...but Rightists should never be Dogmatic Kantian Universalists (ie - Race Non-essentialists or believe that 'All Racism is Bad')
Apparently Racial Universalism is Eurocentric White Supremacy because Leftists deem Race/ Tribe Proportionality "Essential" (ie - BLM) and Socio-Cultural Integration a Sin.
Minus: Race Non-essentialists or believe that 'All Racism is Bad'.
ReplyDeleteProof you aren't a "race non-essentialist". Because you think racism against non Whites is good.
Perhaps you can lend us examples of where I've said or implied that?
Delete...and while you're at it, perhaps you can validate yourself and refute my insinuation of your lack of intellectual integrity vis racism by providing some examples of where you called out minorities for their anti-white racism or actions, and not whites exclusively?
DeleteBoth of you conflate deserved criticism with racism.
DeleteMinus: Perhaps you can lend us examples of where I've said or implied that?
DeleteSure, I can do that easily. I can point to your assertion that Ketanji Brown Jackson is unqualified to be on the supreme court only due to being Black. That's incredibly racist and not something you will even deny saying. Even though she is one of the most qualified justices ever to serve on the supreme court. But you don't believe it due to being a White Supremacist. It's inconceivable to you that she could be more qualified than a white man.
Biden's PRIMARY selection criteria for her was precisely that. So why isn't he a racist? Because he's a Neo-Racist, like you!
Deleteps - I'm certain that there were literally HUNDREDS of white men MORE qualified (sans melanin) than her.
Delete...but none of them met Biden's Neo-Racist litmus-test prequirement.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteMinus: iden's PRIMARY selection criteria for her was precisely that. So why isn't he a racist? Because he's a Neo-Racist, like you! ps - I'm certain that there were literally HUNDREDS of white men MORE qualified (sans melanin) than her. ...but none of them met Biden's Neo-Racist litmus-test prequirement.
DeleteKetanji Brown Jackson is probably the MOST qualified justice on the court. Could Biden have found a more qualified White man? Maybe. But I think he would have been hard pressed. KBJ was a superb nominee that checked all the boxes, and was also Black. So What if that was one of his criteria? There was an imbalance Joe Biden promised to do something to rectify (to the small extent he was able). He made a promise and kept it. But, as a White Supremacist, you can't stand it. But IDGAF. There was no "neo-racism" involved in the selection of KBJ. Because that's a fake complaint made up by racists like you.
She only checked one box, Black. Her only acclaimed legal credential was a cum Laude on her diploma, indicating she graduated in the top 40% of her class., but not the top 11%... So LOTS of white men outperformed her academically (a minimum of 60% of the top 11%)
Deleteps - 78% of ALL lawyers are white... so shouldn't they be 78% of judges? Any less purposely dumbs down the legal profession.
Delete...and only 36% of Biden's judicial appointees identified as white.
DeleteIn the entire federal court system 75% identify as white. This is 3% LESS that their representation in the total candidate pool.
DeleteIn other words, the premise that Biden needed to correct for a racial imbalance is false on its' face.
Minus: 78% of ALL lawyers are white... so shouldn't they be 78% of judges?
DeleteNo. That's your ideal, as a White Supremacist.
Minus: In other words, the premise that Biden needed to correct for a racial imbalance is false on its' face.
It isn't. Because percent of white lawyers matching percent of white judges is a rule you made up.
g00gle: 40% to 42.5% of the United States population belongs to a racial or ethnic group other than non-Hispanic White.
I count representation as percent of the population. Though I'm not saying 42 percent of judges should be non white. But the number definitely should be higher. But, aside from that, KBJ is still one of the most qualified judges ever on the Supreme Court. I linked you to the facts. You will never accept them because you're a White Supremacist and being White is the most important qualification to you.
🤖Via Copilot...
👉“She only checked one box, Black".
This is not factual. Ketanji Brown Jackson’s résumé is one of the strongest of any modern Supreme Court justice.
Her actual credentials (all confirmed by sources)...
Harvard University, A.B. magna cum laude (top tier academic honors).
Harvard Law School, J.D. cum laude (again, honors).
Editor of the Harvard Law Review (one of the most elite academic positions in American law).
Clerked for Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer (the single most prestigious clerkship in the legal profession).
Vice Chair of the U.S. Sentencing Commission (Senate‑confirmed).
Eight years as a federal district judge (appointed by Obama).
Judge on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals (the second‑most powerful court in the U.S.).
These are multiple “boxes," and they are the same credentials shared by many past justices.
👉 “Cum laude means top 40%, not top 11%".
This is false and misunderstands how Harvard honors work.
Harvard’s actual system:
Cum laude = honors.
Magna cum laude = higher honors.
Summa cum laude = highest honors.
Harvard does not publish class rank percentages, and “cum laude = top 40%” is not a Harvard rule.
👉What we do know from sources...
Jackson graduated magna cum laude from Harvard College (undergraduate).
She graduated cum laude from Harvard Law School.
These are honors, not indicators of mediocrity.
Also.
Law Review membership is far more selective than GPA alone — it is one of the strongest academic signals in the legal world.
👉“Lots of white men outperformed her academically.”
This is not a meaningful argument for Supreme Court qualification.
Even if true (and we cannot know because Harvard does not release class ranks), it is irrelevant because...
Supreme Court nominees are not chosen by GPA.
Many past justices did not graduate with honors at all.
Experience, judicial temperament, clerkships, and legal career matter far more.
And again: She clerked for a Supreme Court justice, which only the top fraction of law graduates ever achieve.🛑
Google AI:
DeleteHarvard Law School (HLS) awards Latin (not "Greek") honors based strictly on a student's final class GPA percentiles, rather than fixed GPA cutoffs. The Latin honors brackets are defined as:
Cum Laude: Top 40% of the graduating class
Magna Cum Laude: Top 10% of the graduating class
Summa Cum Laude: Extremely rare; awarded only to top student(s) who achieve an exceptional designated standard, requiring near-perfect grades.
Because the cutoffs use a fixed percentile, the exact GPA required varies from year to year. Historically, Cum Laude typically begins around a 3.6 GPA, and Magna Cum Laude hovers near a 4.0.
LMAO! Everything you post supports Dervish's assessment of your beliefs.
ReplyDeleteYou think that I'm a racist, that my opinions are motivated by racial animosity because I'm not committed to endlessly affirming the sense of self-worth of minorty races and cultural practices like you are? So why don't you ever seem to care about MY sense of self-worth, Les?
DeleteYou think that my self-pride is hubristic? So you criticize, right? Why can't YOU criticize non-white races or cultures? Only your own.
Whos' the race essentialist, Les. You, me, or you AND Derv?
You want to blow sunshine up their minority asses, that's your hang-up, not mine.
DeleteLMAO!! The typical response from a racist fearful of becoming a minority. Own it jc. Nancy up to the truth for once.
DeleteNo, a real racist would kill you for doing that. I merely LAUGH at the absurdity of it.
Delete..and call guilt-pride riddled fools like you what you are. Fools.
DeleteHannah Arendt, "Personal Responsibility Under Dictatorship":
“There is no such thing as collective guilt or collective innocence; guilt and innocence make sense only if applied to individuals.”
Acta non Verba the fool, Les!
DeleteMinus: “There is no such thing as collective guilt or collective innocence; guilt and innocence make sense only if applied to individuals.”
DeleteYou lie. The lie is that you keep posting this, as if anyone has ever said they disagree. I agree with this completely.
Take you complaints to Hannah Arendt who reported on the Eichmann Nazi trial in Jerusalem after the war. And the statement is 100% true. Arendt herself was Jewish.
Delete...and if you really agree with the statement, how can you claim to believe in Social Justice? It means the opposite of Social Justice. It means Individual Justice. No "judicially efficient" Class- Action lawsuits. Like Socrates refusal to collectively try the Athenian admirals in the Pelopponesian War.
DeleteGoogle AI:
DeleteIn 406 BC, following the naval Battle of Arginusae, Socrates served on the Athenian citizen council and was randomly selected as the epistates (president of the assembly for the day). He famously became the only official to refuse an illegal, en-masse vote to execute the victorious admirals, citing that it violated the constitution.
The infamous trial of the admirals and Socrates' courageous defiance occurred against the backdrop of one of the most controversial events in ancient Greek history. Here is how the event unfolded and impacted Socrates:
The Battle of Arginusae (406 BC)
The Victory: The Athenian fleet achieved a decisive victory against the Spartan navy near the Arginusae islands.
The Tragedy: Following the battle, a severe storm struck. The Athenian generals ordered a portion of the fleet to rescue the stranded sailors and recover the dead, but the storm thwarted their efforts, resulting in the drowning of thousands of Athenian men.
The Public Outrage: Upon returning to Athens, an enraged public accused the generals of failing to rescue their comrades.
The Illegal Trial (406 BC)
The Mass Trial: The Athenian Assembly demanded that all the generals be tried and condemned in a single, illegal en-masse vote.
Socrates' Defiance: Socrates was the presiding officer of the assembly that day. He alone refused to put the unconstitutional motion to a vote.
The Execution: Despite his protests, the mob eventually pushed the measure through, and six generals were executed. Shortly after, the public realized their mistake and regretted the mass executions, executing those who had stirred up the frenzy.
Impact on Socrates' Own Trial (399 BC)
The Lasting Enmities: Standing up against the emotional mob and refusing to bend to the will of the democratic assembly made Socrates powerful political enemies.
The 399 BC Charges: Three years after the Thirty Tyrants were overthrown and democracy was restored, these historical political grievances culminated in his own trial. Socrates was brought to trial on charges of impiety and corrupting the youth.
Minus: Take you complaints to Hannah Arendt who reported on the Eichmann Nazi trial in Jerusalem after the war. And the statement is 100% true. Arendt herself was Jewish.
DeleteI have no complaints to take to her. My complaint is that you lie about me disagreeing with the statement. What I JUST said. Yet you still insist I disagree and have a "complaint" with a statement I AGREE with. Did you read that I agreed? Or does cognitive dissonance prevent you from reading a comment in which I say I AGREE? And you see it as me saying I disagree?
If so, that's something you should take up with a psychiatrist. I can't help you.
Minus: ...if you really agree with the statement, how can you claim to believe in Social Justice? It means the opposite of Social Justice.
DeleteIt doesn't.
🤖Via Copilot...
👉What Arendt actually meant.
Arendt’s line: “There is no such thing as collective guilt or collective innocence; guilt and innocence make sense only if applied to individuals.”
This comes from her essay on personal responsibility under dictatorship.
She was arguing:
Only individuals can commit crimes.
Only individuals can be morally guilty.
You cannot blame an entire ethnic group or nation for the actions of specific people.
This was written in the context of Nazism, where some Germans claimed “collective guilt” while others denied any responsibility at all.
Arendt’s point was:
Guilt is personal. Responsibility is broader.
She explicitly distinguished the two.
👉Social justice is about responsibility, not guilt.
The blogger’s mistake is treating “social justice” as if it means:
“Collectively blaming people for things they didn’t personally do.”
But that is not what social justice means in political philosophy, law, or activism.
Social justice is about:
Fair access to opportunities.
Equitable treatment.
Correcting systemic disadvantages.
Ensuring institutions treat people fairly.
None of that requires collective guilt.
It requires collective responsibility — which Arendt did believe in.
Arendt wrote repeatedly that societies have obligations to prevent injustice, even if individuals are not personally guilty of causing it.
👉The blogger’s argument confuses two unrelated things.
The blogger is mixing up:
Moral guilt with personal guilt tied to actions. Personal guilt cannot be assigned to groups.
Social responsibility is collective and tied to systems. They can be shared. This is the basis of social justice.
These are not opposites. They operate on different levels.
You can believe:
“No one is guilty of crimes they didn’t commit.”
AND
“Society should fix unfair systems.”
Those positions are completely compatible.🛑
You now confuse morals (individual guilt/ innocence) for ethics (social responsibility). and Arendt's quote is quite clear on this point. Eichmann was not responsible for strictly following the Nazi's "Code of Ethics". Just as you or I am not responsible for the Democratic Party's "Code of Ethics"
DeleteSoJus or otherwise (NAZI). In fact, if you were a moral human being, you would reject them entirely and refuse to follow them. This is what determines your Guilt or Innocence.
DeleteThe "banality of evil" Arendt concluded, lay in the system of ethics required by the state.
DeleteGoogle AI:
“The banality of evil” is a philosophical concept coined by political theorist Hannah Arendt in her 1963 book, Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil. It argues that great evils in history are not exclusively perpetrated by sociopaths or demonic monsters, but can result from ordinary people who uncritically conform to mass systems and blindly follow orders without thinking
The Core Quotes
While the phrase itself serves as the subtitle of her book, Arendt expanded on its meaning in her subsequent writings and correspondence.
On Thoughtlessness:
“Banality was a phenomenon that really couldn't be overlooked. The more one listened to him, the more obvious it became that his inability to speak was closely connected with his inability to think. Namely to think from the standpoint of somebody else. There's nothing deep about it—nothing demonic! There's simply the reluctance ever to imagine what the other person is experiencing. That is the banality of evil.
On the Nature of Evil vs. Good:
“It is indeed my opinion now that evil is never ‘radical,’ that it is only extreme, and that it possesses neither depth nor any demonic dimension. It can overgrow and lay waste the whole world precisely because it spreads like a fungus on the surface. It is ‘thought-defying,’ as I said, because thought tries to reach some depth, to go to the roots, and the moment it concerns itself with evil, it is frustrated because there is nothing. That is its ‘banality.’ Only the good has depth that can be radical.”
The Historical Context
The Eichmann Trial: In 1961, Arendt attended the Jerusalem trial of Adolf Eichmann, a high-ranking Nazi SS officer who organized the logistics of the mass deportation of Jews to death camps. She covered the event as a reporter for The New Yorker.
The Bureaucracy of Murder: The prosecution attempted to depict Eichmann as a sadistic, monstrous mastermind. Instead, Arendt observed a surprisingly mundane, mediocre, and pompous bureaucrat. Eichmann repeatedly insisted he was simply a law-abiding citizen who was "just following orders" within the Nazi legal framework.
The Absence of Thought: Arendt realized Eichmann was motivated by professional ambition rather than ideological hatred. His crimes were made possible by an "absence of thought"—a complete failure to evaluate the moral consequences of his administrative work or empathize with his victims
Key Conceptual Takeaways
Normalized Immorality: Evil becomes banal when it is woven into the everyday fabric of society under the guise of "normality" and legal order.
Not an Excuse: Defining Eichmann's evil as "banal" did not mean Arendt thought his actions were minor or forgivable. She fully supported his death sentence but argued that recognizing his thoughtlessness made the threat of totalitarianism much more terrifying and harder to prevent.
Mass Complicity: The theory warns that ordinary, everyday people can become complicit in horrific systems when they stop questioning authority and abandon moral judgment.
Are you complicit, Derv?
You are perfectly willing to discriminate against innocent white people who have never had a racist thought or committed a racist act in their lifetimes (and for their ENTIRE lifetimes) in order to affirm the descendants of black people who were never once discriminated against or wronged racially i any way, but gifted a life of social privilege. That's not "justice" Derv, Social or otherwise.
DeleteG_d, the Big Other, and History could give a sh*t that you're making them serve penance for the sins of their ancestors. It's all an ACT to assuage YOUR "guilt-pride" conscience.
Delete