219
Biden names Harris to lead first federal gun violence prevention office
(www.theguardian.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 22 Sep 2023
219 points (94.7% liked)
News
21700 readers
3110 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
yeah i wish it was an old white man they always have the best policies
Definitely not the least bit racist to dismiss someone with a proven legal career as a token.
Now, if you want to say her legal career is a liability and not the strength the boomer liberals think it is, say that instead.
You should look into her legal career, it's not pretty. Also, she got less than 1% of the democrats support, and dropped out before the first debate. Pretty much nobody wanted her but now she's VP. She has a pretty shady past when it comes to how she got into some of her positions. - I mean you could say any of this instead.
It's the career part that makes me dislike her
Same. Her stated policies after moving to representative office however are just standard liberal positions, addressing symptoms and never, ever, threatening the status quo.
Which is better than the possible alternative, but not enough to win against a Republican populist, given the proven sexism and racism of at least a strong minority of the American electorate.
While I'm not much of a fan of the word token, it makes a certain amount of sense to apply in her position.
She isn't a token because of her own strengths, weaknesses, or job performance. She is a token because Biden decided that the two most important qualifications for the job were Black and Woman, any other quality was less important to him than those two.
I don't think race or sex significantly impacts the policy decisions of good leaders.
You don't think people who have experienced life from a completely different perspective have a different perspective of the way policy can have different impacts on various groups of people?
Take a minute to really think deeply about that. In America, do white and black people have the same approach to interactions with police officers? In America, do women walking home alone from work at night have the same concerns for safety as men?
To make it really simple, do people in wheelchairs have the same experience getting on a city bus as people not in wheelchairs?
You don't think that differences in experience inform the way people approach problems and solutions? Would an engineer have the same approach to generating electric as a nuclear scientist?
Would an urban mayor approach city planning the same way a rural mayor would? How would their approaches differ, and why? Would the experiences and needs of each community be different? Who would the mayors seek as subject matter experts in the case of urban planning, and of rural? What would inform their choices about who to seek out as experts?
If any of the above are true, then why wouldn't the race or sex of a leader make a difference in policy development?
This is basically how I try to explain to people when they say there's no such thing as white privelige. They usually don't think about the simple interactions such as getting pulled over and stuff. They just always think of it as they never got ahead in anything just for being white and it's way more complex than that.
The wheelchair on a bus problem is a fairly clear example of where perspective and experience matters. It's also a thing that you don't really think about unless you've had lived or shared experience.
The same can be said about designing a doorway. How wide should the doorway be? Some might cite code for 32", but not know why the code requires that width, while others might say some number less than that based on their own perception of the doorway problem.
Likely, the only people who will answer "At least 32 inches to accommodate wheelchairs access" are people who have lived or shared experience with wheelchair accommodations, or have some expertise that would make them a subject matter expert in ADA compliance.
And if things are this muddy for the width of a doorway, imagine how complex it gets for things like gun violence prevention.
Really, because there seems to be a very clear racial bias I've noticed
Do you mean a clear racial bias in getting elected? Or do you mean that having the wrong skin color or genitals somehow makes you more or less capable of making good decisions?