Gdanning
2yr ago
The point is that it is no less a "concrete box" than most of what dude is calling a "concrete box." Ie, it is a bunch of boxes glued together. His terminology doesn’t work.
More specifically, I personally think that the Empire State Building is more attractive than the Bilbao Guggenheim, but obviously not because it is less of a "concrete box" as he defines it. Ditto re this building versus Bilbao
Again, his terminology doesn’t capture the relevant differences.
And, I like the Empire State Building more than whatever they are calling the Sears Tower these days, despite having them having same essential form of a bunch of rectangles glued together. The differences lie elsewhere.
Gdanning
2yr ago
Right. Because that is how it works: Relevant parts are admitted, and not the irrelevant parts. Also excluded: Portions that are relevant but highly prejudicial. Given who these guys are, it is very, very likely that portions were excluded at the behest of the defense, because they included the defendants using epithets and the like.
Tell me, have the defendants or their attorneys complained that they were not permitted to introduce exculpatory evidence?
Gdanning
2yr ago
that’s motive right there.
Motive is not an element of conspiracy. An agreement to commit a crime is.
Now either one of us caught with common items that could have some use in a bank robbery are potentially in actual conspiracy.
I note that now you have added facts to your original hypothetical. What kinds of items? Guns and ski masks?
Look, are innocent people sometimes convicted of crimes due to an unfortunate accumulation of apparently incriminating circumstantial evidence? Yes. If that is all you mean to be arguing, I agree. But you seem to be saying that that is particularly common re conspiracy charges, and that people are convicted of conspiracy based on ridiculously ephemeral evidence. Where is your evidence for that?
Gdanning
2yr ago
Yes Evidence?
Regardless, the five defendants who have been convicted so far have 42 days to file a notice of appeal. And there are numerous other defendants whose trials are pending. We will have to wait and see whether anyone appeals.
Gdanning
2yr ago
According to the notes referred to and linked to n the article, the relevant parts were apparently indeed shown to the jury:
-video is body cam seventeen minutes long, unedited go pro. Portion shown to jury is only about four minutes long -Plaintiff has seen the PF promo video, ten minutes version. -Judge rules it to be entered as an exhibit but denied letting the jury view it during trial
Gdanning
2yr ago
People lost their jobs for donating to Kyle Rittenhouse's legal defense fund
- Is that actually true?
- I don't know why such donations cannot be made anonymously.
Gdanning
2yr ago
But what of the phone call which certain people inexplicably considered damning? And, insisting that your fuckup kid repay a loan, even if the payments are half his rather substantial income, is indeed a form of love.
This refusal, of people on both sides, to admit that their "enemies" might have any redeeming features is highly destructive to their credibility. Why should I believe anything that AOC says about Clarence Thomas, for example?
If you can't get people to fight for their country, you won't have a country for very long
Perhaps. But that is not the claim I was addressing.
Our puppet government?
No, as I said, their internal rivals. Who were fighting the Taliban long before the US decided to back them in 2001.
This certainly fits the US. And it becomes more imperial the more diverse it gets, the more nations it rules over.
What do you think "nations" means in that context?
The Hapsburgs ruled many nationalities for a very long time and were pretty successful.
Again, what do you think "nationalities" means?
Gdanning
2yr ago
Aren't you ignoring this part: "If you can draw two or more reasonable conclusions from the circumstantial evidence, and one of those reasonable conclusions points to innocence and another to guilt, you must accept the one that points to innocence"?
Gdanning
2yr ago
Why can't the US fill the ranks of its army if its GDP is so high?
If anything, it is because GDP is high; potential recruits have better options. It is in poor countries that people are eager to seek public employment, including in the military.
Nobody told the Taliban they needed a high GDP to beat us
The Taliban did not beat us; the beat their internal rivals.
You might well say 'well let's skim off the most talented Chinese, Indians, Nigerians, Ethiopians with our high wages and boost our country's GDP'. What happens to your country if you do that? It becomes an empire as opposed to a nation-state and that invites disaster.
- You are completely misusing the term, "empire."
- There are forms of nation-states other than ethnic nation states. And the US is a classic example of civic nationalism
- If your definition of empire is correct, the US has been an empire since before its founding. Yet, so far, the results have been rather good.
Gdanning
2yr ago
You know, plenty of right wing NGOs exist. And there is such a thing as a defense fund. If everyone here who upvoted OP's post threw in $100, the attorney's fees would probably be covered.
Gdanning
2yr ago
I don’t know why there has to be a single word, nor if there can be a single word, that encompasses this and this and this. And if there is a single word, "Brutalist" isn't it.
Moreover, none of those are boxes. OTOH, if, as you say, "concrete box" includes steel and glass boxes, then this counts, yet I dare say that most who complain about post-WWII architecture would find that more attractive than the examples above.
Moreover, most of these are better described as concrete boxes than any of the examples at the top. As is this. Heck, the Empire State Building is essentially a box with spire stuck on top.
And, frankly, if someone said, "I hate Rem Koolhaas because I hate concrete boxes," I would have a hard time taking him seriously.
Gdanning
2yr ago
I'd say you shouldn't really bother assessing the race, because a bunch of other characteristics about the group will give you a much better sense.
That is not the issue. The issue is whether assessing race gives me a better sense than not assessing race.
You should always be thinking about your pedagogy.
You are avoiding the issue. If I have reason to think that pedagogy A works better with Group X than with Group Y, then taking race into account = thinking about pedagogy.
Typically race correlates with things that matter. But it is rarely if ever the actual thing that matters. What if the teacher would be teaching the flunkies, dropouts, and mis-behaving kids at the asian school, and the honors students at the all black school?
Again, you are avoiding the issue, by changing the hypothetical
And what assumptions are you supposed to make if the school has and classroom has a mixed racial makeup like all American schools are mandated to have.
??? American schools are not mandated to have a mixed racial makeup. For example, Locke High School in Los Angeles has essentially zero Asian kids and 6 white kids. Birmingham High School has 114 white kids out of an enrollment of 3000. Taft High School, which is 5 miles away, is 40 percent white.
Gdanning
2yr ago
because race and genetics do not fully dictate who a person is, those characteristics do not provide good information about an individual that isn't obtainable in a myriad of other more reliable ways.
What if I am trying to assess groups? Such as your walking down the dark street example. Am I supposed to treat a group of Asian males hanging out up ahead the same as I would treat a group of black males? Or, suppose I have successfully taught for years in an all-black school, and have relied heavily on class participation as a pedagogical tool. If I transfer to an all-Asian school, should I not think about changing my pedagogy? Or if I am in HR at a school district, and am placing a teacher who tells me his greatest weakness is classroom management, should I not use him for a vacancy at an all-Asian school rather than sending him to an all-black school?
Gdanning
2yr ago
Sorry, I meant link #2; this one: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1a/Norfolk_Terrace.JPG/1024px-Norfolk_Terrace.JPG. It has many large windows -- wherever did you get the idea that Brutalist buildings can't have windows? Look at 3, 13, 21 and 30 on your list.
Again, I don't think #2 is particularly similar at all. And, of course brutalist buildings can have windows. But the expanse of unbroken glass forming an entire exterior wall is not at all characteristic of Brutalist buildings. And see here, which says, "Brutalism is generally associated with rough, unfinished surfaces, unusual shapes, heavy-looking materials, straight lines, and small windows."
but did you notice the giant unfinished brick walls? But, the walls are from the original building.
Simple, clean lines
Well, they must mean something different than I do. I don't see the clunkiness that is typical of Brutalism be be clean at all. Maybe a better word is graceful lines.
Anyhow, this is all a bit far afield. The original claim that Brutalism is the dominant architectural form is clearly incorrect. See here. There is one brutalist bldg, but it is an exception. And note that the OP has since clarified that he actually just meant "concrete boxes" and only in reference to his local govt buildings.
Gdanning
2yr ago
According to the Idaho Tribune, which was OP's original source:
We have previously reported on how the groups cell phones were given to the FBI by Coeur d’Alene Police, pursuant to a Federal Warrant that has not yet been seen by the Police, the defendants, the Judges in the case, and has not been entered into any court records.
The group’s leader, Thomas Rousseau, has alleged in a motion that those phones contain exculpatory evidence showing a “dress rehearsal from the day before” as well as body cam recordings from the day of the arrest.
The Judge granted Rousseau’s motion to compel.
2021 is not remotely Brutalist. Not with those walls of windows. Nor is 2023; those simple and clean lines are, if anything, the opposite of Brutalism. Nor does 2023 use unfinished material.
Seriously, do those look anything like these?
Edit: Re your previous comment, comparing the 2021 winner with your third link, I honestly don't understand how you see them as similar at all.
Gdanning
2yr ago
No, it is not an extremely low bar. Because first there needs to be an agreement between two or more people to commit a crime, and its existence has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Then, there has to be an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
Although circumstantial evidence can be used to prove the existence of an agreement, And here is what CA jury instructions say about circumstantial evidence:
before you may rely on circumstantial evidence to find the defendant guilty, you must be convinced that the only reasonable conclusion supported by the circumstantial evidence is that the defendant is guilty. If you can draw two or more reasonable conclusions from the circumstantial evidence, and one of those reasonable conclusions points to innocence and another to guilt, you must accept the one that points to innocence.
Someone visiting a bank might be casing the place, but that is hardly the only reasonable conclusion. So, your concern is misplaced.
Gdanning
2yr ago
Again, the point is that, even if there is that one exception, that hardly shows that Brutalism is in fashion. All the cool kids are clearly doing other stuff, and have been for years. Because the initial claim was the opposite; that all the cool kids are doing Brutalism.
Gdanning
2yr 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.
Gdanning
2yr ago
What he said that was "incorrect" is completely irrelevant to 1) the point he was making and 2) people's ability to understand the point he was making.
Well, I simply disagree. Especially given his reference to battle against beauty, and the propensity of people here to claim that certain artistic styles are some sort of intentional campaign against beauty by members of their outgroup, and moreover evidence of the moral depravity of that outgroup. It is a common theme here.
I really don't care if that Starbucks coffee is a "Venti" instead of a large and "correcting" that is just pedantry. Well, it is a good thing you were not with me several years ago when I ordered a "tall" but the brand new, and apparently poorly trained, employee gave me a Venti because she thought I was referring to the really tall cup.
Gdanning
2yr ago
I can say that nobody ever talked about any aspects of those theories Why would you, at that level? IR seeks to explain why that foreign country was willing to host a US base in the first place, not how people on the ground should use their people skills and common sense to interact with their counterparts.
When there's a claim from academics (which you have relayed to me in this conversation; please don't misinterpret this as an attack on you!) that we would be unable to distinguish our response between British and North Korean nuclear weapons without Constructivism, I think the appropriate response is "Fuck you".
Again, you are misinterpreting the point. The point is not that "we would be unable to distinguish our response between British and North Korean nuclear weapons without Constructivism." It is that pre-Constructivist theories were not able to explain why the responses are different. More importantly, this is a very simply example; the broader point is that a theory that can explain that could have potential to explain other, less obvious phenomena.
BTW, look at foreign relations between Israel and various majority Muslim countries. For most of them, Iran poses a far greater threat than does Israel. Yet, few have alliances with Israel, despite it being in their security interests to do so. Why not? Well, Constructivists would probably argue that, for many of those countries (or really, the elites therein), part of their identity as good Muslims requires them to stand up for the Palestinians. That focus on how norms and identities shape state interests is one of the ways that Constructivism is valuable.
Gdanning
2yr ago
I'm glad we agree; I inferred that you were making a broader statement because you said, "I wonder if there's an active campaign against beauty itself." Which is the usual claim on here of people who are criticizing wokeness, etc, rather than the lack of imagination of their local building dept.
Wouldn't use of Bitcoin or the like prevent that?
BTW, re the cop, it does appear that his offense was using department email to make the donation. As I have mentioned elsewhere, unfortunately the case law on free speech rights of public employees while on duty is very bad.
More options
Context Copy link