[sotomayor] and subjective views of reality

Under the heading ‘Sotomayor Racist Comments Controversy Spreads Through Battle Lines’ one article says:

Sotomayor's extreme likelihood of confirmation almost makes these alleged racist comments unlikely to make a big difference. Yet it will take up a few news cycles as Sotomayor faces racist comment charges while preparing for her hearings.

Sotomayor has been vetted and considered as a Supreme Court justice before, and was the favorite to be nominated this time for weeks, so foes have had a lot of time to find something.

That's as maybe but it doesn't seem to me that the issue is really her racist comments but her record of judgements and just why she is the darling of Obama. This is a pure power game going on here with the stacking of the Supreme Court and that's why the right is up in arms.

Having said that, I thought Gingrich and Co. and the Starr Scandal brought the level of political debate to an all time low [before Obama], much as this blog holds no brief whatsoever for Clinton. There was just too much of the Andy Johnson stitch-up in that and Gingrich's credentials rightly became zero.

With that also having been said, Cassandra makes some good points about subjectivism and objectivism:

The blatant class justice and 'reverse' racism on display all over the Western hemisphere and how this is apparently the natural standard for entire cohorts of postmodernists, is reaching fever pitch! Case in point: Sonio Sotomayor, Obama's pick for the US Supreme Court.

In modern times the notion was introduced by Immanuel Kant. He stopped just short of proposing the possibility of personal 'realities'. Instead he posited social subjectivism, the collectivist idea that social groups create their own realities.

Followers carried the idea to further extremes: there is no reason why mankind should not consist of competing groups, each with their own type of consciousness, vying with others for the control of reality.

Postmodernism (now mainstream) furnished ethnic groups with their own mental constitution, a racial or cultural version of subjective 'truth,' that may be invalid for others. This is what present day multiculturalists term 'the narrative'.

A multicultural society is a socially subjective political system: an archipelago of distinct autononous cultural and racial islets (others would say, ghettos). Although politicians like to present the doctrine as synonymous with 'a society consisting of multiple cultures' this is emphatically not the case. On the contrary, it is legalized segregation and the diametrical opposite of 'melting pot.'

Now this last paragraph is the issue here and it is explained further:

As long as all groups abide by the principle that each and every culture is equally valid and autonomous in its own right, it is just the dissenters, apostates and outcasts who are thrown under the bus. But as soon as one tribe starts developing theories about its own supremacy, or becomes envious of more successful ones, or becomes predatory - to mention but a few wildly speculative possibilities - it's back to the drawing board of human civilization for the survivors (if any).

In a social or political setting the objective approach seeks to apply equal rules and treatment for all concerned, without regard of the individual involved - baron or beggar - or his particular circumstances or background: murder is murder, no matter who committed it.

Objectivity has been the highest standard of moral judgment for a very long time.

I'm sure you've latched on to the bottom line – that Obama and similar thinking people have created urban myths of their own, each group wrapped in their own subjective idea of reality when in fact, the thing is bollocks. There are certain facts and figures – population, GDP etc., which just ARE.

We could go into the rewriting of history but it would make the post too long [and I am going to post on the revisionist redating of the gospels if I can condense all the material] but suffice it to say that:

Sotomayor was racist in her remark, however innocuous.

Whether that should exclude her or not is not really the point here. The point is – the rule should equally apply to all and, as Cassandra wrote: 'This is emphatically not the case.' There is also the question of her character and personal fitness or not to hold that office.