swansont

I will note that in the supreme court discussion you brought up the notion of some people being "race traitors". Which is not something that was under discussion at all in the thread. It's a dubious idea and you didn't do anything to support it with actual facts and data. It's off-topic for that thread, so it's a hijack, and unsupported, so contrary to the ideals of a science discussion site. It's something that adds to your reputation as one who engages in trolling. It's something that can easily be viewed as an attempt at provoking a contentious discussion. It certainly does not endear you to people who want to engage in discussion without such distractions. Just something to consider.

I think he might have been identified earlier if his material were more interesting, and garnered more attention. Perpetual motion claims are pretty boring, IMO. Anyway, nothing more to see here. We've captured the droids we were looking for. Move along...

I'm going to assume "quantum locking" is a pop-sci description of something with a more technical and probably accurate name. <pause to google> Ah, yes, flux pinning. How will something rotate (be omnidirectional) if system is "locked" into place? You can see here that it won't work in 3 dimensions

I'm sorry - are you claiming that facsimile has been expunged from the internet? Please clarify. If you did mean fascismile, then it hasn't been expunged; it's just a typo and would explain why you don't see it much as compared to the proper spelling

No. I provided a link that showed this was the case. You would have to be pretty naive to think that the VP during the Merrick Garland nomination, and someone who was previously chair of the senate judiciary committee for 8 years, was oblivious to the qualifications of numerous candidates for the job. So to be clear: I never claimed he stated this. Nor was I arguing about how he handled it. I was pointing out certain bad faith arguments made in opposition; ones that have been credulously repeated by others. Yes, I suppose you could say he could have handled it better, but IMO it would have made little difference, because the same people who voiced their objections would have just manufactured different ones, because this wasn't about the stated controversy, it was just about having some controversy to complain about. Because that's the M.O. of today's GOP. I don't think he dropped the ball. That's the spin of the GOP, and you, in making/parroting the bad-faith arguments. The person lacking the ability is not doing the discriminating. The discriminating is done by someone assessing the others' ability. And it happens all the time in the hiring process, and also in the appointment process. OK, let's put it this way: we require three years of experience in order to qualify for this position. Something like that is pretty much a boiler-plate statement for certain jobs. In this example, that experience is being homeless.

Some materials are polar - they have a charge distribution, even though they are neutral. There's no net effect if they are randomly oriented, but in a field, they tend to align. And most atoms will become dipoles (induced dipole) in the presence of an electric field. This charge distribution will affect the net electric field inside a material. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_dipole_moment

JamesL has been banned as a sockpuppet of James.Lindgaard and jlindgaard

! Moderator Note So you've been banned before. Meaning this is a sockpuppet account, used to evade a ban, which violates the rules and calls for an immediate ban Irony here being that I might not have noticed this were is not for some bogus revisionist history and the mention of my user name in a thread where I had not been a participant.

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.