Gdanning
1yr ago
Why not just come out and say that you are referring to Black Panther?
And, I have seen neither film, but surely you can see that lack of realism is usually a more serious flaw in a film that purports to be a true story than it is in a comic book film. You seem to be falling victim somewhat to confirmation bias.
So, you think displaying a rainbow flag causes some pct of boys to grow up to get an erection when seeing a naked guy, and to fail to get an erection when seeing a naked woman?
Gdanning
2yr ago
did they get to watch their ethnic kinfolk firebombed and incinerated via incendiary and nuclear weapons?
Why do you think they care about their "ethnic kinfolk"? I assume, like most Americans, they were relieved that the invasion of Japan ended up being unnecessary.
Is Japan, under the fading soft power occupation of the US, thriving or is the nation slowly withering away?
Is this a joke? As if Japan did not thrive after the war.
He talked to media and he talked to elites who rode him as a prize horse for a victory lap over the dead south.
The Civil Rights Movement was probably the most successful social revolution in history. And it was not the doing of elites who were out to oppress white Southerners; elites would just as soon no one make waves. That is what elites do.
White people in the UK have no such backing.
No, but they are the majority, and they can organize politically, and politicians who want their votes will listen. Or have you never heard of the Moral Majority, or the Tea Party, or Ron DeSantis?.
Gdanning
2yr ago
Then it sounds like you don't have an example, because that is nothing like what was happening in CA. You are advocating for giving rural voters veto power over ALL legislation, not the tiny minority of legislation that intentionally discriminates against them, as is the case re the equal protection cases to which you refer.
Gdanning
2yr ago
Framing this as a men's rights issue rests in the assumption that the mother has sole custody, but nowadays, most child custody is 50/50.* Hence, there is no custodial parent, and child support is paid by the parent with the higher income, at least in California. So, I guess conservatives should address this problem by pushing for more equal pay for women.
PS: See calculator here.
*A trend opposed by conservatives and pushed by liberals back in the day
Gdanning
2yr ago
Entering a country and requesting asylum is, in fact, following the rules.
Gdanning
1yr ago
How about increasing funding for asylum adjudication, so that the wait for adjudication is 6 months, not several years? That will pretty much eliminate the border issue, since it will massively decrease the incentive to enter the country and give asylum a shot. That would have bipartisan support, especially from people like Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema, who for all intents and purposes really control what passes the Senate.
How about a law to preserve the substance of the Pico plurality decision, which is probably no longer good law, to prevent red schools from removing ideas they don't like, and blue states from doing the same?
Gdanning
2yr ago
I don’t understand the difference. Isn't that true of everything that is taught at school? If I argue against the teaching of creationism, I am "setting out to influence someone else's children against [some] parents' wishes," am I not? Ditto re arguing against teaching "CRT." Ditto re "influencing the perception of children towards the Civil Rights movement" and "influencing the perception of children towards the BLM movement" (in either direction), and "influencing the perception of children towards free market economics." Why should there be a special rule re "influencing the perception of children towards the LGBT movement"?
More importantly, as I said, trying to "influence the perception of children towards the LGBT movement" is not secual assault.
Gdanning
2yr ago
That seems like a very odd example of anyone pushing anything. It is 15 seconds long, and in it's entirety the guy says, "In school I was bullied for being gay, even by my teachers. So I became a teacher. Guess who my favorite students are [rainbow flag]." I am pretty good at steelmanning, but I am struggling to understand how someone would consider that pushing homosexuality, nor why anyone would describe him as a "loser."
Gdanning
2yr ago
Well, as I think I made clear, any course that is taught with the purpose of pushing a political viewpoint is objectionable.
nineteen out of twenty classrooms will be run by a rabid partisan of whichever side you oppose ... the test at the end is designed by people you oppose
You are making a lot of assumptions there, I must say. Did you even look at the course description? The material that Florida has identified as objectionable are about four of 92 topics.
More importantly, your claim is not Florida's claim. Florida's claim was NOT that "the course seems OK as written, but will be implemented in a biased way." Rather, it was that the course** as written** is biased, which is a claim based on a misunderstanding (perhaps intentional, but perhaps not) on how AP classes work.
Gdanning
2yr ago
His application for political asylum was also denied despite the fact spent time in jail for what would be protected speech in the United States
Your implication that he was treated unfairly appears to be based on an incorrect premise. As Justice Alito said when he was on the Third Circuit "the concept of persecution does not encompass all treatment that our society regards as unfair, unjust, or even unlawful or unconstitutional. If persecution were defined that expansively, a significant percentage of the world's population would qualify for asylum in this country — and it seems most unlikely that Congress intended such a result." Fatin v. INS, 12 F.3d 1233, 1240 (3d Cir.1993). And see Foroglou v. INS, 170 F.3d 68, 72 (1st Cir.1999) ("The asylum statute does not inflict on foreign governments the obligation to construct their own draft laws to conform to this nation's own highly complex equal protection jurisprudence.").
The former head of CODOH (Germar Rudolf) has had his Green Card renewal denied by the United States, despite the fact he has an American wife and American children . . . so he is in hiding to avoid being deported to Germany.
Permanent residence status does not expire. Once a person becomes a permanent resident, he remains a permanent resident unless it is revoked or abandoned. The most common reason for the latter is being outside the US for more than 6 months in any calendar year. The card itself expires, but that is a different thing.
Having an American wife and children does not entitle someone to retain his status as a permanent resident if he is otherwise subject to revocation or abandonment.
Gdanning
2yr ago
Like others, I don't understand why you think of this as "generally leftward." If anything, an inflated fear of being the victim of crime (esp after a publicized incident) despite its statistical unlikelihood tends to be right-coded. See, eg, the occasional comments on here re NYC in general or the NYC subway in particular.
Gdanning
2yr ago
This is a naked assertion
Please see the many links in my other post, all of which use definitions which include the intent to have sex
I'm unconcerned with whether these teachers and activist want to fuck kids. The behavior that ticks every checkbox of grooming except, maybe, intent is a harm in and off itself.
That might well be true. But it is not relevant to the issue of whether those people are engaged in "grooming."
And furthermore, you seem awfully determined that only people who rape children can be called proper "groomers". What about people who just want to isolate and murder children? What about people who want to torture children?
So, because all groomers harm children, all who harm children are groomers? You are arguing that, because all Xs are Ys, all Ys are Xs. That is a logical fallacy. The people you describe are evil. But they obviously are not within the meaning of the term "groomers," since that term refers to those who intend to engage in sexual activity. And, for all I know, gender activists are evil, too. But they are nevertheless not groomers, because they lack the requisite intent.
Gdanning
2yr ago
You made this bed, now you have to lie in it.
That is true if all one cares about is the culture war. If one cares about formulating sound public policy, esp about such an important issue as crime, not so much.
Gdanning
2yr ago
Again, I am not sure what it is that is depicted there that is disgust-inducing. Disgust is an awfully strong emotion, after all. And, the OP used the term "ugly" -- I took that as an aesthetic comment, rather than as a synonym for disgust, but perhaps that is indeed what they meant. I can certainly understand if someone found certain elements of the scene objectionable, such as the Antifa reference. Or even the LGBT-adjacent couple. But the overall scene of people going about their day -- walking the dog, flying a kite, going to work, hanging out with friends, etc, is a pretty regular street scene.
Again, I took the OP to be saying something other than "I disagree with the Greens' political vision," but perhaps that is indeed all they were saying.
Gdanning
1yr ago
Presumably, to facilitate distinguishing those who commit sex offenses against children and those who are sexually attracted to children but refrain from acting on that attraction and wish to continue refraining therefrom. However much the former should be hated (though I seem to recall something about hating the sin but loving the sinner), it is not clear to me why the latter should be hated.
Gdanning
1yr ago
Give up. Most human beings are apparently incapable of distinguishing between an empirical issue and a normative issue, and most people who post here are very much not an exception, in my experience.
Gdanning
1yr ago
The key in Cox was "as authoritatively interpreted by the Louisiana Supreme Court." In a post-Cox case, the CA Supreme Court interpreted a statute very similar to the Idaho one ("Section 415 of the Penal Code provides in pertinent part: "Every person who maliciously and willfully disturbs the peace or quiet of any neighborhood or person, by loud or unusual noise, or by tumultuous or offensive conduct ... is guilty of a misdemeanor,") to apply to loud shouting "only in two situations: 1) where there is a clear and present danger of imminent violence and 2) where the purported communication is used as a guise to disrupt lawful endeavors." in re Brown, 9 Cal.3d 612 (1973).
Overall, I would be very surprised if, in the almost 60 years since Cox, any state has not interpreted their disturbing the peace statute to comply therewith.
Brutalism hasn't been in vogue for 40+ years. See recent Pritzger winners.
Edit: No, concrete boxes are not the only acceptable architectural form. Frank Gehry does not design concrete boxes. Nor does Rem Koolhaas. Nor does Santiago Calatrava. Nor does Renzo Piano. Nor does Daniel Libeskind.
And of course there is a wide variety of styles represented here
Gdanning
1yr ago
Her commentary about black babies and black doctors was just a complete hash, as if neither she nor her clerks have even a rudimentary grasp of statistics.
That "commentary" amounted to one sentence: "For high-risk Black newborns, having a Black physician more than doubles the likelihood that the baby will live, and not die." See page 23 of her dissent. The citation is to a brief filed by the American Association of Medical Colleges, which says exactly that, at page 4: "And for high-risk Black newborns, having a Black physician is tantamount to a miracle drug: it more than doubles the likelihood that the baby will live."
Justices uncritically citing statements in briefs is all too common, but it is not a phenomenon that is unique to any particular justice, nor to justices of any particular political persuasion. See this law review article from 2014, which says in part:
My research shows that 1 in every 5 citations to amicus briefs by the Justices in the last 5 years was used to support a factual claim-something I define as a theoretically falsifiable observation about the world. . . . And more than two-thirds of the time, the Justice citing the amicus brief for a fact cites only the amicus brief as authority-not any accompanying study or journal citation from within the brief.
Gdanning
2yr ago
In support of this argument, you could cite the fact that the apparent mishandling of government records occurs fairly regularly by similarly-positioned politicians (Clinton, Biden, Pence, etc.) and yet its enforcement appears to be selectively doled out.
I happen to think that indicting potential candidates creates a slippery slope unless the charges are very serious, and that these particular charges do not seem to clear that bar (though I suppose it might depend on the contents of the specific documents in question).
That being said, the selective enforcement argument does not seem to be very persuasive, because there are are at least two elements to a violation of 18 USC sec 793(e): 1) unauthorized possession of national security documents; and 2) willful retention or the documents and failure deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it. There is evidence that Trump, unlike the others you mention, willfully retained the documents and failed to deliver them when the government requested them. Hence, while there is evidence that Trump violated 18 USC sec 793(e), there is no evidence that the others violated the law.
Moreover, when James Comey declined to recommend the prosecution of Hillary Clinton, he said:
In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.
Again, there is evidence of several of those criteria re Trump (indeed, he is charged with obstruction of justice), but not re the others.
Hence, if the decisions were completely objective, the pattern of decisions would look the same. Hence, the pattern you identify is not evidence of subjective prosecution.
Gdanning
2yr ago
In countries where data is available (such as Denmark and the US), said data strongly supports the position of educated internet right wing racists.
What US data is that? Because I have largely seen the opposite. And see here.
There was a lot of skepticism that this would stick given that the statute is being stretched quite far from its incarnation as an anti-cross burning law.
As I have noted before, this is incorrect. The VA statute re burning a cross with intent to intimidate is Title 18.2-423. The statute re burning another object with intent to intimidate is a different statute, 18.2.423.1
The significance of this is that it's now precedent for "intent to intimidate" as an avenue for outlawing hate speech, which has traditionally had first amendment protections
No, hate speech directed a person with intent to intimidate has not had First Amendment protection for 20 years, because "Intimidation in the constitutionally proscribable sense of the word is a type of true threat," which of course is not protected speech.
Edit: According to this, "A second man has pleaded guilty for encircling counter protesters with torches on the evening before the deadly 2017 Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville." So, not for simply marching.
Gdanning
2yr ago
Yeah, I meant to say that I am rarely on the train at times when people are returning from bars drunk, and the last time I was on the train at 3 am some drunk kid threw up on the floor. But OTOH, I have never heard of anyone being run over by a drunk driver on the subway.
The lawsuit is a class action suit brought on behalf of African American and Hispanic applicants, alleging that the test discriminated against African American and Hispanic applicants. The money is meant to compensate them. Why would white applicants have a claim on the money?
The plaintiffs were not paid not to work. Presumably most of them worked at other jobs since 1996 (when the lawsuit was originally filed). They are being compensated for the damages incurred as a result of the ostensible discrimination. If I dropped a hammer on your head while working on a roof, and as a result you had to quit your job as an accountant and work retail, would you frame a lawsuit settlement as paying you not to work?
Edit:
The article you linked says: "Four teachers in 1996 first filed a suit over the test. . . . The test was ruled discriminatory in 2012 by the third Manhattan federal judge to handle the case — which included a two-month nonjury trial and repeated trips to an appeals court."
That sounds like a vigorous defense to me. The settlement is only re the amount of damages.
The article you link is from 2018. Those settlements were in 2023. Edit 2: When I initially clicked the link, it took me here: https://nypost.com/2018/09/19/city-may-have-to-pay-out-1-7b-over-biased-teaching-exam/. Now it takes me here: https://nypost.com/2023/07/15/nyc-bias-suit-black-hispanic-teachers-and-ex-teachers-rich/ Did you change the link?
More options
Context Copy link