Why do we disagree on how to pluralize?

We pluralize nouns. The problem is Jack-in-the-box is a clause being used as a noun. It has a subject and predicate. It has two nouns in it. So I would pluralize both nouns for reasons of grammar. When in doubt just use whatever is easier to say and whichever combination sounds better, or avoid using the word altogether.

The concept of race is unable to furnish any valid information about any given person. The best one could assume from the phenotypes associated with race is perhaps what a person’s parents may have looked like, and even that is fraught with difficulty and often misleading.

But to make the assumption that since someone is of such-and-such a race, this can somehow explain such-and-such a condition, is racism in both the wide and narrow sense.

I’m speaking of people, not situations. The taxonomy of race pertains to human beings. Do you apply the concept to people or situations?

I didn’t like when he said he was going to ban certain vaping products. Have you ever applauded him here?

You use the concept of race to inform your worldview. For instance you speak of “racial differences”.

That "argument" is a political allegation unsupported by evidence. The irony is that there was abundant evidence of Trump's efforts to influence the DOJ. It's as if Trumpists think that was normal, and thus assume Biden is following suit.

Do you think the DOJ is an independent agency of the US government?

What did I write that someone with your species of race-thinking would object to?

If the suffix “ism” denotes a practice, system, or philosophy, it is not possible to see racism in an effect or social condition because neither have any beliefs nor adhere to any. A certain state of affairs may be the result of racism, but it cannot itself be racism. So in my view such a comprehensive view of racism just doesn’t work.

I also believe that if one adopts such a comprehensive view of racism he risks using racism to maintain it.

Before all else he must adopt a belief in the taxonomy of race and apply it to individual human beings in order to classify them under its rubric. If this taxonomy informs his worldview in this way he must at some level, from benign thoughts to overt actions, treat people differently on the basis of this one specious classification. This is the fundamentals racism.

Race can only ever serve as a vehicle of fallacious assumptions, anyways. It cannot inform us about an individual or the life she leads. It can only ever benefit the user, not because it provides him with information about people, but because it provides him with a way out, a means to escape learning about someone from the source, which is the only means to acquire understanding of others. So I’d say ditch race and racism altogether.

No, they didn’t benefit from slavery, and no one suggested such a thing. But it is true that “slaves developed skills which, in some instances, could be applied for their personal benefit” as the Florida education board wrote in their guide.

Nah. He was whistling to racists.

Then why are your ears ringing?

As the scholar said, the idea was to point out that enslaved Africans proved resilient, resourceful, and adaptive both while enslaved and after. Do you think this is true?

What do you think his motive is?

He was asked a question, as is evident from the video.

I think it’s a stretch to that because “slaves developed skills which, in some instances, could be applied for their personal benefit”, that they benefited from slavery as a whole. Clearly that’s not what they were saying. The question should be whether it is true or false.

Desantis himself reiterated the claim and basically said you’ll have to talk to the scholars or education board about that. In the video below the scholar (a black man) said it was true.

The argument is that Biden’s DOJ is benefitting Biden while trying to ruin his political opponent. That’s not whataboutism, I’m afraid, nor does it imply (let alone was it argued) that one exonerates the other.

Unfortunately you can only push that stuff aside and avoid the argument for so long because even the appearance of any conflict of interest puts the whole system itself into doubt, which is the very reason many people don't trust any of these allegations. If you don't care that the justice system is two-tiered, just say it, move on, and continue to nod your head with whatever Biden's justice department tells you is the case.

It’s Biden’s DOJ. The attorney general reports directly to the president. The attorney general is on Biden’s cabinet, and advises Biden. His DOJ is currently indicting his political opponent in more than one frivolous case. It’s the same DOJ that allegedly slow-walked, obstructed, and ignored IRS investigations into Biden’s criminal son. As a result, Biden’s son won’t have to pay taxes on more than $400,000 in unreported Ukrainian income for the years Biden was vice president. A slow-walk, a plea deal; they resolved what should have been a federal criminal case at the same time the charges were filed in court. Imagine if that was anyone else.

Biden has been a lying, partisan, career politician for half a century. Hell, he’s been holding on to classified documents from the 70s with zero repercussions.

That being said, I think Biden is only a sock puppet in all this. He is not running the country.

The context surrounding the statutes cited in the target letter is unclear, and their inclusion in the letter doesn't necessarily mean Trump will be charged with related counts or that an indictment would be limited to only those three statutes.

What did you think of Trump praising Xi Jinping?

I thought it was a good move. If you alienate someone from the world stage, as Biden likes to do, you eliminate any room for negotiations or improvement. The result is war.

It will be interesting to see what this latest indictment is for. If it’s anything like the rest, it’s some deep-state neocon piffle, or some obscure and archaic law once used to jail dissidents back at the turn of the 20th century. They probably found something he said that can be misconstrued by deep-state sophists as criminal or untoward activity, some word-crime, like every other complaint about Trump that has hitherto existed.

Meanwhile, Biden is trying to jail his political opponents. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I’m not sure the lawsuits were a good idea because everything they did to alter how elections were ran was done legally at the legislative level, with the collusion of those in power. The people should have contested the election en masse but the propaganda was by then too thick.

Maybe in that reality warp you speak of such an act is disturbing, but if beneath the noses of American voters shadowy and conspiratorial groups with vast sums of dark money were changing how elections fundamentally operate, contesting it was the right thing to do.

I knew they were wrong from the get go. But you believed it.

There was a moral panic when Trump showed up on the scene. He was the next big dictator, compared to everyone from Mussolini, to Mugabe, to Mao. He was the harbinger of a new fascism. He was a Manchurian candidate. He was going to start world war 3 and throw us into nuclear holocaust.

None of this would turn out to be true, but the reality warp you speak of was so severe and traumatizing for some that it has had its immediate effects in reality. There was a spate of fake hate crimes, for example, most notably the case of Jussie Smollette, where people tried to exploit the moral panic for their own gain. It worked, however briefly, because some people refuse to come to their senses.

I remember when over 50 democrats refused to attend Trump’s inauguration, with people like John Lewis calling him illegitimate because something something Russia. That was unprecedented, but there was no psychoanalysis of his supporters. It was all above board. Or when mass worldwide protests occurred during Trump’s inauguration, even right outside of it, to the point where supporters were told by police not to wear their hats for fear of a beat down. In retrospect I’m glad Trump didn’t do what Biden did, which was ban the public from attending and use the US military to enforce a perimeter, because that’s what fascism is.

Questioning the results of a rigged election is small potatoes to the greatest feat of election denialism ever, which was the proliferation of the Russia hoax. This conspiracy theory reached the highest levels of the establishment and the US government. They spied on an American political campaign and obstructed the winner throughout most of his term. This reality warp you speak of is still persisting.

Are you yourself controlled by someone else’s personal morality? I ask because all this talk of consequences and aggregate impacts and people’s feelings leads me to believe you’re approaching morality from the perspective of consequentialism. I think it is the consequentialism that leads you to believe, cynically, that personal moralities tend to (and intend to) control others socially.

I cannot agree and find your analysis specious because there are people who do not approach morality from the perspective of consequentialism. They wish to act right no matter the fee-fees of some person, with no care for the consequences or social costs, and with no desire or goal of controlling others.

If you want to obsequiously serve another’s personal morality, be my guest, but at some point you might have to live according to your own moral code or you won’t be able to live with yourself.

The bias, background, politics, wealth, or any other factor of a reporter or news outlet doesn’t matter. To say otherwise is the genetic fallacy. Even the National Enquirer can break news.

It matters whether it is true or false; it matters if it contains all relevant information or lies by omission; it matters if it is pertinent or a waste of time.

You may feel discouraged by the moral criticism, advice, and the arguments of others, but the feelings you feel are your own. Do you feel that way because you fear the consequences? Or is it because your conscience is telling you something?

Yes, collective moralities tend to create an environment hostile to certain behaviors. I don’t think a personal morality does. My neighbor hates dogs, for example, so naturally she doesn’t like mine. I don’t feel discouraged owning a dog. To each their own. If everyone in town hated dogs, I would feel discouraged, and probably wouldn’t own a dog.

It’s always burdens and never boons. It’s always suffering but never pleasure. It’s always entropy but never negentropy or free energy. How come anti-natalists never include, and even avoid, opposing events in their screeds?

One who saw coercion as immoral, and by coercion, I mean an unbiased interpretation, and refused to engage in it for the most part, could avoid it, although it'd be very unusual. I'm not arguing against that.

However, surely, your personal moral code involves standing up against injustice? It involves invoking consequences against others for their actions? How can your moral code just be to act morally and ignore the world around you, save for "leading by example"? How is that possible.

“Standing up against injustice”. Do you mean retribution? I do believe in retribution. One has to be just. What that has to do with social control, I’m not sure. You’re not encouraging or discouraging anything with retribution. You’re satisfying a desire for justice.

Frankly, it’s all a little weird for me to suspect that following one’s own conscience has the effect of encouraging and discouraging others, as if we’re training animals. It sounds to me more of an admission of guilt than a statement of fact.

The goal of criticizing immorality isn’t “social control”, whatever that means, but appealing to conscience and reason. One cannot control another’s morality anyway, and anyone who views coercion as immoral will avoid it in favor of moral arguments and leading by example, neither of which have any effect beyond the one who abides by them.

If one happens to change his ways in light of this criticism, it wasn’t because he was pushed to do it, but because he came to agree and followed his own conscience. So I think the so-called effect of personal morality on others is overstated.

All you can do is assert it. You have no proof.

Give me your number. I can call you and you can confirm whether I’m awake or dreaming.

You're dreaming. Prove me wrong.

I’m awake.

Sure. There's just no way to prove they're "of the same reality.". People just do it without any evidence or sturdy reasoning. That is worth pondering.

There is plenty of evidence. It’s just that some people refuse to believe their lying eyes.

We’re either talking about the world or we’re talking about ourselves. As soon as we come to believe both are of the same reality we have no choice but to speak of reality.

To what extent should consumers be free to make choices about what products and services they consume in the context of neoliberal capitalism

They should be 100% free to make choices about what products and services they consume for the simple reason it is no one else’s choice. Not only that but it invariably raises the question of who should decide, and those answers are always undesirable.

I never said a lack of talent caused black people to be underrepresented. I said those CEOs were probably hired due to their talent. I think you know that.

If you prove one CEO wasn’t hired solely due to his race, then that’s all you’ve proven. Assuming you can do that, which you haven’t, it is absurd to make the same assumption to every other case. But these are the sorts of fallacies required to uphold any racist view, for instance the idea that a group is misrepresented due to the fact of their skin color, and no other measure.

My guess is they were elected elected by a board and shareholders based on their talent. Why do you think there are four black CEO's in the Fortune 500?

It is clear in the opposition to this decision that racism has never ended. Even Supreme Court Justices, who should know better, jumped to attack the majority opinion.

A combination of legalese, precedent, and outright sophistry doesn’t do much to disguise the point of it all, though, the question of whether race should be a qualification in any admissions. Dissenting justices even used the ugly history of race-based discrimination to defend contemporary race-based discrimination, proving that stretching the plain meaning of language in order to skirt ethical principle is the sine qua non of jurisprudence.

There is no sense in quibbling on the topic.

“It is for all these reasons that we write to say that the arrival on the US polical scene of emails purportedly belonging to Vice President Biden’s son Hunter, much of it related to his serving on the Board of the Ukrainian gas company Burisma, has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.”

The entire purpose of the letter was to say that it was Russian disinfo. It turns out they were wrong, and as you point out, they had no clue. These people worked for the intelligence community, including former directors of the CIA, and here they are spreading a conspiracy theory and misinformation before an election.

So then why the letter? According to a report, the man who drafted the letter, Michael Morrell, said what we already suspected it was for:

Contemporaneous emails show the organizers’ intent in drafting and releasing the statement: “[W]e think Trump will attack Biden on the issue at this week’s debate and we want to offer perspectives on this from Russia watchers and other seasoned experts,” and “we want to give the [Vice President] a talking point to use in response.”

Of course, Biden brought up the exact same talking point in the debate. I’m surprised you weren’t there telling everyone “it needs to be investigated, rather than jump to conclusions in any either direction.”

I can understand why you’d doubt the claims and investigations of the House republicans, but why are you being a running dog for the CIA? The entire purpose of the letter was to frame it as disinfo, to sew the seeds of doubt in the public, and to provide Biden with a talking point should Trump bring up the laptop in the debate. This is the CIA and the Biden campaign influencing the election with misinformation, which I think you oppose. It worked. Even people here on this forum fell for it.

No thanks.

I never said there was a double standard between GOP and Dems, or left a right. The double standards are between those who oppose the deep state and those who do not.

But this comparison in particular was rooted in the recent whistleblower testimony, which was the subject of the discussion you quoted, and likely something you haven’t read or considered. It’s difficult to be a GOP talking point when one of the whistleblowers is Democrat.

I’ve already summarized the revelations.

• Hunter linked daddy to Chinese deal in threat to business partner.
• Joe Biden showed up at business meetings with Hunter and his Chinese partners.
• The FBI authenticated Hunter Biden's laptop almost a year before we knew it existed and found no evidence of misinformation. Former intel officials come out and say it’s misinformation before the election.
• Hunter deducted hooker and sex club payments from his taxes
• The investigation into Hunter Biden had started due to a foreign porn website back in the 2018, and of course all of this was hidden from the public, unlike anti-Trump leaks.
• Prosecutors wanted to charge Hunter with felonies, but all he got was misdemeanors.
• Biden’s Department of Justice worked to block the investigation.
• Agents wanted to search Biden family homes but were told the optics would be too bad.
• IRS wanted search warrant for Hunter’s storage locker but a Biden-appointed prosecutor tipped off his lawyers.

That criminal now flies around on Air Force one and stays at camp David.

Did anyone in Trump’s sphere get the same treatment from Trump’s DOJ? Not that I remember. I remember raids and spying and selective leaks and jail.