Leaderboard

Just to be clear, it was an analogy and thus imperfect. The idea was that if blacks were mistreated, then to make up for that mistreatment you do something extra for blacks. That was not part of the analogy. The idea was that going forward, all would be treated equally. However, that is not enough. You must also make up for past harm. Which is of course how our justice system works. If I commit a crime but never again commit another crime, I still must pay my debt for that original crime I committed. I am not 'let off the hook' for that past crime just because I never commit any crimes going forward. Yes, I can. But it seems so obvious to me that if our actions caused harm in the past, then we must take direct action to repair those harms. It is fundamental fairness and I cannot see how anyone would object to that. Thus my thought is if someone is uncomfortable, it probably has to do with the mechanism employed to rectify the harm done, rather than the fact that the harm was rectified. I think a fundamental difference between the opposing points of view in this thread is that group 'A' thinks "this was a poor way to fix the problem", and group 'B' thinks "poor way to fix the problem or not, I don't care, we finally got the right result and it was long overdue, and that is more important than any mistakes that might have been made in the way we went about it". I wouldn't be surprised. But I suspect that no matter which way was chosen there would be critics. It is difficult to know ahead of time the best way forward. Thus you pick a path and execute it. And while you and others in this thread object to Biden's announcement during the campaign, his 'pre-announcement' doesn't seem to be a widespread concern as that is not what others in the press seemed to object to. It seems that most people objected to her past record of court ruling, rather than Biden's pre-announcement. Therefore, while some may object to that pre-announcement, it seems that it was not a major faux pas. As I said, above, the view of many of us is that the good done far outweighs what some view as a clumsy process.

There is something in this thread here which reminds me of MLK's letter from Birmingham jail:

Well, if you say so. And I am saying it is said "Supreme Court seat". If I write AFAIK, in your brain do you say "AFAIK" or "as far as I know"?

Why do you think I don't want them to be less ignorant? Trying to show a better way to those who think the way you do about this SCOTUS appointment has gotten 11 pages of pushback, and you're not even close to the most toxic of your kind. Why do you want us to embrace these psychopaths like brothers? Why do you think we should accept the hostility and degrading behavior of racists and homophobes? Why do you insist on framing them simply as "opposition" when it's becoming more and more clear they're tired of not getting their way fairly so they want to burn our democracy down? Why do you think this is simple "butting heads" when this authoritarian approach to race has already ripped the US apart and left our allies vulnerable to even more authoritarian regimes? What evangelism, Trump, and QAnon have done to this country is criminal, and the mindset of the extremists that believe in them doesn't need coddling or acceptance, imo. There's nothing about it I think deserves to be salvaged, do you?

Gosh, Godwin's Law proves itself once again. (It's gulags, btw) Sorry, I don't think it's the Left or progressives that have been talking concentration camps and putting people in cages. You may want to review the recent activity of the Trumpists and Far Right in the US before you start making comparisons between Democrats and Nazi Germany. We can keep rejecting their lies, their deeply flawed information sources, their bigotry, their misogyny and racism, their loathing for easy access to the polls for all Americans, and their idiotic disrespect for knowledge, facts, and discourse grounded in facts, because it is our duty as citizens of a democratic nation to call out fellow citizens when they are harming that nation. Your question is akin to asking how long we have to look after our children, set rules of behavior, and keep teaching them social skills: until they grow up.

that’s less salad, at least. it’s clear enough to be simply wrong, rather than incomprehensible. the set of square roots of prime numbers has cardinality equal to that of the natural numbers.

Trump let loose a huge Freudian slip when he said this to Judge Jeanine Pirro on Sunday, March 13, in regard to Putin waging war on Ukraine. This is from the Newsweek story and would love to find the actual interview on Youtube, anyone know? Trump's word salad with Russian dressing, about Putin waging war on Ukraine: "You say, what's the purpose of this? They had a country. You could see it was a country where there was a lot of love and we're doing it because, you know, somebody wants to make his country larger or he wants to put it back the way it was when actually it didn't work very well," Trump said. Trump Says 'Lot of Love' Behind Putin Wanting to 'Make His Country Larger' (newsweek.com) Trump explained the "purpose" of this war on Ukraine was Putin wanted to make his country larger. But Trump referred to Putin waging war on Ukraine as "we're doing it." "Doing IT" means waging war on Ukraine, and the pronoun is first person plural (Putin and Trump) plotting together. Whoops!! 😁

Good list, as one might expect from the late great Mr Sagan. Number four reminds me of the fallacy called "availability heuristic." Which is the tendency, when we form an hypothesis or an opinion or an interpretation of reality, to call upon what we have most recently heard or acquired in the way of information (rather than explore a broader range and timespan of data). We humans have trouble taking the entire information space into account when we try to model reality.

@CharonY The method of determining the veracity of facts has changed: one must be conversant in Youtube and Twitter. The written word is so 'yesterday', even long-time posters here tend to present videos rather than papers or articles now. The written word as a medium for evidence seems to be going the way of the hieroglyph. What I don't get is video is so slooow to input... I thought the world was getting faster and less patient. #LudditesRock

We cannot explain to other humans the meaning of finite numbers either. How do you explain the meaning of "two"?

I don't know where it is , but I've heard it many time from mods: "Rule 2.7 requires the discussion to take place here ("material for discussion must be posted")"

I'm unsure you are correct in this case. If the writer only intended SC as shorthand for Supreme Court, then the writer would reasonably expect you to read the line as "a Supreme Court seat", even though it says "a SC seat". "SC" is not an 'official' abbreviation like FBI is.

While this is very good info, I fear that in today's world the whole thing already falls apart in the first paragraph. Too often, multiple social media posts are considered independent validation of facts. Also, folks seem to be getting worse at reading longer texts, so even coming up with a single hypothesis is going to be incredibly challenging (unless it is shorter than a tweet). Or maybe I am just getting old(er).

Although, before anyone bothers trying to jump down my throat and claim that I'm saying we should be nasty; I refer you back to the facts of the situation as I put them earlier. I'm sorry but only racists are of the opinion that giving a black woman a promotion is an example of "mean" behavior. This is reaching the point where someone just has to say it, if it walks, talks and thinks like a racist; it's a racist. If the only legit criticism yall have is "well to some people it looks bad" and that is the hill you're choosing to make a stand on, then I need to point out that you can't make fortifications around a molehill. If your biggest issue with Biden, is that he isn't perfect, then I don't really know what to say to you. Nobody is perfect. Does anyone else find it ironic that as a the younger member of this discussion, I'm preaching realism over idealism? My how the tables have turned 😆 nomatter where you stand, that shit is funny.

I asked a similar question more than once earlier in this thread and have yet to receive a satisfactory answer. Racialization has occurred for centuries. It was something earlier presidents did as recently as 4 years ago, but fairly consistently so did majority of presidents before them, too. This is an objective statement of fact, not an argument in favor. So… If THAT is what you detest, why did you wait until NOW with THIS president on THIS one historic nomination to express your passionate outrage and concern about it? What’s driving your timing and the timing of all these millions of others raging out about it, do you think? Is it purely an organic desire for us to reach our long missed ideals… just a coincidence that it was THIS time everyone collectively stood up to say “enough is enough?”

And INow provides a perfect example of 'optics', because he perceives a lot of things that are absent from my post ... I wasn't strictly Godwin; I also included references to American history, and Russian History ( thanks for the gulag correction ), besides Nazi history. The difference being you love your children; I don't see much love directed at your Republican fellow citizens. Correct. I agree with what he did; selecting KBJ. I disagree with how he went about it; pre-announcing he would pick a black woman. And again you are correct that what is done, is done. Maybe, after all the drama, he'll have learned for next time.

I understand why you say that, and I don't feel the need to try to get you to move to a different conclusion. But I will offer my own viewpoint which interprets the same set of facts differently. When a group is discriminated against it is not perceived by some to be discriminatory to single out that group for reparations. In fact, it is not really possible to make up for past harm done to a group without singling out that group. That is the reasoning behind Affirmative Action. Ensuring that future actions and decisions by government no longer favor white people does not make up for past harm. It only ensures no future harm. To make up for past harm you must identify the group that was harmed and do something extra for them. If I unfairly singled you out and didn't give you a raise at work for years, then after a decade I proclaim I've seen the foolishness of my actions and vow to treat everyone equally going forward, you will be happy that from then on you will be treated fairly and get a raise every year just like the others. But you and I might also think it reasonable that I single you out above the others for a bonus. Some others might think it is hypocritical for me to give you something extra when I've just said I'm going to treat everyone equally, but some of us, including me, would find that to be fair. So, while you may find giving blacks a bonus to make up for part harms is hypocritical, to me is seem like the right thing to do.

Biden was/is already alienated from nearly the other half of voting districts (but not voters.) due to this ever escalating hyperpartisan politics of the past few decades. He wasn't going to win fans amongst the Trump/q-anon wing of the Republican party, no-matter what he did in regards to this nomination. I mean a few of them believe he's a reptilian, cannibalistic pedophile... even though there is major fucking logic break between reptilian and cannibal by eating humans? A reptile isn't a cannibal if it eats a human dummies! At least get your weird conspiracy theories somewhat logically coherent! That's obviously not directed at you MigL. I know you don't believe that nonsense. Putting my angry tangent aside, my point, is just that this Supreme Court nomination was not even close to some fantastic olive branch that would have effectively nurtured non-partisan unity with voters and the districts. It was for black people, who identify very much so with their race by majority and consider it an important part of who they are. I mean, I don't feel the same way about my whiteness sure, maybe a little about my nationality I guess, my socioeconomic class is more important to me than both, but ultimately I'm pretty cosmopolitan in nature. Which drives me to ultimately just be happy for KBJs achievement and a win for a group of people long trodden on or ignored. I can dig the spirit of that completely. For me it's people first over politics any day, and nobody came to any real harm because of how Biden went about it. Without real harm, I just don't feel the need to be overly critical for the sake of being tough on Biden.

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.

I thought he said, "It's not a tomb!"

If they were two parables

Bad example. Vowel either way nor is it a noun. First I'll read it as it sounds, then I'll remember what it stands for. Not the other way around. Doesn't matter if you abbreviated it to SC. A Supreme Court seat An SC seat. Yes we mean the same thing either way, but saying SC and Supreme Court don't sound the same, the former phonetically starts with an E. Everytime I used a , did you think period or comma as you read it or did you just pause? @zapatosnever mind! You're right! SC is not an initialism! Carry on as if I never said anything people. Lesson learned 😆 Changed from -1 to +1 for you Z. I was wrong. Sorry @MigLthat was my bad. Your grammar was fine.

Doesn't matter. I am correct. Whether a piece is intended to just be read and not spoken out loud, the barometer for its grammatically correctness lies in how it is said out loud. The writer is supposed to read it aloud before publishing to validate its correctness in English. Doesn't matter if the abbreviation isnt "official" either. All that matters in the grammatical sense is how something sounds.

I think I have mistreated you in the past and favoured others of a different skin colour. I now should see the error of my ways and start overpaying someone of your skin colour, and underpaying others of a different skin colour, all on your behalf? Can you not see how people of all colours of skin might be uncomfortable with this concept? Can you not see that unnecessary racializing is also feeding the hate. Do you ever stop to wonder why many are tiring of it? Are you at all open to the possibility that blatant racializing, even in the name of political gain, can be unhealthy and have negative effects? Strawman much?

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.

Sure. Whatever! 😂