Interview with Kara Dansky and Charlie Kirk

So no actual proof CK was a racist? Just lies.

Because they said so, that was the context of the comment.

No one is disputing "facts" the question is, how do you decide who is most qualified for the SC. It's not just down to a list of jobs held, much like any job.

Apart from that - yes, you have made the typical progressive argument for diversity hiring, many people agree with that approach.

You have totally missed the point however which is that just because others don't agree with it does not mean they are "dismissing" anyone's qualifications. That's not the substance of the argument they are making.

You additionally seem unable or unwilling to understand that people can have varied views on the benefits and problems, and even principles, involved in affirmative action, without being, personally, racists. It should be possible to have political discourse about this stuff without assuming bad faith in other people - the inability of progressive politics to do this has become a serious problem.

Conveniently omitting the relevant point that CK knew KJB was overly qualified & pretended she wasn't is telling…

Where's your evidence that Michele Obama, Joy Behar & co were AA btw?

Conveniently omitting the relevant point that CK knew KJB was overly qualified & pretended she wasn't is telling…

Where's your evidence that Michele Obama, Joy Behar & co were AA btw?

I suspect it wasn't really relevant to his point though. Someone can be totally qualified, even the best qualified, but if they were picked for diversity reasons, they are a diversity hire. That's one of the arguments against it, it follows people whether they are qualified or not, and casts doubts on their competence even when those doubts aren't deserved.

And yet no one seems to worry about white men being picked. Given what I know about legacy admissions and the networks in the US (I live in the US and my children all went to private prep schools that fed places like harvard) the average white graduate in Harvard is as likely to be a legacy or network hire as a black candidate is to be a DEI hire.

But no one worries about that. Wonder why?

Facts aren't "debatable".

Apart from the fact that KJB graduated magna cum laude from Harvard University, then attended Harvard Law School, where she graduated cum laude and was an editor of the Harvard Law Review she is also:

"the most experienced trial court judge to join the Supreme Court in almost a century.

Jackson served on the United States District Court for the District of Columbia for nearly 8 years, giving her more trial court experience than any sitting Supreme Court justice and more than any justice since Edward Sanford, who was nominated to the Supreme Court in 1923.
Jackson would be only the second sitting justice to serve at all three levels of the federal judiciary.
Only Justice Sonia Sotomayor has also served as a District judge, Circuit judge and Supreme Court justice.
Jackson would bring more years of experience as a judge than four of the sitting justices combined.
Jackson has more than eight years of experience as a judge; that’s more than Justices Thomas, Roberts, Kagan, and Barrett had combined when they were confirmed.
Jackson would be the first public defender to become a Supreme Court justice in the history of the Court.
She would be the first justice with substantial criminal defense experience since Thurgood Marshall retired in 1991."

https://demandjustice.org/judge-ketanji-brown-jackson-is-one-of-the-most-qualified-nominees-for-the-supreme-court-ever/

https://bidenwhitehouse.archives.gov/kbj/

"I suspect it wasn't really relevant to his point though. Someone can be totally qualified, even the best qualified, but if they were picked for diversity reasons, they are a diversity hire. That's one of the arguments against it, it follows people whether they are qualified or not, and casts doubts on their competence even when those doubts aren't deserved.

And the Democrats make those kinds of decisions a lot. And it's suspect to people because if they were really the best qualified, why make a diversity decision? If they weren't, then the criticism has teeth. A lot of American conservatives see this as a statement that Democrats don't think black Americans can achieve at the same level as white Americans."

It only casts doubt because of far right indoctrination of what diversity inclusion means…. a lot like what Kirk is doing here by pretending these women were not qualified. Diversity inclusion has never suggested merit isn't necessary rather that diversity is beneficial to organisations & as such should be considered for inclusion.

Cultural diversity by virtue of sex, ethnicity, class, geography etc brings different approaches & skills to the work place of which provide higher service/profit delivery. Now that's not to assume just because an individual has a different life experience they mustn't think the same as others but that often it does which is a qualification in its self.

The great con the far right pull off here is the 'suspicion' angle. 'You are only raising suspicion' which in the context of who actually substantially gets the free ride in the college system is white people via legacy, donor & 'country club' sporting admissions. That Affirmative Action admissions are a minuscule fraction of this is conveniently ignored. Of course white people must never be 'sus'….they have always 'earned' their place…..

I guess none of you are black. It’s the only way you can go out of your way to highlight this man’s ’virtues’. I don’t believe anyone is born bad or is irredeemably bad, I guess that’s my Christian upbringing, but I also don’t understand the deification of this man and the need for many people on this website to paint him in the best possible light. He’s not the first public figure to be shot and killed, even this year. If those deaths were even mentioned on Mumsnet, they certainly weren’t given much attention.

I’d never heard of Charlie Kirk before he was shot and his death had little impact on me. I have serious issues in my own life, people are shot and killed in America every day and there is a lot of suffering going on around the world, a lot of atrocities committed. It didn’t seem to be an incident that affected me in any significant way, even when I discovered his position on transgender ideology. I share essentially the same position on transgender ideology with many people I don’t want to be associated with.

Then I read his comments about black people. I can’t wax lyrical about how Charlie Kirk was ‘decent’ and ‘respectful’. How, ‘Isn’t it nice he gave his political opponents a platform’. And I can’t feel any kind of kinship with people who, knowing what he’s said about black people, still feel compelled to highlight his good qualities.

Let me be clear: I don’t believe he should have been killed. I don’t even support the death penalty in any circumstance, so I can hardly support Charlie Kirk being killed. But I am learning, not for the first time, that Mumsnetters in general, and users of this subforum (FWR) tend to ignore black people and our concerns, until we are useful. Whether that is taking cases to court when much is made of the claimant’s ethnic heritage (why?) or the perennial ‘transgenderism is womanface, it’s offensive like blackface’.

You have no idea and I think it is possible you will never understand just how much slights about my ethnic heritage cut deep. Slights to my womanhood are pretty trivial in comparison. I think this is something white women will never understand. So, you go on singing the virtues of Charlie Kirk. We’ll be here the next time you need to exploit us for your own purposes.

Even if some people benefitted from affirmative action, the impression I have is that there have been some brilliant black women who rose to prominence in the USA, like Michelle Obama and Condoleeza Rice, or the black women mathematicians who helped the space program, who were far more able and ’perfect’ than many of their white peers. And it took these sorts of levels of attainment on their parts before affirmative action came into effect for them to give them a chance.

Conveniently omitting the relevant point that CK knew KJB was overly qualified & pretended she wasn't is telling…

Where's your evidence that Michele Obama, Joy Behar & co were AA btw?

Irrelevant to this point.

Your ‘evidence’ that CK was racist was that he pointed out that Ketanjie Brown was a diversity hire. Biden himself confirmed that he hired based on the colour of her skin.

You then made further claims that falsely generalised and decontextualised his discussion on the issues of ‘affirmative action’. These are well known and widely discussed yet you claim this is proof he’s a racist.

The women he named WERE ‘recipients of affirmative action’. It is not racist to discuss that and how patronising it is of the Left to undermine such highly qualified women.

Either provide actual racist things he said or withdraw your claim.

What you are missing here is diversity is a qualification. Diversity brings its own qualifications in the form of experience to the table that others lacked.

Cookie cutter copies as in old white men aren't going to bring anything new to interpretation of law.

And it's not as if Trump didn't indulge in his own limited pool of applicants/DEI when he appointed hard line Christo fundamentalists Amy Cony Barrett & Brett Kavenaugh to facilitate the demise of Roe V Wade.

All supreme court justices in fact are appointed based on political leanings by the prevailing party in power in the US.

Exactly the tactics proponents of Gender Ideology and various other political ideologies use - manipulate and influence the young in schools, universities and on various platforms on social media, I guess that is okay by you though because you agree with them.

Universities especially should be where all sides of various political, religious and social ideologies are heard, evaluated, discussed, debated, agreed with or disagreed with.

Kara speaks about it from a left-wing feminist perspective.

Most of Kirk's audience, even if they see some of the problems with gender ideology, are unlikely to have considered this:

"Radical feminism is all about protecting the rights, privacy, and safety of women and girls. And we cannot do that as a movement if we cannot define the category of women and girls to exclude males."

Or this:

"It is meant to make us forget that biological sex is grounded in material reality. If we can all be persuaded that men can get pregnant, then all of a sudden femaleness has been made distinct from pregnancy in our minds."

Or this:

"So I mentioned I was on the board of Women's Liberation Front from 2016 to 2020. Now I'm the president of the U.S. chapter of Women's Declaration International, which anyone can find at womensdeclarationusa.com."

And it's always worth pointing out this, no matter who the audience is:

"But the idea that a man can suppress testosterone for one year and then thereby compete on the women's team is so insulting to women and girls. We are not men with less testosterone. We're actually complete human beings."

Plus it's important to express how this negatively affects gay rights:

"And they're very frustrated because for lesbians and gay men, biological sex is really relevant. You can't protect same-sex attraction if there's no such thing as actual sex."

She may well be highly qualified but as Biden said he was hiring based on skin colour, she may not have been the best person for the job.

Charlie Kirk was correct.

She may well be highly qualified but as Biden said he was hiring based on skin colour, she may not have been the best person for the job.

Charlie Kirk was correct.

No it doesn't leave the door open because KJB's qualifications speak for themselves which Kirk was fully aware of but chose to pretend didn't exist.

Kara speaks about it from a left-wing feminist perspective.

Most of Kirk's audience, even if they see some of the problems with gender ideology, are unlikely to have considered this:

"Radical feminism is all about protecting the rights, privacy, and safety of women and girls. And we cannot do that as a movement if we cannot define the category of women and girls to exclude males."

Or this:

"It is meant to make us forget that biological sex is grounded in material reality. If we can all be persuaded that men can get pregnant, then all of a sudden femaleness has been made distinct from pregnancy in our minds."

Or this:

"So I mentioned I was on the board of Women's Liberation Front from 2016 to 2020. Now I'm the president of the U.S. chapter of Women's Declaration International, which anyone can find at womensdeclarationusa.com."

And it's always worth pointing out this, no matter who the audience is:

"But the idea that a man can suppress testosterone for one year and then thereby compete on the women's team is so insulting to women and girls. We are not men with less testosterone. We're actually complete human beings."

Plus it's important to express how this negatively affects gay rights:

"And they're very frustrated because for lesbians and gay men, biological sex is really relevant. You can't protect same-sex attraction if there's no such thing as actual sex."

No she doesn't. I just watched it & she only speaks about the problems with gender ideology. Nothing at all about general feminist principles or issues.

I love how Kirk winds up (to parphrase): 'it's funny your'e a feminist & I'm a Christian Conservative & we have so much in common"….😂

Yes she was. Please watch the video or read the transcript of the interview.

She wasn't introducing them to feminist perspectives (not that it would have any impact on MGA cultists) she was introducing them to a particular perspective they already knew about.

So do you agree that introducing such people to left-wing radical feminist perspectives, as Kara will have done while being interviewed on Kirk's show, is a positive approach to take?

Um, look, I don't know how to break this to you, but the far right believe the actual "rights of women" are the problem. IE they don't believe in equality. As far as privacy & safety go that's not news to anyone including them. In fact they happily exploit that angle to remove the rights of women. IE it's a defense why women are safer…at home……