swansont

He was campaigning. The people that are publicly upset about this seem to be strongly in the camp of "didn't vote for Biden" and as we saw in the confirmation hearings, qualifications were not the issue. The hand-wringing was manufactured. All theater. If they had substantive objections, they didn't seem to make an appearance in the hearings. A few senators even admitted she is well-qualified, but they were voting against her anyway.

Dipoles in the material will align with the electric field

The narrative is designed to make it look bad, but the narrative ignores certain facts. Biden promised to nominate a Black woman to the Supreme Court. The narrative that he somehow excluded others from consideration is premised on the notion that he didn’t already have candidate(s) in mind, and wasn’t aware of the top potential picks. Which is silly, since we know it to be false. “I will nominate a black woman” followed by searching for one, and running the risk that you don’t have highly-qualified candidates so you pick one because you’ve backed yourself into a corner is what looks bad. But it’s fiction. KBJ was on the previous shortlist (and Biden possibly being aware of other well-qualified WoC) and then saying “I will nominate a black woman” changes the scenario quite a bit. It has the benefit of being true, and not straining credulity. In addition I would suggest that all of those presidents had a candidate or two on a list before making the associated announcement

As I pointed out earlier, this is not an accurate account of the situation, and the “bad optics” is a bad faith talking point from the right, from the “be outraged, make up a reason why” playbook.

Sensei has been suspended for engaging in personal attacks.

Hiding posts that violate forum rules is well within the purview of any mod. And I’m not at liberty to explain anything further.

The notion that Biden excluded people from consideration assumes that he made the promise in a sort of vacuum, without knowing what the lay of the land was. Which is ridiculous, IMO. I don’t think any competent candidate would have made such a promise without having done due diligence. Biden was VPOTUS when Garland was nominated, and lo and behold, Ketanji Brown Jackson was on the shortlist back then. So he already knew of at least one qualified WoC without having done any further investigation of the situation, and it’s likely there were more people that had been identified but not short-listed back in 2016, but who would be deemed worthy of consideration a few years later. Which also means he could also be aware that e.g. no native American candidates were qualified. So the scenario could very likely be that he had several names of highly-qualified candidates, and only then narrowed it to WoC by applying the diversity criterion.

What dishonesty? This thread is entitled “Ketanji Brown Jackson to be first Black woman to sit on Supreme Court - Jordan Peterson has something to say - is he right or is he in the wrong?” Why is it dishonest to assume we’re discussing what’s in the title? And not something else brought up later (which one might take as a bait-and-switch, which would be a bad-faith argument)

Can you provide the statement where he “claimed” this?

Jordan Peterson is a young black woman? I apologize; I was thinking of a different Jordan Peterson. You did refer to her as a he, though. I don’t think it was affirmative action at all; please establish that it was.

If you can point to a list of objective qualifications for SCOTUS, that would go a long way toward establishing that it’s not possible to justify this decision. edit: I’ll save you some time - you won’t find such a list in the Constitution

Given that your posts have been split into new threads three times, I’d say that the staff disagrees with you. You can assess this by the responses you get, which say that yes, you are doing this. It makes a great deal of difference moving forward whether or not you modify your behavior based on this feedback. No. You’re being given feedback from the community and staff regarding behavior considered annoying/unpleasant though not yet requiring more drastic staff action.

! Moderator Note Establish the premise as having validity (horrendous text color choice corrected)

And of course you can point to this concern over previous candidates, where others were excluded from consideration. Can you establish that this was virtue signaling? Who is the best available candidate?

Well, it may not be your point, but it’s my point, and bringing up a different point (if that’s what’s in the video) does not rebut this.

Intent is hard to assess. If the result of a post is that people get angry because the thread has been dragged off-topic, yet again, the label should be understandable. And as that’s what is happening, it’s not at all obvious that it’s not intentional. The one thing in your favor is the maxim that one should not assign to malice that which can be assigned to incompetence You can shed the label by improving your post quality.

The fact that the first ~100 justices were white males means that merit was not the sole factor in their choice. So the concern rings quite hollow.

The first ~100 justices were white males, and there wasn’t widespread concern about the lack of diversity in considering justices throughout that period, so you’ll excuse me if I’m not impressed by faux outrage from some blowhard.

Any credible evidence to support this?

! Moderator Note No, I in fact did not do this. I asked you to back up your claim, which was about a few specific groups of immigrants committing a particular set of crimes, and gave an example of how one might do that. (you can tell it was an example by the use of the phrasing "for example" and the fact that it was literally a parenthetical remark) Trying to rewrite history isn't going to work. One only need to scroll back a bit to see what actually happened. ! Moderator Note Yes, I listed it from rule 2.1 What you did was paint with a very broad brush about immigrants from a few places, which is a slur against these people.

! Moderator Note This just violates a different part of 2.7, which warns you not to make posts to advertise your blog. Saying you need to post the material here means you need to post the material here. If you choose to do that, open a new thread, and please pick a better landing spot.

! Moderator Note Rule 2.7 requires that "Attached documents should be for support material only; material for discussion must be posted. Also you might address why this is posted in philosophy vs some scientific section, seeing as it is identified as an experiment.

! Moderator Note Folks, this is Suggestions, Comments and Support. Come up with a good formulation of a discussion and post it in the proper area. Please.

Yes, of course you will die. Everybody dies. Your logic is atrocious, which contributes to why you are in the moderation queue.

! Moderator Note You didn’t present facts in the original post, and that is one of the issues at hand. Distracting from that isn’t going to change anything. ”people come from the gutter in Somalia, Eritrea and Lithuania, bring nothing with them, and they rape, rob and murder, and we shower them with lawyers, psychiatrists and benfits.” (sic) is still an unsupported, bigoted statement.