MSC

Well... it's better than my one math joke. How many meals a day do mathematicians eat? 9. They eat 3² meals a day.

I'll breathe a bigger sigh of relief if we escape another Trump or Trumpite term in 2024. Apparently Ron DeSantis is thinking of running against Trump... which tbh also fills me with dread. He's going to run on this massive anti-pc rhetoric and will be basically running as a Trump impersonater. I don't know if it is that off topic though, discussing the history and future around this subject. But then we have discussed this to death. My heads spinning and I'm distracted in RL a lot right now. Daughter is sick and I've not really been sleeping that much. There is another thread that has captured my interest but its kind of quiet on it. Gonna see if I can kick up more discussion there just drafting my first comment in it.

None at all my friend. And they were unfair attacks so I understand. I do realize that Biden can make mistakes and he has made plenty. I suppose I am currently less able to think of any that concern me too much aside from his earlier career. I mean; when he was younger he said a few things that I think we both would agree were racist. He changed with the times I guess but as an auld yin, I imagine he still utters something privately where people are a like "dude, I know you're old, but you can't say shit like that anymore." I suppose something that also makes me feel sorry for him, is that I don't think he really wanted the presidency this time around. I think he only went for it because giving people more choices than Trump or Sanders was more important for the USA than what he wanted. There is Valor in that act. I think it does reveal a quality of character that is ideal for leadership. I wish he had gotten in with more power for his party in the Senate though, I feel like he could have done so much more with more potential to pass legislation and he's not going to get much of a fair shake at it. That said though, hyperpartisanship being what it is, it could be a long time before anybody has a supermajority in the senate again. If it happens anytime soon, it'll probably be due to a despicable gerrymandering pulled by one of the parties. Even though you're Canadian, I still think you do have a right through neighborly interest and concern to comment on the situation here in the US. I'm not a citizen and can only vote in state and municipal elections due to policy in this particular state giving me a vote. Although my daughter is Scottish-American... that's basically Canadian right? 😆 I even have some French ancestry!

Because Asian-American is what gets put into all types of forms. I think it's about trying to find a happy medium between combating racism while keeping secure feelings of cultural pride in one's heritage, as well as safety for medical signposting. That said, you can also be more specific than that Japanese-American, Scottish-American etc. Obviously Scottish is not Asian, but I'm not from the Caucasus either so I can't be Caucasian 😂. Sometimes I wonder what it would be like in the very extreme. I'm not white, I'm more of a light rose and peach colour and in the summer I'm light brown. What if I want to be prejudiced against fake tan orange people? Is that okay? Or what if I want to create a new basis for race based on height or areola shape and circumference? What if someone's parents are European but they were born somewhere in Asia? Can they be European-Asian? I suppose we should just be thankful that identity politics isn't as confusing as the above extreme, but it still is pretty confusing. From the perspective of a centrist, it sometimes feels like the left and right political extremes make it feel like there is nothing nice to say anymore. If the rule is if you have nothing nice to say, say nothing at all, and there is nothing nice to say anymore, that's just a lot of silence. Maybe I should just address everyone and everything by their name or living being? I do like what you said about relationship correctness. I remember watching a Ted talk on something called emotional correctness. It described the idea of being more in line with the feeling of something than the politics of it. For example, in the Abortion debate, both sides could do with better remembering that both views come from a similar sentiment of care toward a living being. Or when disagreeing with one another, not getting angry at being disagreed with or having someone point out a mistake to you and then angrily punishing them on that basis alone. I'm just saying that in general, thats not directed towards anyone here.

True, although I would point out that in this instance, self-serving, could be considered justified here if it enables feelings of restoration and reparation. Seeking justice for one's self or one's community for past wrongs,, is definitely self serving, but not a bad expression of it imo. But you're right, we shouldn't assume what the opinions are either way until these wanker journalists do their damn jobs and get the information that would actually help our discussion, out there.

That dictionary definition was in context but okay. I already apologized in general a few lines ago. But I can be more direct. In regards to the racist accusation, I take it back. I'm sorry. In all honesty after the last time I said that, I regretted it about 20 minutes after I said it because you did actually say that in all you agreed KBJ deserved the job. But at that point it had been up too long so I couldn't edit it away. I didn't actually say simplistic though, I said "not difficult to understand" in response to you insinuating that I was just too stupid to see your point. (In the reverse would you not have reacted similarly?) As for not grasping my points, I still feel like most of it was missed but I'm not overly concerned about that, at least not anymore. I didn't really think it was because you or JC are stupid either, but because I had written a lot and it felt like you were both just skimming it over and reading to respond rather than reading to understand. Especially the holistic review and affirmative action stuff. I said last night, I really am just tired of anger in general and I really don't like falling out with people over arguments like these. We were agreeing to respectfully disagree just a few pages ago, then things escalated and I think we both said things to each other that are beneath us. I regret the things I said to you, sincerely. I was getting frustrated and close to losing my temper at the time. These are the reasons, not excuses. I still feel bad about it and do hope you can forgive me there. I remember when I got my 1year suspension during a mental breakdown and that you had posted kind words to me after the fact. I appreciated those kind words at the time and still do. While I still believe your expectations of Biden are too idealistic, there is nothing wrong with wanting a better world where we genuinely don't have to worry about discrimination anymore and people of all races are confident that a SC nominee is going to do right by them, regardless of who they are. So while I don't agree with you, I do actually wish you were correct. I'm still a bit of an idealist too deep down.

Neither did I. Whether or not Bidens actions we are discussing were disrespectful, is our point of disagreement. But having both of us now done similar searches (My search was their opinions on KBJ specifically, so between us that's two bases covered) I would say that the lack of effort to get or make clearer the opinions of real black people, is disrespectful. Would you agree with that?

Stupidity for some yes. For others, the brutality that came with the propaganda is more of a factor. Fear and ignorance together is a powerful thing. 😕

Oh so it says 28% of whites does it? Then why does it say non-white American? I'm assuming an honest typo. Correct? It also clearly says the polls sample was was not large enough to break out results for black people. Just a very unspecific "non-white Americans". Essentially it just breaks it down into 2 categories, white Americans and everyone else, completely othered. Let's see how the math works out. - Census.gov So 28% of non white Americans said they only want Biden to consider black women, in keeping with his campaign promise. 61.6% of the country are white. So that's roughly 61 in 100 are white. (Yall don't mind if I round to a whole number? I'd rather not cut anyone in half.) 14.2% of the population are either black or black and mixed with another ethnicity so 14 in 100. If 61 in 100 leaves 39, then we'll say 39 in 100 are non white. 28% of 3C, is 10.92. So theoretically, the 28% of non whites who desired that Biden select only from black woman, could have been a supermajority of black people/mixed race black. Some here may think it safe to assume that most of that 28% is the black community. Without a better round of polling though, I don't like to assume. High probability it is, but not complete certainty for me. What keywords did you use by the way? Not asking to criticise, just trying to figure out what went wrong with my own searches. I've been trying to find this sort of thing online for the past week and have been coming up empty. Thank you for sharing. In conclusion, hopefully there will be a larger sample for the next poll. For now, we are both left to only be able to speculate on the demographic makeup of that 28%. 😕 stalemate for now it seems. Disclaimer: Feel free to correct my math where and if it needs correcting. It's not my aoe. Let's assume you're correct, how do you measure it? As an aside, and in the interest of trying to be more respectful, I apologize for offense caused to everyone in this discussion. Intentional or not. I'd prefer that we all be able cool this discussion down. I've felt myself slipping on my temper and I can tell I'm not the only one either. I suggest we all (myself included) lighten the fuck up, remember we are all just observers to this and unlike the politicians etc that we are discussing; are dedicated to science and the truth. Biden ruffled some people's feathers, sure. Not me, but for those that did feel that way, that sucks and I wish it could have happened differently, but only so that it made less of the people here feel shitty or sore about it. I'm not as emotionally invested in this discussion as you might think, for that to be a possibility. Debating here is less stressful than changing and cleaning up after my daughter has a blow out diaper tbh. I'm also just tired of anger in general.

+1 glad to see your name is ironic! Nope. This is real life. Not fantasy time machine land to an irrelevant and unrelated event. Or your point just isn't a good one. The far more likely possibility. Yes, racism is shouting "unfair and disrespectful" because a black woman got a promotion and beforehand somebody quite accurately said "about time". Why don't you run a poll with black women and ask them what they feel is disrespectful, then post the results here. 🤔 Did you ask her if she felt she was treated unjustly?

While we are on this subject, isn't a pre-announcement just it's own announcement? When did the work start in the decision to begin searching for a new Supreme Court justice? When he said it would be a black woman, or when Breyer announced he would be retiring? So unlike me you don't need to cite any sources and we all just need to accept your definitions to everything? Okay, your majesty! Tell me what to believe and I'll never open a book again! I promise, and I'll stop trusting my senses too since you now sense and decide for me master. Yes sir boss, whatever you command! All Hail King MigL! 🤴 So In your opinion, they are both a violation of the fair housing act of 1968? Am I allowed to link you to that law? Or am I not allowed to lookup laws as well as words in the dictionary anymore? God forbid I ever cite a source again sire! Excuses are like assholes. Everyone has them. His critics were going to find a problem either way! Fact.

It is pretty impressive and as an achievement it's a big one. The primary Contributing factors I would say, besides the intent and will to do it of course; the one child policy, that was active from 1980 to 2016, forced most families in poverty to have only one child. Usually the norm for those living in poverty, is to have more children than that, due to increased infant and child mortality rates and a desire for an all hands on deck mentality, wherein more children meant more people to go out and make money for the family. Based on the impact of this policy on the poverty rate, the mentality was counter intuitive as for every child born, money has to be stretched further and the child will be incapable of contributing anything to the rest of the family for many years. So financially speaking, each new child requires considerable investment before a return can be had on their contributions, which may not ever fully compensate for the investment, for many decades, if at all. The population growth rate in China has definitely ground down to a very slow crawl. While the death rate has sped up. On the negative side of things, accusations of forced sterilization of Ugyurs and other minorities could be one other contributing factor. So, great achievement, to be respected, but not a justification for human rights violations, media suppression, attacks on free speech etc. I very much doubt a one child policy could ever be enacted here. Especially with 30 states essentially giving the finger to Roe vs Wade. That said, I could be overestimating the contribution by the one child policy. Enclosing the line graphs on the pop growth and death rate below via screenshots. Will edit with source links too. Sources - https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.CDRT.IN?contextual=default&end=2020&locations=CN&start=2000&view=chart https://datacommons.org/place/country/CHN?utm_medium=explore&mprop=count&popt=Person&hl=en

Here here! Not to mention this was the fulfillment of a campaign promise, a campaign Biden won. Apparently we are now expected to believe that being true to your word, is wrong. What a Topsy turvy world we live in.

In what dictionary?! Prae Judicium means to judge beforehand. While it is the etymological root word of the modern prejudice, they don't mean the same thing. Pre-judge is the modern exact equivalent of prae judicium. - Cambridge dictionary Maybe you could explain for me this modern dictionary definition says you're full of shit? I don't think it matters P. As soon as he said black woman, the right lost their minds. So you admit you were strawmanning? @MigLignoring this are we? No she wasn't used for political purposes. I've yet to see any proof of this.

I don't rant; I write a lot because reality is complex and it's a requirement to being truly understood. Unfortunately it doesn't seem to work for those with an such an aversion to reading, that they can only call anything substantive, a rant. Oh I don't know, reciprocity and the ability to logically counter other people's arguments effectively? It's not my fault you haven't convinced me to care more about the opinions of racists than I do everyone else. Another reason I'd appreciate (but not expect) it, is to show that you have actually read what others have been saying (not just myself), and haven't just been arguing in bad faith. I'm sure you haven't though, but if you addressed people's contributions to this discussion thoroughly; you'd convince me and others of that more than whatever it is you're currently doing, which clearly isn't convincing enough. Maybe if you try all caps and act like you're shouting it all, that might work! 😆 I was just stating the fact that most of the people in this discussion, don't agree. For me to have made a logical fallacy, I'd have to have said "the majority cannot be wrong." Which I did not do nor do I believe that. If 99% of the people planet believed the earth was flat, 99% of the people on this planet would just be wrong. In regards to the "No objective sense of right/wrong" part, that's not something I believe. I said earlier I'm a moral objectivist. The argument for why Biden committed no crime by stating he would nominate a black woman to the Supreme Court, is solid. There is no legal basis for it. I've yet to be convinced that it was morally wrong either. Those two measures are pretty much the only two I care about. I could give less of a shit about the political perspective because that's not my area of expertise. Ethics is. Since political perspectives supervene on ethical and moral values, I care more about the latter than the former. The former is just what happens when people weaponise the latter. Nope, just confident that I've been a valuable contributer toward this discussion, I have been sticking to my guns and I haven't lied to you by saying I agree with you when I just don't. I'm as flawed and imperfect as everyone else here is. If I'm full of anything right now, it's gas. I just ate a bunch of cheese. What was it you were saying earlier? About advertising a rental apartment/house as for white males only and as president saying you're going to nominate a black woman to the Supreme Court being exactly the same? Have you come up with an argument yet, as to why they are both illegal acts made in violation of the fair housing act of 1968? I believe that was an LBJ Era policy if that helps you look it up. I'm not trying to prove he is infallible. Show me where I have said this? Just so it's clearly stated; I don't think Biden is infallible, I don't think he is above criticism. I quite simply, think this particular criticism is baseless and you haven't convinced me it isn't. Yes, to some people, people who are ignorant of the full context, legal and ethical, it looks bad. Doesn't mean it was really a mistake. Whether or not I understand your point of view, I still don't have to agree, even if I understand. Well you are being needlessly vitriolic. Losing your temper and devolving the thread to name calling because people aren't agreeing with you is the last straw for me. Where is the prejudice? Whom was treated unjustly? And why shouldn't we be concerned about your motivations? I'll say it again, if you talk, walk and think like a racist... at least saying you might just be a racist is an objective thing; other than a totally loaded insult like butt-hurt snowflake which ultimately means nothing.

There are about 12 pages you are welcome to reread at any time. As for the "not reading to understand" accusation. That's a projection. Neither of you are writing particularly lengthy responses that address every single one of my responses and a few of Swansonts questions have been ignored also. Neither of you are particularly difficult to understand, but clearly the more nuanced and effortful responses from myself and others here are not being understood. If there is something you don't understand, then ask the right questions.

I think you got your point across to most of us. Most of us just didn't agree. Sorry. Seems more like a steelman to me. Out of curiosity, how would you have handled it?

Are you not a part of everybody? I care. But open up a new thread, give us more info on said thread. We'd appreciate that.

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.

Grammatical sidebar: this is only a small thing, but the mistakes been made a few times. Is incorrect. An SC seat, is the correct way. To explain why, here are three examples of the abbreviation rule in play. An FBI agent. A CIA agent. A KGB agent. Whether or not a or an is used, depends on the phonetic sound made when you say it. F = Eff, so vowel start, meaning we use 'an'. C = Cee, so it starts with a consonant, so we use 'a'. K = Kay, also a consonant. Not meaning this as a dig it's literally just something about English not a lot of people know.

Exactly. Because promoting a black woman and invading Ukraine are clearly the same thing. Again, giving someone a promotion isn't mean behavior and literally the only thing that got us onto the topic of whether or not bad behavior has been done by Biden, was me using "flipped off" in a truly figurative and metaphorical sense. If I have to say it again, that nobody is being literally flipped off, I'm just going to leave this conversation. It's not even funny anymore, it's just desperate and insults ALL of our intelligence. Charles Manson for example. @MigL Sorry, the quote selection button wasn't working for some reason, so I had to do it like this. As for my response to the above; when were white people enslaved and forced to be segregated from the rest of society in the USA? How is an apartment exactly the same as a Supreme Court seat? Another major difference is that people can come to concrete harm by being given less fair housing options than another, based on race. Here, the harm is done to your rights to fair and equal treatment under the constitution, as soon as you see the advertisement. It would also violate the fair housing act of 1968. Appointing KBJ to the Supreme Court, is not a violation of the fair housing act..

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.

Especially when "being nice" or considerate, generous etc, gets you called do-gooder or some variation of in a pejorative way. - Donald J Trump

That's a lot of strawmen I see before me. Nobody said any of those things. This escalation is becoming nonsensical. All that happened was Biden nominated a black woman to the Supreme Court. Nobody is going to the gas chambers and nobody is being sent to a gulag... although if one was opened in the USA, it would probably be in either Florida or under the Yankees stadium. Again, modeling anti-racist behavior, such as nominating the first black woman to an SC seat, to a mostly white male court, with a long history of white male courts, is what you do. Ultimately it's a free world and some people will choose to remain ignorant and reject all suggestions you put at them to fix it, because they think there is nothing wrong with that ideology and that they are superior. Have you ever had anyone spit at you and call you an n-word lover? Because I have. How do I convince someone like that of anything? Even exposure therapy works slow, especially for life long, raised to be racist, individuals. Again I need to ask, don't you think your expectations of Biden are too idealistic and not in line with reality? What sort of political miracles do you think he should be capable of within the framework of the 3 branch governmental system and the constitution, within his first two years,, after inheriting the presidency in the middle of a global pandemic and 4 years of governmental incompetence and political mudslinging? We can agree to disagree on whether or not the way he went about it was problematic or not, what we cannot disagree on however, is that what is done is done. He said what he said, did what he did and when SCOTUS reconvenes on its next term, Breyer will be retired and KBJ will be in his seat. Yknow, assuming some right wing nut jobs doesn't try to kill or kidnap her or some Trump mob threatens to storm the capital to hang her. Which yknow, five years ago I would have said was being overly dramatic, but after the behavior of Trump supporters basically trying to do both of those things with other officials (even their own VP Mike Pence), I'd be a fool to rule them out. In conclusion, Biden did what he thought was right, I can respect that and I agree with it being the right thing to do. Even if the "optics" looked bad to certain people, people that clearly have no axe to grind at all! (Last line was sarcasm)