diversity isn't a danger; the prioritization of diversity above competency and acument is a danger.

And yet, they attack people like Kamala Harris, whose credentials and record are both well known and above reproach, accusing them of only having been elected for their "vagina and skin color" even though that is obviously not the case.

Some people are idiots. Are you under the impression that I dispute that?

On the other hand... there are a great many people who do NOT think that her record is above reproach - including some within the democratic party. That you think her record is fantastic is fine - her views align with your own priorities. But that doesn't make it universally so.

Do you think that Kamala Harris is an idiot? Incompetent? Unqualified?

If the answer is yes, please exp look son why.

If the answer is no, then why this discussion?

Do you think Harris would be a better president than Trump? Because that’s the real question. If no, then why not?

I strongly suggest googling "Wikipedia, Kamala Harris for her accomplishments. which are many and are impressive. Over at X, there is a lot of right wing hate mongering by commentators who know zilch about her. But then Faux Noise is not going to be honest about Harris. Thus for example, when Harris became California's AG, she cleaned up the backlog of DNA tests her predecessors could not accomplish. Cracked down on violent gun crimes. Yet the X creeps are claiming she has never done anything competent. It is not like they tried to find out what she did.

 

[ZiprHead]

Some of it is absurd and ridiculous, some of it is more extreme than I would like, but there's some that I think is worthwhile. Mostly focused around policies toward China. At some point I expect to see policy positions from Harris, so I can compare and contrast.

I actually agree with all of that.
In my case though it doesn’t matter to my vote because Trump is an existential threat to this republic. I truly would prefer a rotten cabbage, for its lack of destructive intent and the difficulty of kompromatting a cabbage.

And there's the difference. I don't think that Trump (or almost any other feasible republican candidate) is any more of an existential threat to our republic than Harris (or almost any other feasible democratic candidate). Both far-right conservatives and far-left progressives hold views that I think are material threats to liberty and our nation's stability; both of those cohorts have far more influence over the parties than I would like. And whether you want to admit it or not, both of those cohorts also hold views that I think are beneficial to the country.

Neither party is acting for the interests of the citizens and the country. They are both acting in the interest of the party.

Ah, the both side bad cop out.

Far left progressives have very little clout in the Democratic party. The Republican party has gone full blown authoritarian under a guy that wants to be a dictator and the party fully supports his efforts.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I mean, yeah, he tried to overthrow the results of an election... once. Are you telling me the Democrat party in the last 100 years hasn't tried to overthrow the results of an election. Puhlease! When are you going to drop January 6th? Get over it!

I will drop Jan. 6th the nanosecond after Trump drops dead.

Why? 1/6 is an issue so long as the people behind it are in power. The loss of the face wouldn't change that.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The thing is The Felon and associates keep talking about rolling the clock back.

Rolling back the clock to when? It seems like a lot of progressives have decided that he means to roll it back to the mid 1800s, whereas a lot of conservatives think he means to roll it back to the early 2000s.

I think they're looking for something like 1950. Before the civil rights movement.

Why do you think that? What supports your speculation?

What has happened since then that they aren't going after?

 

[Tigers!]

The underlying premise throughout is that 1) white males who lean right will vote for white people because they're all racist and only care about skin color; 2) black and brown males will vote for black or brown candidates because they only care about skin color; 3) females will vote for female candidates because they only care about sex; 4) white males who lean left care about policies and principles and will vote on that basis regardless of the color or sex of candidates.

All in all, it ends up painting white male left-leaning people as being multi-dimensional, well-rounded people with complex views not materially impacted by superficial tribalism... but that everyone else is a shallow, one-dimensional caricature who only cares about a single shallow aspect of their elected officials.

Well done Emily you have divined their cunning plan (no sarcasm implied)

 

[laughing dog]

I mean, yeah, he tried to overthrow the results of an election... once. Are you telling me the Democrat party in the last 100 years hasn't tried to overthrow the results of an election. Puhlease! When are you going to drop January 6th? Get over it!

I will drop Jan. 6th the nanosecond after Trump drops dead.

Why? 1/6 is an issue so long as the people behind it are in power. The loss of the face wouldn't change that.

IMO it dies with Trump

 

[Emily Lake]

Diversity isn't a danger; the prioritization of diversity above competency and acument is a danger.

And yet, they attack people like Kamala Harris, whose credentials and record are both well known and above reproach, accusing them of only having been elected for their "vagina and skin color" even though that is obviously not the case.

Some people are idiots. Are you under the impression that I dispute that?

On the other hand... there are a great many people who do NOT think that her record is above reproach - including some within the democratic party. That you think her record is fantastic is fine - her views align with your own priorities. But that doesn't make it universally so.

I am not objecting to conversations about Harris' actual record or qualifications. Racist and sexist attacks on her identity as a woman are not relevant to the question of her record and qualifications.

No, of course they're not relevant.

On the other hand, I don't think that any mention of her being a DEI hire is necessarily racist or sexist. It can be, and in some cases it very likely is. But not every mention of it is going to be... because she was hired in part because Biden explicitly and intentionally limited consideration to black women. That makes her a *literal* DEI hire. You might argue that she is also a competent and qualified person for the job regardless of her ethnicity, but at the end of the day, you're stuck in a position where you're arguing that she's the most competent and qualified black woman for the job, because those particular genetic quirks were a requirement for even being considered.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Diversity isn't a danger; the prioritization of diversity above competency and acument is a danger.

And yet, they attack people like Kamala Harris, whose credentials and record are both well known and above reproach, accusing them of only having been elected for their "vagina and skin color" even though that is obviously not the case.

Some people are idiots. Are you under the impression that I dispute that?

On the other hand... there are a great many people who do NOT think that her record is above reproach - including some within the democratic party. That you think her record is fantastic is fine - her views align with your own priorities. But that doesn't make it universally so.

I am not objecting to conversations about Harris' actual record or qualifications. Racist and sexist attacks on her identity as a woman are not relevant to the question of her record and qualifications.

No, of course they're not relevant.

On the other hand, I don't think that any mention of her being a DEI hire is necessarily racist or sexist. It can be, and in some cases it very likely is. But not every mention of it is going to be... because she was hired in part because Biden explicitly and intentionally limited consideration to black women. That makes her a *literal* DEI hire. You might argue that she is also a competent and qualified person for the job regardless of her ethnicity, but at the end of the day, you're stuck in a position where you're arguing that she's the most competent and qualified black woman for the job, because those particular genetic quirks were a requirement for even being considered.

Biden didn't hire her, though, the American people did.

 

[Emily Lake]

Biden didn't hire her, though, the American people did.

Well that's a dumb take. The american people didn't actually get a choice about who Biden selected as his running mate. It was a package deal.

 

[ZiprHead]

Biden didn't hire her, though, the American people did.

Well that's a dumb take. The american people didn't actually get a choice about who Biden selected as his running mate. It was a package deal.

And she was in the package they chose.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Biden didn't hire her, though, the American people did.

Well that's a dumb take.

No, your post is a dumb take. Biden didn't HIRE (your word) her. The American people hired her.

The american people didn't actually get a choice about who Biden selected as his running mate. It was a package deal.

Yes it was a package deal and the package was better than the other package. Therefore, NOT a DEI hire.

 

[Shadowy Man]

You might argue that she is also a competent and qualified person for the job regardless of her ethnicity, but at the end of the day, you're stuck in a position where you're arguing that she's the most competent and qualified black woman for the job…

Given the dearth of formal requirements for the position, what would be considered “qualified” will remain a subjective assessment. So, we can’t even know if she is the “most competent and qualified black woman for the job”.

I think that even if she were the Simone Biles of politics the Republicans would still be calling her a “DEI hire” with the implication she is unqualified.

Simultaneously, they nominate their own unqualified people to positions, including JD Vance. When asked why he picked Vance, Trump’s own words did not include a description of his qualifications.

 

[lpetrich]

“What can be, unburdened by what has been” - What is #KamalaHarris #m... | manifestation | TikTok showing her saying that phrase several times.

Editorial: Conservatives are calling Kamala Harris a Witch. Here's why that's dangerous - Editorial, News, Paganism, Perspectives, Politics, The Wild Hunt, Witchcraft

But by noon on Monday, political opponents of Harris were calling her a Witch. They accused her of invoking Satanic force, casting spells, and doing anything else within the arsenal of the patriarchal imagination that might scare voters away, lest they be preyed upon by occult forces.

noting
James Lindsay, anti-Communist on X: "Let's talk about @KamalaHarris saying "to see what can be, unburdened by what has been." ..." / X

Let's talk about @KamalaHarris saying "to see what can be, unburdened by what has been." This phrase, which she repeats all the time, is not mysterious. It's esoteric. That is, it's occult. It's a Marxist and Luciferian incantation, and that's easily seen.

What "esoteric" means here is that it has a hidden meaning. It looks and sounds like goofy nonsense, but it isn't. People who know, know. That is, it's coded and Gnostic in its formulation and the principle she's articulating is ultimately Luciferian/Hermetic, a la Marx.

We can set aside the hand gesture she typically makes while uttering this incantation, although we shouldn't. It's blatantly up on the right (what can be, a worldly utopia) and down on the left (unburdened by, or liberated/emancipated from the mundane status quo).

Let's have a look at Karl Marx issuing the same idea. ...

Exactly the same mentality appears in Queer Theory (Queer Marxism, so no surprise). ...

Exactly the same sentiment is expressed in CRT through "antiracism." ...

The sentiment Kamala Harris repeats endlessly, seemingly weirdly, is an esoteric incantation of societal and human rebirth (that is, a cult) that has manifested in such human paroxysms as the French Revolution, all Communist revolutions, and Lucifer's revolt against Heaven.

...
Today, we have the Great Reset. That is, a Great [What Can Be, Unburdened By What Has Been]. That's how a reset works. You unburden yourself from what "has been" and start over. It's the same exact program in essence, though not in mechanisms and details.

...
The objective of the so-called New World Order is precisely that: a new circular economy focused on "wellbeing" that's managed by "enlightened" stakeholders (what can be) unburdened by shareholder fiduciary responsibility, profit, and individual achievement (what has been).

EVERY reformer can talk about implementing "what can be, unburdened by what has been."

The American revolutionaries did so, by firmly rejecting monarchy, and not just the rule of King George III. With only a tiny number of exceptions, every nation larger than a city-state was a monarchy, so it was a radical step for these revolutionaries.

Numerous other activists do so, like antislavery activists, civil-rights activists, feminist activists, environmentalist activists, ...

Meet James Lindsay, the far right's "world-level expert" on CRT and "Race Marxism" | Salon.com - February 17, 2022 6:30AM (EST)

Once a "New Atheist" and Obama Democrat, Lindsay rebooted himself as the brains behind the far right's moral panic.

...
If his digression into fantasies of bloody revolt against a cadre of bankers, media and George Soros — what one Lindsay-watcher called "straight-up Hitler talk" — seems like an odd detour, it's one of many he's made over the years: an academic turned intentional academic fraud, a "new atheist" who now counsels Christians on heresy, a blue-no-matter-who Obama volunteer turned intellectual leader of the far right.

He was involved in the  Grievance studies affair

The grievance studies affair was the project of a team of three authors—Peter Boghossian, James A. Lindsay, and Helen Pluckrose—to highlight what they saw as poor scholarship and erosion of standards in several academic fields. Taking place over 2017 and 2018, their project entailed submitting bogus papers to academic journals on topics from the field of critical social theory such as cultural, queer, race, gender, fat, and sexuality studies to determine whether they would pass through peer review and be accepted for publication. Several of these papers were subsequently published, which the authors cited in support of their contention.[1]

The affair echoed Alan Sokal's 1996 hoax in Social Text, a cultural studies journal, which inspired Boghossian, Lindsay, and Pluckrose.

 

[laughing dog]

Diversity isn't a danger; the prioritization of diversity above competency and acument is a danger.

And yet, they attack people like Kamala Harris, whose credentials and record are both well known and above reproach, accusing them of only having been elected for their "vagina and skin color" even though that is obviously not the case.

Some people are idiots. Are you under the impression that I dispute that?

On the other hand... there are a great many people who do NOT think that her record is above reproach - including some within the democratic party. That you think her record is fantastic is fine - her views align with your own priorities. But that doesn't make it universally so.

I am not objecting to conversations about Harris' actual record or qualifications. Racist and sexist attacks on her identity as a woman are not relevant to the question of her record and qualifications.

No, of course they're not relevant.

On the other hand, I don't think that any mention of her being a DEI hire is necessarily racist or sexist. It can be, and in some cases it very likely is. But not every mention of it is going to be... because she was hired in part because Biden explicitly and intentionally limited consideration to black women. That makes her a *literal* DEI hire. You might argue that she is also a competent and qualified person for the job regardless of her ethnicity, but at the end of the day, you're stuck in a position where you're arguing that she's the most competent and qualified black woman for the job, because those particular genetic quirks were a requirement for even being considered.

If you really think these GOP partisans are just being literally factual, I have a great deal on the Brooklyn Bridge for you.

If you really think VP candidates are picked because they are the most competent and qualified, do you also think pigs fly?

 

[Elixir]

On the other hand, I don't think that any mention of her being a DEI hire is necessarily racist or sexist.

But some mentions are? What’s the ratio? Is it possible that other people experience other ratios of racist to non-racist mentions of DEI?
Why are you bloviating about transient meanings of acronyms, and not acknowledging the intellectual bankruptcy and corruption of character that drives a Presidential candidate to refer to their opponent as “garbage”?

When Donald Trump said yesterday “I don’t think people will buy it”, the “it” was:
He’s a 78 year old criminal.
What does he think people don’t buy?
That he’s 78 years old?
That he’s a convicted felon?
Those are fucking FACTS.
He doesn’t think people wil buy FACTS.
Emily, here’s what I wonder:

Are you one of those people who “won’t buy it”? Or is being a 78 year old felon a fact but not a factor? Seriously, I don’t get it.

 

[Elixir]

Do you hold the same assumption when it comes to far left progressives who want to literally eliminate all police forces, and make the US a communist country?

Wow. I missed that insanity and am 100 percent fascinated. @Emily Lake can you name a few of the most famous or most “followed” of these … uh … what? Anarchommies? Do you sincerely live in fear of their political success? Are they RUNNING A MAJOR POLITICAL PARTY??!?! If so, you have a convert!

 

[Jarhyn]

Wow... So poetry is witchcraft now.

Like seriously the guy called it nonsensical and silly, but it's just a poetic way of looking to the world you want before looking at the things you need to do to get there.

This allows navigating to such a destination as we may, even if the journey is hard.

They are literally trying to lay down a religious argument against goal oriented thinking!

 

[Tigers!]

If you really think VP candidates are picked because they are the most competent and qualified, do you also think pigs fly?

Unfortunately that does not say much about the integrity of the whole VP selection circus process itself. Perhaps it is time for a new circus process?

 

[Tigers!]

Yes it was a package deal and the package was better than the other package. Therefore, NOT a DEI hire.

The package's contents were not chosen by the buyers i.e. the voters. Whether one package is better than the other is very subjective.
They (the US voters) have/had Buckley's choice which is not really a good selection of choice at all.

 

[Shadowy Man]

If you really think VP candidates are picked because they are the most competent and qualified, do you also think pigs fly?

Unfortunately that does not say much about the integrity of the whole VP selection circus process itself. Perhaps it is time for a new circus process?

It started out as the guy who came in second for President. Imagine a Biden/Trump administration!