Leaderboard

In that case it seems he is simply just communicating to someone else than you think he should. Basically he is telling progressive as well as black voters that he is fulfilling his campaign promise to them. As all politicians it is an overture to gain their continued support. In the polarized atmosphere I doubt that folks that have an issue with perception would have voted for him in the first place.

It seems a bit like a style over substance argument. Having 100 white men is fine as long as one makes the appearance of not discriminating. Rectifying the situation in a targeted way is bad even if the outcome is fine. Or it could be an argument of equality vs equity. It is fine to give everyone 100$ (equality) but only given poor folks 100$ in order to lessen the difference (equity) is bad, because it discriminates. What is missed in this argument is that the system under which everything operates (i.e. context) results in differential outcomes even with equal input. With regard to the privilege argument, it is not about that life is not hard for e.g. white folks (or whichever group or class are considered privileged). It means that for the exact same person in the exact same situation, swapping out a factor such as skin colour would result in a bit different outcome. You might get a couple of more rejections, if you are black, for example. Or in certain areas you might have a harder time getting an apartment. You might not get into certain school districts. In my case, the schools tried very hard to discourage my parents to put me on a track that would allow me to get university, despite being first in class (Germany has weird tracks which only allow certain pupils to attend university and luckily when I was a school kid recommendations were not binding). As my parents (also immigrants) told me, as an immigrant you have to be perfect to be perceived as adequate. However, a big issue is that come second or third generation, certain folks are more accepted into a given population than others, often because they are less visually distinct (I do feel that this specifically is a bigger issue in Europe than in North America). The culmination of all these factors that could result in a somewhat different and typically worse track is what the term "privilege" tries to convey. No one is asking for shame, but folks are starting to ask to take a look at the system. One crude, but in the long run potentially effective system is to have more diversity in places of power. It is certainly not perfect and will not work everywhere. However, for example in medical sciences, having women on higher boards has helped to highlight the lack of in issues that are not found in men. In the past having male cohorts were considered easier and often standard. Likewise having cohorts with disproportionately non-white individuals could get thrown out by reviewers as non-representative. Now, a higher diversity in the boards has made researchers to think harder in justifying a given cohort. The situation has not really caught up, but at the very least we start to see movement into the right direction. But we still have massive knowledge gaps in even some basic aspects of female biology (especially, but not exclusively when it comes to the endocrine system).

It does actually. He wants to create enthusiasm among those supporting such choices. So he announces that he is going to fill a position with a black woman and then he does. This is a signal that he is committing to their values rather than having incidentally a black woman on the list. I am not sure where the confusion is. Have you heard of movie trailers? They announce what they are going to show well ahead of time. There is a reason for that. They shore up enthusiasm and try to keep up momentum until the movies shows. Here, Biden can say that he is committed to what he and his voters consider to be right right move and rather than trying to hide it. I think doing it in a conspicuous way in order not to offend the GOP would be seen as a weakness from most of his potential voters. I.e. you need to see politics from the viewpoint of the political system.

Hi. I'm not an expert, but I can tell you what the present status of Cantor's continuum hypothesis is: (My emphasis.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuum_hypothesis So, within the Zermelo-Frenkel set-theory axioms, plus the axiom of choice, you can neither prove nor disprove the continuum hypothesis. And that's what I know. The possibility of a cardinality sandwiched between aleph_0 and aleph_1 is still conjectural.

Wilting of technology. Just to share.

The parties always tend to mirror each other(in some respects). Here the alternative tends to be zero progress if you don't. ...and they gave it to themselves to sone extent. Filibusters used to help moderate things.

While essentially I disagree with your general thoughts on this matter, the above is of course correct, and I can certainly relate to that. And by the same token, the newly discovered or recognised forms of political correctness, is also sometimes taken too far...imo of course! And again, of course to many, that would indeed be what would be understood by some. But perhaps we need to widen our area of thinking, and understand that in the past, the white male has indeed been in an elevated position, and that woman and non whites have been discriminated against. Therefore, again imo, if we have a non white woman, of equal qualifications, wouldn't it be morally correct to recognise that while morally all judges should judge without fear or favour, and irrespective of colour or background, they are also human? (and most humans do have biases) So recognising that justice must not only be done, but be seen to be done, what is wrong then in chosing a female non white that is qualified? And further more, what is wrong with Biden chosing a morally honest approach, and informing his constituents, that these are the grounds and reasons for his choice, which seems to be your bone of contention. Again, as an aside, I would like to hear more from the VP, Harris on this and other matters. You can please some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you aint ever going to please all of the people all of the time.

While there are ways to engage with racists, appeasing them at every step won't win them over, either. One of the few effective methods is direct engagement but other than that folks generally have their own bubbles either way. Appoint a white man and they would against it for being a liberal. A white woman is a direct attack on masculinity. A black person or any other minority is obviously just a ploy to diminish hard working white folks. However, changing the system and normalizing e.g. black women in places of power at least creates the chance that at some point this state will be normalized. Just as a silly example, in non-diverse groups or universities immigrant often were made fun of of their accents or were just considered too hard to understand to engage. One of the most common things in student evaluations are complaints about accents. Yet the more diverse the setting (i.e. more folks talk with different accents) the more folks are used to that. Do they stop being annoyed by it? Perhaps not, but at some point they put up with it as this is just the way things are now. I.e. changing the norm requires changing the system to some degree up until it becomes normal again.

So, looking at polls among democratic and likely democratic voters the choice was highly popular. I think there is one thing that one needs to understand for the US voting system (and actually to some degree also the Canadian, though a bit less so) is that due to the partisan divide, you do not win elections by getting folks from the other aisle or trying to get the biggest consensus. You win elections by mobilizing folks on your side (if we put the issue of gerrymandering aside for the moment) not by trying to get others to move to your side. I.e. the goal is to combat apathy. The GOP is doing that by creating a visceral response based on fear. Themes like white displacement, LGBTQ agendas, immigrants and economic fears (often tied to the former) are wedge issues that create emotional responses and trigger all the right identity politics boxes that helps getting a higher turnout. Especially in the polarized atmosphere we are right now, trying to stay in the middle and appease those that won't vote for you either way is a ticket out of power.

It may be easier to trawl through the patents than to try to work it out.

And seeing men with glowing blue eyes during the day is common in both the Amazon and the Netflix regions, where people binge-watch Chris Pine movies instead of working.

And also, whose perceptions matter more to a candidate: people who might vote for you, and people who aren't going to vote for you no matter what you say?

On top of what @joigus said so clearly (+ 1), You have to delve much deeper into the philosophy of Mathematics beofre you can start using symbols such a = ; + ; n+1 and so on. Consider. Until you have defined what a number is how can you define addition ? So how can you give meaning to n + 1 in the definition of a number ? Note in Mathematics defining means loosely 'give meaning to' .

I couldn't give a rats ass about over sensitive people in general, especially the "white privileged males". I was actually pointing to the possibility that the "pre-selection" could and has been perceived as discrimination in a bad way, since it was based on colour and gender, which is exactly why (so it appears) the selection was made in the first place - To show that the previously wrong acts of discrimination throughout history by suppressing certain groups needs to end. So in an act of ending colour and gender discrimination, he pre-announces that he will choose a person based on their skin colour and gender. All sounds rather hypercritical wouldn't you say? So, just to reiterate again, I support, welcome and applaud the appointment of KBJ. However, (in my humble opinion) the act of pre announcing that the next Judge is going to be... "a person of a certain gender and of a certain colour" is the very discrimination tactic that modern western society is trying to eliminate.

Always a pleasure discussing things with you CharonY. That is essentially correct. Unfortunately, in today's society, 'style' is what is perceived, not 'substance'. The President should be mindful of people's perception. My apologies. Like you, I sometimes get carried away, trying to make a point. I did quote you ... " if only one group is considered ( that being black females ), it's certainly discrimination." Did you not say that ?

Video coming out of the Moskva's last moments prior to sinking. It kind of questions Russia's version of both the damage being done just due to a fire and it sinking under tow due to rough weather and adverse sea conditions (If I ever consider reducing sail in the those conditions...time to put me down)

Did I stutter? Your position fascinates me. Basically it’s this: You think Biden made a great choice. You think she’ll be an excellent justice. You are glad the bench now better represents the American people. You acknowledge nearly all of the last several presidents have pre-announced a desire for a specific demographic group to get nominated. You acknowledge Biden acted in accordance with historical precedent. But you also think it was bad form because America is in a weird place right now and some people are upset thinking he wasn’t acting fairly and that “the left” have their heads in the sand and feel white men should feel sorry for history… despite the long standing precedent, and despite it being a good choice, and despite evidence she’ll be a thoughtful and cautious justice on the bench.

Here is Stalin's speech from that parade. Interesting to juxtapose those circumstances with current situation. Stalin, for that brief period of time, found himself potentially on the right side of history. Putin obviously is not.

oops!

You should see at least one doctor, maybe 2.

Turkey has launched its special military operation against the Kurds with an invasion of the territory of sovereign Iraq. Nobody in the world cares about that.