zapatos

Thank you. Phrasing it that way made me think about this more deeply. I think I would agree with you if there were no context considered. That is, excluding someone based on race, without considering anything else, may very well be racist. When I consider all other factors that went into the decision though, it seems clear to me that Biden showed no racism when choosing a black woman based on her race. Other factors include treatment of blacks in America, history of the Supreme Court, racial make up of the country, politics, and many others. Choosing any minority of course increases the diversity of SCOTUS. Blacks are the largest racial minority so choosing a black person has a larger impact on addressing racial representation than would choosing any racial minority. Given that you can choose only one person for the job it seems reasonable to choose a black woman over other minority races. Given the politics of the country, getting elected was the country's best chance to increase racial diversity, and choosing a black woman made that more likely than pre-selecting, say, a Hmong candidate. And finally, what may look racist in seclusion, looks like just another stepping stone toward diversity when looking at the overall trend Democrats have shown when selecting judges for the courts. So basically, context matters when considering whether Biden acted in a racist manner, and based on the above reasoning, I don't think Biden's pick was racist.

I don't mean to be dense, but can you just give me a short summary of the RACIST aspects of Biden's actions? I'm trying to understand how you define racism, or at least the component of racism exhibited by Biden.

So if I understand you correctly, you are saying that 'any' race based decision is "racism". Is that correct? If not, can you please further clarify?

No. I am asking why you categorized this particular action as racism. Thinking a particular race as inferior is the/a definition of racism, but I didn't think that is what Biden did. I just want to know how you view this as racism. If you think what Biden did was wrong I have no problem with that. And if you had simply said "everyone should be in the pool of candidates or it is wrong" that would have made sense to me. But I don't know why you think it is racism in particular. Not every decision based on race is necessarily "racism".

Can you please explain why this is racist? It would be racist if he believed whites were inferior based on their color, or if excluding people other than black women for this nomination was unjust. I don't see that being the case here. I'm curious how you perceive this situation.

My understanding is that the sanctions were not meant to prevent Putin from invading or to get him to "shift one iota". Instead, they are intended to choke off Putin's ability to wage war by eliminating access to technology and funds, and to prompt the Russian population to oppose his actions. One of the reasons to add sanctions piecemeal instead of all at once is psychological. You are showing Putin and the Russian people that no matter how bad things are, they can continue to get worse.

I'm not sure that is in the best interest of China. China seems pretty uncomfortable just remaining neutral wrt to Ukraine. Having a military partner that gets involved in a lot of military conflicts seems outside China's economic goals.

I learned about that when I put potatoes in the fridge and made potato salad that tasted AWFUL it was so sweet! 😄

Not to mention that keeping potatoes in the fridge is frowned upon as it makes the potatoes taste sweet and leads to increases in acrylamide, a cancer causing chemical, when cooked.

I think you meant to post this in a different thead.

I really don't know what you are going on about. I tried. I'm done here.

I am being nice. I simply asked you to provide some data to support your assertion/belief. That is basic. If you file an expense report at work your boss will ask to see the receipts. If you tell the police you were at the movies when the bank was being robbed they'll ask to see the ticket stub. It is not that they aren't being nice, it is how the world (and especially science) works. I even said "please". 😊

Excellent. Let's talk about the "data". Please provide data of at least one person who has effectively screamed in terror and gone insane after reading your post or any similar type post.

I think our point is that we don't we don't believe that to be true. While I'll not say "never", I believe the chance of someone reading your post then screaming in terror and going insane is nearly zero.

Lots of things are obvious. Like the sun going around the earth, that the cause of disease is "bad vapors", and that the universe is static. We can do better than that. This is a science site. Evidence and reason are to be embraced, not ignored for the expediency of a shortcut named "obvious".

Please continue with your line of reasoning. If the price he's paying has gone up tenfold, why is he now going to fight for more? Why doesn't he cut his losses and get the hell out? If you thought you could get me to hand over my wallet and all it would cost you is a sprained finger but you've ended up with two broken arms, are you now going to try to get my wallet AND my car? How much is THAT going to cost you? And if you couldn't even get my wallet, what makes you think you can get my wallet and my car? You need to beef up your argument a bit to be convincing. You can't just say you are "sure" and leave it at that. Provide some evidence or reasoning. There must be a reason why you are "sure".

Why? So he can get his highest offer now. Why turn it down? He could claim 100% victory and get everything he wanted from the beginning. All the more reason to take what he wanted all along then. Seems like he'd have pretty good bragging rights too, by saying he FORCED them to give him everything he wanted.

You are making a pretty big assumption that all Putin wanted was a pledge of neutrality. If that were true Putin could grab it now and withdraw. Owning a land bridge to Crimea, the Donbas region, and all the natural resources of eastern Ukraine are a pretty prize.

You probably shouldn't be so dismissive of the topic when I post on it if you are going to continue posting on it yourself.

I agree, depending on how you define "directly involved" (and of course 'significant'). Award winners following the slap probably found it significant. Probably significant for the families of those involved. The people in charge at the Academy were certainly impacted to a significant extent. Friends probably found it significant. The press of course. I'm sure others too.

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/smith-resigns-academy-over-chris-224558418.html

Har!

I was wondering when I'd see my first April first article. 😄

Yes. Someone cheats or violates a rule, which means that what SEEMED to be a winning score was not actually valid. Pete Rose does not get the honor of being admitted to the Baseball Hall of Fame due to his gambling on baseball games (a violation of the Standards of Conduct), but no one is claiming he didn't actually get 4,256 hits.

NO ONE IS CLAIMING OTHERWISE! That's right. It is taking back the HONOR bestowed upon someone by an organization that doesn't approve of their behavior. You are not reversing the facts of what happened. It is akin to taking back an honorary degree from someone who later turn out to be a real shithead. They still did the things that caused you to give them the honorary degree in the first place, you just no longer feel justified in bestowing an honor upon them.