Jump to content

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?


koti
 Share

Recommended Posts

Although, before anyone bothers trying to jump down my throat and claim that I'm saying we should be nasty; I refer you back to the facts of the situation as I put them earlier. 

I'm sorry but only racists are of the opinion that giving a black woman a promotion is an example of "mean" behavior.

This is reaching the point where someone just has to say it, if it walks, talks and thinks like a racist; it's a racist. If the only legit criticism yall have is "well to some people it looks bad" and that is the hill you're choosing to make a stand on, then I need to point out that you can't make fortifications around a molehill. If your biggest issue with Biden, is that he isn't perfect, then I don't really know what to say to you. Nobody is perfect. 

Does anyone else find it ironic that as a the younger member of this discussion, I'm preaching realism over idealism? My how the tables have turned 😆 nomatter where you stand, that shit is funny.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I think I have mistreated you in the past and favoured others of a different skin colour. I now should  see the error of my ways and start overpaying someone of your skin colour, and underpaying others of a different skin colour, all on your behalf? Can you not see how people of all colours of skin might be uncomfortable with this concept?

Just to be clear, it was an analogy and thus imperfect. The idea was that if blacks were mistreated, then to make up for that mistreatment you do something extra for blacks.

8 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I think I have mistreated you in the past and favoured others of a different skin colour. I now should  see the error of my ways and start overpaying someone of your skin colour, and underpaying others of a different skin colour, all on your behalf? Can you not see how people of all colours of skin might be uncomfortable with this concept?

 

That was not part of the analogy. The idea was that going forward, all would be treated equally. However, that is not enough. You must also make up for past harm. Which is of course how our justice system works. If I commit a crime but never again commit another crime, I still must pay my debt for that original crime I committed. I am not 'let off the hook' for that past crime just because I never commit any crimes going forward.

 

8 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I think I have mistreated you in the past and favoured others of a different skin colour. I now should  see the error of my ways and start overpaying someone of your skin colour, and underpaying others of a different skin colour, all on your behalf? Can you not see how people of all colours of skin might be uncomfortable with this concept?

 

 

Yes, I can.

But it seems so obvious to me that if our actions caused harm in the past, then we must take direct action to repair those harms. It is fundamental fairness and I cannot see how anyone would object to that.

Thus my thought is if someone is uncomfortable, it probably has to do with the mechanism employed to rectify the harm done, rather than the fact that the harm was rectified.

I think a fundamental difference between the opposing points of view in this thread is that group 'A' thinks "this was a poor way to fix the problem", and group 'B' thinks "poor way to fix the problem or not, I don't care, we finally got the right result and it was long overdue, and that is more important than any mistakes that might have been made in the way we went about it".

6 hours ago, Intoscience said:

But I think there are ways to go about it that would sit more comfortably with the majority. 

I wouldn't be surprised. But I suspect that no matter which way was chosen there would be critics. 

It is difficult to know ahead of time the best way forward. Thus you pick a path and execute it. And while you and others in this thread object to Biden's announcement during the campaign, his 'pre-announcement'  doesn't seem to be a widespread concern as that is not what others in the press seemed to object to. It seems that most people objected to her past record of court ruling, rather than Biden's pre-announcement.

Therefore, while some may object to that pre-announcement, it seems that it was not a major faux pas. As I said, above, the view of many of us is that the good done far outweighs what some view as a clumsy process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, swansont said:

And, as a general followup (i.e. I'm asking everyone), why is it incumbent on the left to "be nice" when the right is not held to the same standard?

I think it's because certain unscrupulous behavior is favored by the right to the point where it's expected of them, even lauded (use your pussy-grabbing power, step on the dark neck, hostile takeovers, ruthless beats nice, raise prices, lower taxes, guzzle gas, buy more guns, most people aren't worthy). If you also have the Christian god on your side, you get to treat people horribly if you don't like them, and do it in his name so it's legitimate. 

I also think many white people who peg themselves to the right of others are very afraid of how their own behavior might be judged in the future, and they hide that fear by objecting to things like the optics of letting your constituents know about your choice of nominations for SCOTUS. I can see where someone who's been more of an antagonist than an ally to black people might be afraid of giving them any kind of power. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, MigL said:

Soooooo
We should all be V Putins ?
I thought we expected better from 'our' side.

Exactly. Because promoting a black woman and invading Ukraine are clearly the same thing. 

Again, giving someone a promotion isn't mean behavior and literally the only thing that got us onto the topic of whether or not bad behavior has been done by Biden, was me using "flipped off" in a truly figurative and metaphorical sense. If I have to say it again, that nobody is being literally flipped off, I'm just going to leave this conversation. It's not even funny anymore, it's just desperate and insults ALL of our intelligence. 

5 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

I can see where someone who's been more of an antagonist than an ally to black people might be afraid of giving them any kind of power. 

Charles Manson for example.

Quote

 

It is exactly the same.
You have a vacancy, whether an apartment or a SC seat.
You announce beforehand that you will select a white male for the apartment, or a black female for the SC.
Please, point out the difference

@MigL

Sorry, the quote selection button wasn't working for some reason, so I had to do it like this.

As for my response to the above; when were white people enslaved and forced to be segregated from the rest of society in the USA?

How is an apartment exactly the same as a Supreme Court seat? 

Another major difference is that people can come to concrete harm by being given less fair housing options than another, based on race. Here, the harm is done to your rights to fair and equal treatment under the constitution, as soon as you see the advertisement. It would also violate the fair housing act of 1968. Appointing KBJ to the Supreme Court, is not a violation of the fair housing act..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I think I have mistreated you in the past and favoured others of a different skin colour. I now should  see the error of my ways and start overpaying someone of your skin colour, and underpaying others of a different skin colour, all on your behalf?

Gasp! You mean Biden is taking $10,000 a year off Kavanaugh's salary and tacking it onto Brown's?

I'd actually be okay with that.

but I don't think he can

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Grammatical sidebar: this is only a small thing, but the mistakes been made a few times. 

Quote

A SC seat

Is incorrect. An SC seat, is the correct way.

To explain why, here are three examples of the abbreviation rule in play.

An FBI agent.

A CIA agent.

A KGB agent. 

Whether or not a or an is used, depends on the phonetic sound made when you say it. F = Eff, so vowel start, meaning we use 'an'. C = Cee, so it starts with a consonant, so we use 'a'. K = Kay, also a consonant. 

Not meaning this as a dig it's literally just something about English not a lot of people know. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some other amends, OTOH, can become interesting, optically speaking. https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/real-estate/2021/09/20/housing-reparations-black-homeowners-evanston/5622731001/?gnt-cfr=1

Oh, great, you stepped into my merge!

really, as absorbing as are many of the issues that surfaced, bobbed along for a while and submerged here, I think The peterson question was laid to rest some time ago, the Biden question will resolve itself and the R/D question will self-immolate on its own schedule. The thread is no longer, TMM, seriously-takeable. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, MSC said:

Grammatical sidebar: this is only a small thing, but the mistakes been made a few times. 

I'm unsure you are correct in this case. If the writer only intended SC as shorthand for Supreme Court, then the writer would reasonably expect you to read the line as "a Supreme Court seat", even though it says "a SC seat".

"SC" is not an 'official' abbreviation like FBI is.

Edited by zapatos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, zapatos said:

SC" is not an 'official' abbreviation like FBI is.

Doesn't matter. I am correct. Whether a piece is intended to just be read and not spoken out loud, the barometer for its grammatically correctness lies in how it is said out loud. The writer is supposed to read it aloud before publishing to validate its correctness in English. 

Doesn't matter if the abbreviation isnt "official" either. All that matters in the grammatical sense is how something sounds. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, MSC said:

Doesn't matter. I am correct.

Well, if you say so.

4 minutes ago, MSC said:

correctness lies in how it is said out loud

And I am saying it is said "Supreme Court seat".

If I write AFAIK, in your brain do you say "AFAIK" or "as far as I know"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, zapatos said:

If I write AFAIK, in your brain do you say "AFAIK" or "as far as I know"?

Bad example. Vowel either way nor is it a noun. First I'll read it as it sounds, then I'll remember what it stands for. Not the other way around. 

 

38 minutes ago, zapatos said:

And I am saying it is said "Supreme Court seat".

Doesn't matter if you abbreviated it to SC. 

A Supreme Court seat

An SC seat. Yes we mean the same thing either way, but saying SC and Supreme Court don't sound the same, the former phonetically starts with an E.  

Everytime I used a , did you think period or comma as you read it or did you just pause? 

 

Quote

abbreviations: acronyms and initialisms

Acronyms and initialisms are both types of abbreviations that are formed from the first letters of a group of words, without spaces (and usually without periods).

Pronunciation

Although they are formed the same way, acronyms and initialisms are pronounced differently.

An acronym is pronounced as a word:

  • NAFTA  (North American Free Trade Agreement; pronounced naff-ta)
  • NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization; pronounced nay-toe)
  • UNICEF (United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund; pronounced u-ni-seff)

In an intialism, each letter is pronounced separately or sounded out:

  • CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Company; pronounced see-bee-see)
  • RCMP (Royal Canadian Mounted Police; pronounced are-see-em-pea)
  • UFO (Unidentified Flying Object; pronounced u-eff-oh)

Capitalization

As a general rule, use upper-case letters for acronyms or initialisms in their entirety, even if some of the component words or their parts are not normally capitalized (unless the organization concerned prefers lower case):

  • CAA (Canadian Automobile Association)
  • OSSTF (Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation)
  • FORTRAN (formula translation)
  • CISTI (Canada Institute for Scientific and Technical Information)

Exceptions

One exception to the above rule occurs in the case of common-noun acronyms treated as full-fledged words; these are written entirely in lower case without periods:

  • radar
  • laser
  • scuba
  • snafu

A second exception involves acronyms of company names that are formed from more than the initial letters of the words they represent. Usually, in that case, only the first letter of the acronym is capitalized:

  • Cameco (Canadian Mining and Energy Corporation)
  • Corel (Cowpland Research Laboratory)
  • Nabisco (National Biscuit Company)

Redundancy

When using acronyms or initialisms that include an abbreviation for number, do not repeat the word number after the abbreviation. Either write the expression out in full, or use the abbreviated form on its own.

  • social insurance number or SIN (not SIN number)
  • personal identification number or PIN (not PIN number)
  • International Standard Book Number or ISBN(not ISBN number)

Articles (the, a/an)

The rules concerning the use of an article before the abbreviation are different for acronyms and initialisms.

Acronyms

Usually, an article is not used before an acronym:

  • The members of NATO (not the NATO) rejected the idea.
  • Children often collect for UNICEF (not the UNICEF) at Halloween.
  • NAFTA (not The NAFTA) came into effect in 1994.

However, if the acronym is used as a modifier, it may be preceded by the definite or indefinite article:

  • the NATO recommendation
  • a UNICEF donation box
  • a NAFTA Certificate of Origin

When the indefinite article is used before an acronym, the choice of form (a or an) depends on pronunciation, not on spelling; in other words, use a if the acronym begins with a consonant sound, and an if it begins with a vowel sound:

  • a NATO decision (a before the consonant sound n)
  • a UNICEF project (a before the consonant sound y, as in you)
  • an ACTRA award (an before the vowel sound ă)

Initialisms

The definite article is used before many initialisms (including those representing the name of an organization):

  • The RCMP investigated the crime.
  • A private member’s bill was introduced by the MP for my riding.
  • John brought the CD back to the store.

But the definite article is omitted before an initialism representing a substance, method or condition:

  • A ban has been called for on products containing TCEP (not the TCEP).
  • Ayesha is taking a course in CPR (not the CPR).
  • A child with ADHD (not the ADHD) can benefit from behaviour management techniques.

In the case of the indefinite article, since initialisms are abbreviations pronounced letter by letter, you must go by the pronunciation of the first letter when choosing whether to use a or an.

If the first letter begins with a consonant sound when pronounced, then choose the article a:

  • a CBC production (C starts with the sound s as in see)
  • a PhD candidate (P starts with the sound p as in pea)
  • a UN spokesperson (U starts with the sound y as in you)

a YMCA (Y starts with the sound w as in why)

But if the first letter in the initialism starts with a vowel sound when pronounced, then choose the article an:

  • an FM station (F starts with the sound ĕ as in eff)
  • an HIV treatment (H starts with the sound ā as in aitch)
  • an MP (M starts with the sound ĕ as in em)
  • an RCMP officer (R starts with the sound ä as in ar)

@zapatosnever mind! You're right! SC is not an initialism! Carry on as if I never said anything people. Lesson learned 😆 

Changed from -1 to +1 for you Z. I was wrong.

Sorry @MigLthat was my bad. Your grammar was fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, MSC said:

An SC seat. Yes we mean the same thing either way, but saying SC and Supreme Court don't sound the same, the former phonetically starts with an E.  

 

You have again completely missed my point. I agree that it is the way it sounds when spoken out loud. I am saying that not all abbreviation are said out loud as written.

"AFAIK, I want to talk about WYSIWG with you F2F. I'll BRB, as I have to get B2W B4 my boss starts looking 4 me."

When you read that to someone you don't say all the letters and numbers of the abbreviations. You say the words that they stand for.

"As far as I know, I want to talk about wizzywig with you face to face. I'll be right back as I have to get back to work before my boss starts looking for me."

"I just bought [a/an] 🐘 for the zoo."

Do you say "I just bought a picture of an elephant for the zoo"?

Or do you say "I just bought an elephant for the zoo"?

Most people expect you to see the symbol for the elephant then to say the word "elephant". Similarly you will see the symbols that represent "what you see is what you get" and to say the word 'wizzywig', or possibly 'what you see is what you get'. No one expects you to see WYSIWYG then to say "W Y S I W Y G".

 

1 hour ago, MSC said:

Whether or not a or an is used, depends on the phonetic sound made when you say it. F = Eff, so vowel start, meaning we use 'an'. C = Cee, so it starts with a consonant, so we use 'a'. K = Kay, also a consonant. 

 

Thanks for the off-topic aside. 😀

For some weird reason I like discussing grammar, punctuation, pronunciation, etc. Even though it may well end up in the trash can.

Edited by zapatos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

AFAICT, KBJ is the BPFTJ on the SCOTUS.  But, as someone once said, IAOTTFLS.   And TANSTAAFL.  

(Sorry, I heard Zapatos say trash can and all my inhibitions melted away)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, MigL said:

Soooooo
We should all be V Putins ?
I thought we expected better from 'our' side.

Not only not, but fuck no.

It’s not like that’s the only option, so what’s the point of offering it up?

5 hours ago, MSC said:

Especially when "being nice" or considerate, generous etc, gets you called do-gooder or some variation of in a pejorative way. 

I saw a quote earlier today about how people don’t get credit for doing the right thing. Dems do something questionable or even have an appearance of impropriety and they resign under pressure from other dems, while republicans do not hold themselves or their peers to account. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is something in this thread here which reminds me of MLK's letter from Birmingham jail:

Quote

I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizens’ Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a “more convenient season.” Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and that when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress. I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that the present tension in the South is a necessary phase of the transition from an obnoxious negative peace, in which the Negro passively accepted his unjust plight, to a substantive and positive peace, in which all men will respect the dignity and worth of human personality. Actually, we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, swansont said:

No. not at all. Some hyperbole, but nobody has produced evidence for the narrative that Biden did not do any due diligence before the announcement, and there is evidence that he did.

Yes. Really. I will acknowledge the hyperbole, but this is unquestionably strawman. In fact it's a textbook example.

 

21 hours ago, swansont said:

So “I will pick a black female” suggests to you that no other criteria were considered? 

Strawman built. (unless you can show where the claim was made)

21 hours ago, swansont said:

Wow, how lucky he picked someone with impeccable credentials for SCOTUS and not some housewife who only had a semester of junior college and was going to major in art history!

Strawman blown away!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, MSC said:

Sorry @MigLthat was my bad. Your grammar was fine.

Couldn't care less; I got my point across to at least one person.
But that's not what this thread is about.

I think the only person to have understood the point JC and I are making is Zapatos.

7 hours ago, zapatos said:

I think a fundamental difference between the opposing points of view in this thread is that group 'A' thinks "this was a poor way to fix the problem", and group 'B' thinks "poor way to fix the problem or not, I don't care, we finally got the right result and it was long overdue, and that is more important than any mistakes that might have been made in the way we went about it".

The choice was right; the way he went about could have been handled differently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, MigL said:

Couldn't care less; I got my point across to at least one person.
But that's not what this thread is about.

I think you got your point across to most of us. Most of us just didn't agree. Sorry. 

26 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Yes. Really. I will acknowledge the hyperbole, but this is unquestionably strawman. In fact it's a textbook example.

Seems more like a steelman to me.

15 minutes ago, MigL said:

The choice was right; the way he went about could have been handled differently.

Out of curiosity, how would you have handled it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, MSC said:

I think you got your point across to most of us. Most of us just didn't agree. Sorry. 

Seems more like a steelman to me.

Out of curiosity, how would you have handled it?

Then you haven't been reading to understand any of MigL's posts.

But I welcome you to show how you came to the same conclusion Swansont suggested.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Then you haven't been reading to understand any of MigL's posts.

But I welcome you to show how you came to the same conclusion Swansont suggested.

There are about 12 pages you are welcome to reread at any time. 

As for the "not reading to understand" accusation. That's a projection. Neither of you are writing particularly lengthy responses that address every single one of my responses and a few of Swansonts questions have been ignored also. Neither of you are particularly difficult to understand, but clearly the more nuanced and effortful responses from myself and others here are not being understood. If there is something you don't understand, then ask the right questions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, MSC said:

Neither of you are particularly difficult to understand, but clearly the more nuanced and effortful responses from myself and others here are not being understood.

You are pretty full of ... yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, MSC said:

Neither of you are writing particularly lengthy responses that address every single one of my responses... If there is something you don't understand, then ask the right questions.

Let's start with that. Why would you expect us to?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@

1 hour ago, MSC said:

I think you got your point across to most of us. Most of us just didn't agree. Sorry. 

Because 'most' don't agree, doesn't necessarily mean the majority are in the right. There is no objective sense of what is right/wrong,  only that which aligns with our respective personal agendas. In this case, there are more posters with similarly aligned personal agendas.

Edited by StringJunky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, MSC said:

This is reaching the point where someone just has to say it, if it walks, talks and thinks like a racist; it's a racist. 

I will respond to this. I think the thought police thing you seem to have going is particularly cheap.

Sorry if it's not a long rant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • 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.