Jump to content

MSC

Senior Members
  • Posts

    431
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Everything posted by MSC

  1. Looks like Russia is threatening moving Nukes around if Finland and Sweden join NATO. Am I the only one who is unfazed by this? There are Nukes aimed everywhere already so what's a few more at this point? Move them around. Most likely all talks of using them are bluffs anyway. If it weren't a bluff, I think Kyiv would be a smoking radioactive crater by now.
  2. Morally or ethically? No. No bad taste in my mouth. Either way it was about God damn time. However you have phrased it in a way, where I'm realizing that in terms of strategy and tactics, it does actually leave a bit of a bad taste in my mouth.. or not bad so much as a bit sour. I think, the context seems to fit better for Biden just making the declaration that way, for the benefit of his generation, as opposed to most everyone else. I suppose in some ways, Biden was also making a moral statement. That it is right and just that a black woman be on SCOTUS. Here is someone whom is qualified. But yeah, if it was me, I'd have just said I picked the most qualified person and dare the opposition to bring up her being black or a woman. As politicians go, Biden is a pretty straight shooter. Maybe it's his age or I dunno. I can conceive of baiting the GOP like that due to adherence to a few of Machiavellis principles when it comes to playing the game of politics. He's a tad out of date and his name and work seemed to end up tied into theories of evil. To me he was just somewhat of a political philosopher and proto-sociologist almost. Unless Biden is VERY good at that sort of strategy, to me he just doesn't strike me as the type. If he is though, then maybe being explicit is long term policy motivated. For example; this could be a way to test the waters on how much influence he can have on the structure and mechanisms of the court or just one a few democratic senators who play hardball like Manchin. I dunno. Pure speculation.
  3. Especially since they don't seem to want help for it or are too afraid to take it.
  4. To be clear, when I used this argument, it was more to Steelman the Rephblican line of "oh she only represents 4-6%" line of bullshit. By saying "but if we follow your logic and apply it in a different way, it actually stands against your point." In this case, within that same logical framework, it can be reasonably argued that she represents over half of voter demographics within the makeup of the Supreme Court by way of being a woman. To put it simply, sometimes you have to meet people where they are at and lead them away from the narrow-mindedness gradually.
  5. True. That is undeniable. What is disputable about that opinion, is whether or not it is justified, rational or reasonable. My opinion on that opinion leans toward unjustified How exactly are the demands of women different based on color? Apologies if I'm misinterpreting what you said, but the idea that all the requirements and demands are different, imo is being narrow-minded because it's buying into this myth that we have little in common with each other and might as well be different species. Help, recognition/appreciation, respect, good health, happy family, decent community, good social networks, food, water, access to education, stable housing, affordable childcare and good opportunities for their children. This is what has me unsure of what you meant 😆 I'd say the needs and desires of people I listed there are pretty much universal. Color or creed.
  6. While the world is a fast and busy place, the political process is slow and strangled in red tape.
  7. I think this is the part that stubs the most people. From a legal perspective, you are allowed to include protected characteristics, as well as the non protected ones like competency, into your evaluation in certain instances as part of something called holistic review. It is in accordance with affirmative action policies used in schools. Truely illegal prejudicial discrimination on protected characteristics is when the ONLY thing being reviewed is one or two of those protected characteristics and skill, competency, experience and suitability are all ignored. Applied to the Supreme Court, before a nominee can be considered, you have to conduct that review on the court, public sentiment, campaign promises and a variety of other factors. KBJ represents over half of voters, because she is a woman. However, ultimately as a justice she is there to represent the interests and rights of every citizen/perm resident of the USA. One thing I'm curious of, has anyone suggested any other potential nominees from whatever side of the political spectrum? Who exactly is or was the competition? Rounding back to discrimination; (sorry for the tangent) there is a legal term used in some courts in cases of discrimination to determine if a wrongdoing has taken place, based on consequentialist ethics. Concrete Harm. Let's say we both have a friend who is disabled, they apply to get a physics degree at a good school. They have awesome grades. He has done data entry for his father's business since he was 14 and applies to do it part time with a prestigious firm offering a multitude of entry level data entry positions. Let's imagine they got rejected from both the school and the job, and it turned out the hiring manager and the interviewer were later snitched on that they had used some pejorative term and stated they didn't even bother looking at the relevant factors because they assumed they would fail, so we're rejected solely because of their disability. Losing out on a job (wages) and given an unfair interview process would constitute concrete harm when it can equal loss of wages, access to education and direct emotional harm. The friend has a right to sue. We don't have a right to sue because we empathize with our friend and it hurts us. We haven't suffered any concrete harm. Only our friend has. In the case of a Supreme Court nomination, it's already highly selective, there are probably multiple good choices and multiple bad choices on hand when each seat becomes available. The fact of the matter, is that the only people being considered, largely have their life in order, make a good living and are considered invaluable to society in general through being a judge. How can you prove a person of that caliber, whether white or black, man woman or other, etc... experienced concrete harm by not getting nominated to a Supreme Court position when they are already held in such high esteem?
  8. How could someone have made you forget stuff or removed entire words from existence? Is that rational? How much of what you think would you class as suspicions vs certainties? How would you describe your inner dialogue? On a scale of 1-5, 5 being within your control, 1 not being in your control at all. Do you believe all of your inner dialogical agents have your best interests at heart? Is challenging and questioning some of your scarier thoughts difficult for you? How did you end up homeless and where is your family in all this? To be frank, You are only 2 years younger than I am, but seem to be going through very similar issues that I myself went through. I was homeless, on the verge of psychosis, doing drugs, angry with everyone and burning bridges left, right and centre. I have about 8 out of 10 ACEs, (Adverse childhood experiences) although I think the questionnaire is in need of updating or may have already made a revised version. Anyway that's just used as a psychiatric tool to evaluate what sort of childhood a person may have had, in regards to suspected PTSD. (DISCLAIMER, I am not a psychiatrist and as such I am not in the position to diagnose anyone with any mental illnesses and you should never assume you know exactly what you may or may not have without consulting with a professional Psychiatrist.) That said, in your position it is difficult to find that sort of help and you can't therapy away the emotional strain of being homeless. Believe me, I know that. So first things first. You need stable housing. Would you permit me to make contact with some charities or local government housing officials to see how we could go about getting you a place to stay? Out of curiosity, and with zero intent to judge, have you at any point in your life recieved a diagnosis of a mental illness, neurological condition or a life long physical disability? Are you currently taking any drugs and if yes; do you want to quit? I can help with some of this stuff, without you having to give me any identifying information on you, save town or city of residence. You seem like an intelligent and caring person at heart. I think you're probably completely capable of taking the steps you need to take back a firm hold of your life again. Now, I can only talk to people and give you pointers. I can't do anything else other than that. The most that we can all do for you is encourage you to take those steps, so that you can reach a point where you are safe enough to truly think and action how you want to make your mark on the world, in a positive way.
  9. Because America has a precedent based judicial system maybe? Here are the facts of the situation as I see them: 1. Biden said that this time around, a black woman will be appointed. 2. Biden did not say, that ONLY black woman will be appointed in the future. 3. Most of the arguments used here to claim that this was an illegally and ethically problematic appointment via racial discrimination, came from Senator Ted Cruz. 4. Ted Cruz had NOTHING critical to say, when Trump explicitly told everyone that his nominee would be a woman. 5. Race and Gender are BOTH protected characteristics. 6. Biden only nominates, he doesn't confirm. Since Senators ultimately decide who gets the job, any claims of discrimination can only be directed at them. 7. So far, Republican senators have even admitted she is qualified enough for the job, but they will still vote against her. So if competency isn't the main stay of THEIR selection criteria, they can only be basing their decision on two things, Political Partisanship and Race. In conclusion, all I want from my friends here whom are on the opposite side of this to answer for me; How is the appointment of the FIRST Woman whom is black, to a seat on the Supreme Court, racist or discriminatory, when her appointment has not implicated in any way, that a white man will never get the nomination and confirmation again?
  10. I'd love to see her try and do that! (Sarcasm) Nothing could be a worse move for the French people. From a geopolitical standpoint, it would be a logistical and military nightmare. Weapons from Russia to France would have to go through NATO territory, they would be switching sides only to immediately step into being completely surrounded by NATO and the EU. If France were hit with even half of the sanctions currently being applied to Russia, it would be chaos. Even if Putin were on the right side of history (which he most certainly isn't), this would be such an imbecillic move. Does she actually have much of a chance at taking power in France Phi? I'm not really that informed on French politics tbh. Cue Russia claiming Finland is run by Neo-Nazis and talk of sending Russian "Peacekeepers" into Finland on a "Special military operation". The use of "Special" here, denotes what you must be, in order think anyone is going to buy that crock of shit a second time, when it didn't work the first time. Just a little bit "Special".
  11. So would you also say that Donald Trumps explicit promise to appoint a woman was also negative discrimination? I think the main point here; is that for both Trump and Biden, neither of them ignored the main selection criteria. IE, a judge/jurist in good standing in their field with a wealth of experience in rendering verdicts and an excellent memory and familiarity with the constitution. It seems clear to me, that the keystone of affirmative action, holistic review, was applied professionally. I have realised a massive assumption that has been made about the entirety of the history of SCOTUS. Out of every Supreme Court justice, nomatter the selection criteria used, how do we know they were truly the best pick for the job? We can maybe say, that up until now, they have been the best picks for a political party. But how do we evaluate whether or not they were the best picks for the American People? At the end of the day, I just don't buy the mental gymnastics one is required to perform, that appointing the first woman whom is black, to a seat on the Supreme court; is insulting to black women? There is only ever one seat up for grabs on the SC at anytime. There is nobody on this earth who can possibly take the spot that represents all demographics. As it stands, KBJ represents over half the country, as both a black person and as a woman. I don't know why people are choosing to ignore that "black woman" is one aspect of her identity, rather than two. Since we are on the topic of protected characteristics, why shouldn't every lawyer who has not been in the field long enough to become a judge, not cry foul by claiming age discrimination? Or maybe there is a judge in a wheelchair who feels completely invisible and has never once been up for consideration for nomination. Ultimately all cries for this to be challenged on the basis of race discrimination, will not hold enough weight. The votes are there. KBJ will sit on the court. She will be the first woman whom is black on the court. She will be the first person to bring public defense experience with her, and unless anything changes in regards to SC appointees term limits; she will be on that court for the rest of her life or until she chooses to retire. I think at this point, since the question revolves around whether or not she was or wasn't the best pick for the American people; we have very little information to go on until she has actually spent some time on the court making decisions. This is a science forum in the end, so let's all act like it; and reserve our judgements and conclusions for after a period of critical observation. Maybe we can all come back to this thread in a year or two.
  12. Okay, I'll bite. Who are "they"? How often would you say you think things like this? This all sadly sounds very familiar to me. You remind me of my friend Bobby.
  13. Other than Clarence Thomas and a small handful of black Republicans and far right activists, I can't think of any. Sure, the powerful do tend to kick down, but that's an issue with power, not race. Plenty of rich and powerful white people shit on other white people so I haven't a clue why you would point it out for just black people unless you're a closet bigot.
  14. 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.
  15. 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?
  16. 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.
  17. 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.
  18. 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.
  19. 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.
  20. 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.
  21. 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?
  22. 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.
  23. And ideologically they are pretty similar also. Kavanaugh considers Thomas to be something of a mentor.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.