J.C.MacSwell

+1. Kind of harshly stated...but unfortunately accurate.

@CY Maybe, since you obviously won't cite anything suggesting the physical requirements of a jockey aren't demanding, you can brief us on how you might use scientific method to prove that power to weight ratio of a jockey is an insignificant or minor concern? Or perhaps you don't think it needs to be considered because you believe, or would like to believe, there is no difference between men and women in that regard? Or hasn't been proven? Biological women may not be all equal, but they deserve their own categories in sports, especially at elite levels. There is nothing progressive about depriving them of that. Remember the US women's soccer team demanding equal pay? They wouldn't be making a dime if the only category was "open". While there had been some requirement for trans women at elite levels to reduce testosterone to levels in the female range, this is not true at all for high school athletes (nor should it be) and even at elite levels the minimum targets are well above. There has been an attempt to strike a balance been fairness for competition and the health of trans athletes.

How can you make such a biased claim, not back it up, and then claim you depend on scientific method? Nice... If anyone doesn't assume a gender bias and instead see an obvious physical requirement they must be racist as well... Obviously I won't ask for a link or "references" for such crap.

All I can say in your defence is that I haven't noted any change... Let's give CY a chance to produce his analyses before jumping to any conclusions about how they will be perceived.

It would be exactly the same as the difference between the power to weight ratio of the 115lb man and the 115lb woman...but for some reason divided by 1000lbhorse. While your post may show some incite as to the importance of the power of the horse over that of the jockey, I don't think there is much of an effect to be considered when choosing a jockey for any given horse. I suppose there are relatively more females than males at 108lb than 118lb...and heavier horses can tend to allow for heavier jockeys, and lighter horses less so. But that 108-118lb still needs movement to the stride of the horse. At the top level there are more men with the power to do it than there are women, and that's likely not due to bias. It's due to biology, IMO (but we'll wait for CY's systemic analyses)

Although men are on average heavier they have a power to weight ratio advantage. There may be more lighter females than males; but it still requires exceptionally skilled females to overcome the power to weight required as a jockey at top level. Do you have a link? Any analysis ignoring the advantage of males power to weight ratio are obviously flawed from the start, and any that conclude that it should be made up for at top level due to more women being in the ideal size range are rather suspect. Like your ultamarathon example from months back, you seem to think the size advantage should hold at top level. It doesn't work that way.

It sounds like you are suggesting that the hiring search was in fact limited to black women, and did not just come down to that, as Swansont seems to suggest, at the point of the pre-announcement. (maybe Swansont can correct me if that's incorrect. I do know he also felt it was an announcement of a campaign promise intended to be kept, but IMO that just shifts the blame for him unnecessarily racializing it to an earlier date). I would like to think that being of an unrepresented or underrepresented minority should be considered a significant attribute in the process, enough to make choosing yet another white male unlikely. I don't see the need for full honesty beyond that to be frank. If in fact Biden knew of better candidates in his mind it would be rude beyond my objections here for him to have pointed that out, IMO. And if Biden had acted as both MigL and I have suggested and just nominated KJB as the best candidate, any objections left based on race would have stood out as pretty unacceptable. I don't know why there is not more agreement here in that regard. Remember that while 74% of Americans polled disagreed that it should be limited to black women, despite that a majority liked the choice.

Easier choice to make with the equivalent of a gun held to your head than, say, having to rely on the burden of having free will.

Right. So what's wrong (political deal making aside, which you can respect or not respect for whatever reasons) with announcing, or better yet allowing it to be assumed, that the choice would be based on the best candidate available all things considered, and make one step toward changing that evidence?

Another country joins the long list of countries effectively sanctioning Russia's ability to do business with the West...Russia itself! https://www.cnn.com/2022/04/26/energy/poland-russia-gas/index.html "Russian energy giant Gazprom informed Poland’s state-run gas firm PGNiG said that it will “entirely suspend” gas supplies along the Yamal pipeline starting Wednesday morning, PGNiG said in a statement on Tuesday." Hopefully the West can mitigate much of Poland's energy needs and this bites Russia in the ass.

Back when there were no horses in North America any male without one was given one...good times...

Who here is claiming the pre-announcement has nothing to do with race?

What exactly do you mean? Everyone where? Here? And which announcement are you referring to? The actual nomination announcement for KJB or the pre-announcement that it would be based on a specific race? (and gender)

It's certainly possible, but I think very unlikely. I think China might support Russia, but certainly would not care to participate directly.

Sorry. Sloppy grammar and I was a little lazy in the punctuation: Where I referred to "the extreme right", I meant in the context of global warming. Moreover, those considered to be on the extreme right on climate change, climate change deniers, does not automatically make them on the extreme right with regard to guns. Global warming is not an existential threat to mankind. There are existential threats to mankind, and though it could exacerbate them, it's not one. There is no realistic expectation that it will be, expansion to a red giant in 7 billion years aside. Burning off all known sources of fossil fuels might have many negative effects, but the threat of nuclear war is much, much more of a concern for mankind. What makes you think I don't care? The fact that I'm unwilling to support lies or exaggerations coming from either side? Am I supposed to reply here that you don't care about nuclear war? How might that help solve anything? How does misrepresenting the problem, and attacking someone to encourage them to believe the misrepresentation, help lead to solutions? If we're going to accomplish what we need to accomplish, we're going to need help and accurate thinking from liberals. How and why they get sidetracked is also on topic.

Exactly. The actual context of the 12 years was the concern of a possible tipping point which could slowly lead to areas permanently flooding, people in many areas displaced and/or at greater risk etc. Very serious, Very needing to be addressed....but nothing close to a threat of imminent demise. Nothing close to an existential threat, which was consistently suggested by many politicians on the left, and often touted as "the greatest threat to mankind", with the most extreme on the left teaching children that the world might end in 12 years. Compare with the real existential threat, nuclear war, and all the people that have already been killed and displaced in wars since that report came out. There was no "nuance" of any accuracy from the loudest from either side (there rarely is), but the claims of the political left were most bizarre. Politically they were left unchecked, often with the usual beat down of anyone attempting to be accurate. They had excuses for doing so, ranging from being fed a misleading interpretation of the report to believing they were morally justified for their lack of intellectual integrity. Compare with Trump's "look it's snowing out...where's the global warming?" or words to that effect...equally stupid...certainly no more helpful...totally inaccurate...but in absolute terms closer to reality. Hopefully you find a third party that finds so much space they can drive right up the middle, start the hard work and make some progress. If I told you that was the extreme right meant in the context of global warming, maybe that might increase your understanding. But I do realize it's quite common to assume that anyone, right, left or centre, holds a package of beliefs consistent with their position on political spectrum. I honestly don't know why, nor do I really understand why there seems to be some degree of truth to it.

In fairness the extreme left can be included as well. The issue with them is that, for example, when they scream we only have 12 years to live, no one on the left corrects them to give context to where the 12 years comes from, and rob the left of credibility in the eyes of any reasonable moderate who is well aware it is a real concern that needs to be addressed. They sit back comfortably in their seat on a jet, knowing they have done their part by screaming the loudest, oblivious to the fact they are almost as bad (that's for INow...I wouldn't want to be accused of false equivalency) as those on the extreme right...which is what they consider everyone to be that's to the right of them.

All Quiet on the Conservation Front? Germany is a prime example of being so (legitimately?) afraid of pushing Putin toward use of Nuclear weapons and at the same time legitimately concerned with the effect an abrupt turn away from their economy's dependance on Russian fossil fuels. So along with many others they continue to fuel the Russian's economy and the war and Russian atrocities along with it by continuing purchases from Russia. It seems to me increased production from other sources should be maximized, especially where it can be increased short term without further excessive commitment to fossil fuels long term, but even turning to more dependance on coal is better than dealing with the results of any use of nuclear weapons. But further to that, a war time fossil fuel austerity program should be put in place to minimize unnecessary fossil fuel use, regardless of source...since all use effects the global pressure on fuel supplies and reserves. Countries like Canada, Australia and the US, that have banned Russian fossil fuels, should participate as well, not just those in Europe and elsewhere that are clearly on side with Ukraine in heart and mind but still paying the Russians for gas and oil. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/mar/23/could-a-behavioural-change-campaign-save-energy-and-cut-russian-gas-imports Poster circa WW2 shown in the article encouraging saving energy for the war effort: While I wouldn't necessarily call this a win/win for the effort to bolster Ukraine and helping the environment it certainly might be a "less lose/less lose".

I wish it was OT.

Pretty much everyone in this thread has expressed this same opinion. So we don't agree with her on that if that is in fact what she is saying in that 45 second clip. Can we not respect her opinion and consider what might motivate them? Would she feel the same way if KJB had been simply nominated as the best available candidate? You want to encourage people to ask KJB if she thinks she was handed her job because she's a black women? I think a fairer question and on the only real point of contention that seems to remain in this thread would be to ask KJB how she feels about it being announced prior to her nomination that a black women would be chosen.

So toward tying this to the topic at hand Phi, what effort have you made to find out how black women actually feel about Biden's pre-announcement/(announcement of race and gender prior to announcing the pick)? The thoughts of the young black girl in Koti's link seemed to have been set aside pretty quickly. Not saying you in particular did so. I don't think we need to agree with her completely to respect her opinion. Or is simply calling her the right names and gender showing sufficient respect in your mind?

Given that, how is it okay to refer to them as Asian? Honest question.

I would certainly agree it can be, especially when it's just assumed their opinions should be self serving.

Right. That's a good thing, correct? Even though a substantial majority were against raciallizing and genderizing the selection a majority liked the pick. Maybe many are more principled than racist in their thinking?...and let's not assume the remainder that KJB did not win over were against her due to her gender or colour of her skin. I put it in the form of a question in hopes the keywords I used would have the context I hoped for. "do black women like the way biden handled the scotus pick?" The first thing that came up seeming to have even vaguely the right context was a Fox News article citing an ABC poll, so I went to the ABC article. It had a link to the poll that gets blocked on this computer which has had some issues but I will likely see it tomorrow when I am on my laptop if I choose to look closer. But I obviously didn't find exactly what I was asking for.