MSC

Don't worry, the humour came through! 😆

I don't think it's that anybody is objecting to this happening. I also want it to happen, but you know as well as I that the power vacuum that would be left could be filled with a person/persons far worse than Putin. Or better! It can go either way. There is also the fear of what sort of groups or individuals could get their hands on Russian Nukes during the infighting. There are already enough Broken Arrows out there somewhere. We don't need more. I think to be a realist, we have to accept that the uncertainty after Putin is gone, is a dangerous situation unto itself and more unpredictable than Putin. Still worth the risk imo but making Putin disappear is just 1 step in a new Russian Revolution. Undoing the beliefs from Russian propaganda upon the majority of Russian citizens is also a very difficult task. As it stands, if Putin were to disappear today, whomever steps in may not wish to cease hostilities in the Ukraine.

Well before Virtue signaling and social justice warrior were being used as a pejorative, it was just do-gooder that was used. To this day, I've yet to meet a person who could convince me that someone who literally does good, is bad? English called. Its revoking your right to use it until you can figure out what basic words mean 😆 The exclusion percentage is even higher when you take into consideration that only people who are or were a judge at some point were even eligible 😆 probably only a percentage of a percentage of this country are judges. So the exclusion rate there is probably 99.999999 something 😆 That must have been really terrifying and difficult to go through for you, losing your vision I mean. You have my sympathy there. Not something I'd wish on anyone... except legit racists 😆 they can go blind for all I care. That's the thing though, if you were to apply to be a pilot, and rejected because of something that could constitute a disability, you would not be entitled to sue, even though technically the law has been broken to do so. I tried to join the Royal Air Force back in the UK because I have an autism spectrum diagnosis. Which personally; I think is a total crock of shit. I had some shitty Lance Jack trying to give me shit on the phone for wasting their time when I called up to join. One of the secretaries was trying to get answers for me on what autism issues specifically make someone ineligible, as it may be that my presentation of autism doesn't cross over into those issues. Anyway this Lance Corporal got angry that the secretary was doing that for me and told me that they don't have to explain anything to me at all. Then again, he sounded like he was from Southern England so maybe he was talking shit and just hates Scottish people?

Have you actually tried to ask to fly a plane after being forthright about the visual impairment though? Inability to do something is just that, inability. It becomes discrimination when someone tells you that you cannot do it because of that. Like if I tell a child they aren't allowed to drive a car because they are too young. It needs to be that way, so that a surgeon later diagnosed with Parkinsons cannot sue his employer, citing disability discrimination, when told he is incapable of being a surgeon any longer. I guess for me to think of it as unjustifiable discrimination in regards to Supreme Court nominees, there would have to be some kind of prejudicial sentiment towards the demographics that were left out. IE, White Males... of which Biden is one. So I don't know how you would go about proving that a black female judge was picked because Biden hates white males? At the end of the day, I don't really care what people think of the optics. How something looks and how they actually are, are not the same. If people think it looks bad, when it isn't, then they can just be wrong I guess.

No, it is the act of discriminating(a verb) based on inability. It's still discrimination in the objective sense of the word. Discriminate is a very neutral word, there are positive and negative uses of it. A good example of positive discrimination, would be discrimination based on competency. The blind being rejected from an airline pilot training program is also positive discrimination. By positive, we mean justified. An example of negative discrimination is when an employer decides not to hire a black person because he assumes they will rob him or because the owner is secretly a grand wizard of the kkk. For Biden to have exercised a form of negative discrimination, he would have had to have ignored ALL other selection criteria and nominated someone wholly on the colour of their skin, whether qualified or not. I do feel as if a great many number of my earlier points have not been properly acknowledged. Does any one else appreciate that someone with a background in public defense getting onto SCOTUS, is an historic achievement regardless of all other factors? Like it or not, race and racial inequality matters to the American voter. For any presidential candidate not to be aware of that and not acknowledging it, would amount to political suicide. Tbh, I thought that a politician campaigning for an election was meant to virtue signal? Isn't the whole point that we want the best people for the job? So why should we be shocked when they do something meant to influence people to think well of them? Both sides of the aisle virtue signal frequently, as they are nearly always playing for an audience of voters. So I just don't understand the outrage or offense caused here. None of us were up for a Supreme Court nomination and I've not heard of any eligible judges who lost out this time around crying foul.

A lot of people don't have an eye for nuance. I don't see what is so wrong with being explicit and clear, to say that it is right and good for an historically underrepresented demographic to have a seat on the Supreme Court when there is a qualified member of said demographic ready to go. I'm reminded of a comment I made on another thread, where I laid out clearly unique circumstances when discrimination is justifiable. Whether that is due to being blind disbarring you from being a pilot, being male disbarring you from being a pregnancy surrogate. Now those examples are all about disqualifying factors. The Supreme Court nomination of KBJ is seeing the ethnic selection criteria being used to elevate someone for restorative purposes without inflicting any hint of disqualification on such a basis. To say it more plainly, how can the act of nominating KBJ, in part because of her ethnicity, be considered bigoted when doing so has in no way amounted to other races being ineligible for Supreme Court positions in the future? What are the objective negative consequences that have or will arise from doing this? I don't know about that. In this day and age of highly polarized political discourse, plenty of people are getting in trouble or accused of wrong doing for what they didn't say as much as they are for what they did say. I am quite certain that if it had been done without Biden mentioning his criteria, someone would have still accused him of race being a part of his selection criteria. Sharing his criteria also just sounds like executive transparency to me.

Because there was no way in hell others weren't going to mention it. Furthermore, within the confines of the war against racial prejudice in both the USA and abroad, it is also a form of leading by example. Some can call it virtue signaling if they like, but in the context of leadership, you have to account for leading by example. Why shouldn't we positively make a big deal of it when doing something against the grain? As it stands; Biden has the constituitionally given executive authority to nominate whom he wants to whatever criteria he deems needed for the good of the American people.

Which isn't the fault of the justices to be fair. The thing is, I prefer the idea of term limits and more public input on whom can be nominated as a Supreme Court Justice. Maybe the Supreme Court needs a rolling Supreme Jury? I don't know if there is any way to really fix the problems with all three branches of government that will leave no one feeling fucked over tbh. In the end, we can share our opinions and views, but we don't currently have much of a say in the matter. I'm just glad the seats are being filled instead of a constant stream of nominee rejection leaving seats open.

It is up to the executive branch to ultimately do what is best for everyone in the USA. If he hadn't kept to this promise, the narrative from the right would just be focused on how he broke a promise and would probably go so far as to accuse Biden of racism for not doing the very thing he is now being called racist for doing. This is why I feel bad for Biden and KBJ, damned if they do, damned if they don't. The real question we should ultimately be evaluating; Is KBJ a good choice for the USA as a whole? I say yes. For very non race related reasons. Because she has spent times as a public defender. Something that has been absent from the makeup of the Supreme Court. It's like an entire aspect of the law has long been neglected a voice on the highest court. Public defenders are overworked, under paid, under funded with a judicial system completely stacked against them. If you can make it through that shitstorm, and be qualified enough to be on the SC, why shouldn't you be given the nomination other motives aside?

Man, dyou ever feel like you should have been born earlier? 😆

I'll do what I want. If my trying to be diplomatic bothers you, that's your business. I'll still defend your current right to anonymity, if I don't, then I endanger my own anonymity too so it isn't all about you either. I don't want to open myself up to random death threats from internet trolls. I like them to stay under their bridges.

And ideologically they are pretty similar also. Kavanaugh considers Thomas to be something of a mentor.

@SenseiNo doxxing please. I don't know what the laws are where you are, but besides that it just comes off as intimidation and good points raised need not be given with threats. Let the truth speak for itself. Koti is free to speak his views here where the only fear ought to be fear of criticism. Something we all have to deal with in life and on this forum. Silencing people is what dictators do when someone speaks the truth. It's the sort of thing Vladimir Putin does. The best way to counter Putin, is by encouraging democratic free speech. That's what he fears the most. You know this Sensei. I get that you're probably also just joking, but the threat of doxxing alone is not cool. Not a good joke to make.

Yeah this is confusing me too. I read through the previous posts before commenting and I have no idea who we are talking about right now. Jordan Peterson the Canadian Psychologist turned political activist, or someone else who's name happens to be Jordan Peterson? It doesn't really matter to me either way; which is why I didn't really address it. I just ignored the who said it to focus on what was said. The irony here, is I'm following one of the few pieces of good advice Jordan Peterson ever gave. "When I'm confronted with an argumemt; I ask myself what is wrong with it, first?" I mean; the advice is only half complete for quality philosophers. It ought to be to consider an argument from both the standpoint of what is wrong with it and what is right with it. At the end of the day, Jordan Peterson is a decent psychology professor and most of who he is, flows from that. As a philosopher though, he misunderstands Nietsche whom he quotes often and is not nearly cognizant of epistemic responsibility as he should be to preach about moral philosophy responsibly. He plays a dangerous game out of ignorance and good intentions. A dangerous combination.

I don't think it is racism, what I think is making others perceive it that way, is an observation of a triggered inferiority complex. You pick a black female for SC, and all insecure white males take it as an implication that they aren't good enough. That they are in some way inferior to the black female. Even when no one is saying this. It's like when children are picking teams for a game. Everyone whom is picked last, believes that the people picked before them, were picked either because of nepotism or the perception they are the stronger players. Therefore to be picked last or not picked at all, feels like being told you are inferior. There are some facts that are being ignored here about the SC nomination process and who was left out. When Kavanaugh was nominated, he not only beat out all other demographics for the nomination, but people from his own demographic. Basically, other white males were passed over, to pick Kavanaugh. The same is true of KBJ. Her nomination, led to other black and/or female judges being passed over. What a lot of people here are overlooking, is the other first KBJ brings to the court by way of career demographic. Prior to being a judge, she was a criminal defense attorney. As far as I am aware, no criminal defense attorneys have ever made it onto SCOTUS. For that alone, she can bring a unique perspective to the SC that has long been absent. Most of the other candidates did not have that kind of legal background. I used to be Into the whole (I don't see colour) narrative. But it's bullshit. It's not reality. Unless you are blind/colour blind, you will never not see race. You can see for yourself when someone has skin that is different from yours. Whether they are very different in shade or just a little different in shade. The hard fact of the matter is that the voters put Biden into office, after he made a promise to appoint a black woman to the Supreme Court. It could be argued that if the voters did not want this, they would have not voted Biden into office. He in fact has a political mandate to keep that campaign promise. If we decide to actually view the court holistically, we might not find ourselves so unjustifiable annoyed that a white male didn't make it onto this position, when there are still plenty of white males on the court. That demographic is already represented. Acknowledging differences, taking turns and sharing power within our institutions is in no way racist. Perceiving it as such, is just an incorrect perception based on the fundamental underlying motivations in a truly racist act. All that happened, was that it was declared that a black woman would be the next Supreme Court justice. It was not said that a black woman was to be the next justice, because white people suck. Yknow some people would take a white male, picking a black woman, as a sign that progress is being made in the fight against racism. I wonder what people here would think if this had been Obamas nominee? Anybody else here notice that when the black man tries to nominate Supreme Court justices, of any demographic (white males included) they are completely blocked for 8 years. Every president is going to be criticized by somebody for EVERY decision they make. The accusation of racism, is politically motivated by some and just plain misguided by most. Each decision is going to have justified and unjustified criticism attached. The existence of said unjustified criticism, does not make the original decision unjustified. I'll end on a question; is anyone here implying that they cannot believe KBJ is the most qualified judge, in comparison to white male judges? Because if so, the very assumption that it must be white males who are the front runners at all times, is extremely biased. If you were expecting the most appropriate choice based solely on competency, to be a non-black person, you're part of the problem. I want it said, that I understand how incredibly complicated this bias stuff is, and that most of us here are speaking with the best of intentions. Rather than get into an offensive game of "oh but my black person said this" let's all just assume we all have racial biases that motivate our thoughts on the matter. It is a very fine line to toe, between bigotry and paternalism, but to me, Ketanjis appointment is still on that line. Motivations to her nomination aside; she seems like she will be a fine new addition to the higher offices of the judicial branch. All this talk of why she was picked, does in no way diminish her ability to execute the difficult job well. The Supreme Court needs justices to sit on it. An individuals motivations toward being on it, ought to be out of duty, not self-elevation. There will be dozens of potential candidates who will never sit on that court that will feel like they were robbed, when the very notion potentially makes them highly unsuitable and mainly in it for themselves. You can't force yourself into being a part of history, and if you do, it will more likely be in infamy rather than fame. All the questions in the OP aside; as an individual I am happy for KBJ and proud of her accomplishment. As a human, not as a white male or anyone or anything else. For an individual to achieve what she has, is a huge personal accomplishment and is a testament to her fortitude and perseverance. There are so many obstacles to black woman, that as a white male, I just do not have. Sure, there are obstacles I have that she does not, but it is not difficult for me to say that I do not envy her difference in obstacles at all. On an honest day, she may not envy some of mine either.

Very true. And who says it will even end with the Ukraine?

Okay enough with the bigotry! Is it at all possible for you to say anything without having to make ad hom attacks toward somebody? Why are you so angry? Take it from someone who knows, it isn't healthy. FYI this is a science site, so it's assumed that everyone does in fact have a brain. If you're trying to say that only stupid people will disagree with you, then you'll just be living in a fantasy world where everyone is stupid, except you and the concept of common denominator means nothing.

Or sockpuppet of a banned user

Is that Stalin or Hitler? Works either way lmao "If your name end with In, Time to get out!"

It would have been better if there was video footage. Does this photo have a time stamp? There are a few things wrong with your reasoning here. I'm not an expert on Rockets, but I know reasonable doubt when I see it. The shadows direction is based on the time of day. There does not seem to be enough floor trauma for me to believe a big heavy piece of ballistics material landed there. The damage on the right side of the ground looks more like what would happen when it is rolled and the wing digs into the ground. So I very much doubt that this is the spot that it first landed in. It could have come from a number of different angles with different degrees of spin. It could have been placed there by somebody just taking a photo with zero intention of it being used to make false flag claims because it needed to be moved out of the way from a different area. So my conclusion; it is impossible to be reasonably certain as to where this missile came from based on its positioning in this photo. Actually, a fair number of the people currently leaving the Ukraine, intend on coming back with supplies. My wife works in immigration law and has filed short stay request for a number of Ukrainians. One woman; is about to return home and is bringing a shipment of body Armour. It's quite badass imo. 😎 The only claims I've heard of people using human shields, are Russians using them. Don't know how accurate those claims are. But trying to use your own civilians as human shields against your invader would be a stupid idea. They aren't Russian citizens. It is far more likely that Ukrainian citizens used as human shields, would be far more likely to be used effectively against Ukrainian soldiers. They are the ones with more emotional impetuous to stay their hand to save their own civilians, whom they are sworn to defend.

Yet if Russia made no indication of wanting to attack, Finland wouldn't feel a need to join NATO. Now there is an irony 😆 idiot of the year award is going to Putin. And so the Berlin wall keeps moving.. man I predicted this to a friend, now realizing I should have put money on it.

Okay clearly I didn't understand what you meant before. I think there is a language barrier stopping me from being able to understand you clearly.

I think what Sensei is trying to say, that we just think Putins Oligarchy is awful but we don't pay enough attention to the knowledge and experiences of Russians to know just how awful. It's more of an epistemological rage 😆 I do sense a highjack of a highjack coming on... highjackception! @mod if that happens can we call it that? @SenseiI do prefer written sources as well. Especially written statements from witnesses. That said, I don't doubt that I do not know the half of it when it comes to what depths any government or dictator has sunk to and that sometimes there is difficulty in documentation. If a person is willing to do abhorrent shit publicly, we can only imagine what they do privately. I'll try and watch the video later. I'll make the time at some point. However I'll give an honest review of the video and you may or may not like what I have to say about it.

I'm not saying don't send boats, helicopters and life vests. I'm also not saying nuclear power plants. Those take ages, to build and are very high maintenance. I was thinking more along the lines of Wind, Solar and Hydro. Don't worry, I'm not the sort of person who believes problems have just one solution. When it comes to climate change and other big issues, I lean toward a maximalist, multi-tiered approach of doing everything possible, that is effective, at once by building the right teams for the jobs. I'm not American FYI. I don't care if Putin says he can do this because the US did the same. The main point there is the US did that. Not Ukraine. If the Russians want to have more Americans pay for war crimes, it can supply evidence to the ICC just like everyone else. "But your honor, people have committed murder before, so I ought to be allowed to escape punishment when I murder because you haven't caught all the other murderers yet!" - this about sums up how Putins and your argument sounds to me. In any criminal court, someone else's past crimes are not viewed as justification for you to commit crimes. Especially years after the fact. In fact, to clearly describe what your motivation was, actually just helps prosecute you. If you say; I murdered X because X did y, that's an admission of guilt. I mean, if you are factual and have evidence that corroborates your motive, all that would lead to, is you and the person who committed the motivating crime; both go to jail. They'll just have a separate trial to you, if you convince the prosecution to go after them next. And yes; you may not have been addressing me, but this is an open discussion and you or I can interject on anyone's points at any time. No it isn't...

How do you know if I've never complained about other war crimes and unjustified wars or guantanamo bay? That stuff all happened before I was ever on this forum too. That's why I've never mentioned them here. Maybe someone should just start a war crime specific thread. That way people will stop trying to scold others for things they haven't said... I want it stated explicitly, that I want all perpetrators of past, present and future war crimes, from attacking civilians, torturing POWs, genocide, wmds/bio/chemical warfare to face consequences for their actions. I am NOT in a position to make any group or individual face those consequences. I choose to try and live in the present. Russian War crimes are now in the present. Somebody else's past war crimes do not justify or excuse more. They may make them a tad more understandable, but not excusable. As a parent, I just don't buy the whole "Oh but I hit Jeremy because like a bazillion days ago he hit Rebecca and Rebecca cried and he didn't say sorry but today he called me poopy and I remembered about Rebecca so I hit him 5 times in the face... also I like turtles." Bullshit. Seriously, watching geopolitics and diplomacy play out is like being a fly on a wall of a preschool. It should also be said, it is a very very dangerous position for the fly to be in.