Gdanning
10mo ago
About? At all? Yes. But anti? No, not per se. There are a thousand reasons to dress in drag as a nun other than being anti-Catholic. To criticize certain Catholic doctrines re homosexuality. To push back on political efforts by organized religion (a big deal in 1979). Or just to be ironic, given that nuns are meant to be chaste.
And, btw, one can criticize the Catholic Church (an enormously powerful institution) without criticizing either Catholics or Catholicism.
Gdanning
10mo ago
You are correct that I did not see the gap. But, is the video actually about the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence? I think I see one "nun" in the background watching but I don't see any participating in the performance. And 2) what exactly is anti-Catholic about sexualizing Jesus? If I said, "I want to fuck Jesus," I am sure that some Catholics would be offended. But how is that statement anti-Catholic? As opposed to expressing an idea that disagrees with Catholic doctrine?
Gdanning
10mo ago
Where is your evidence that they are anti-Catholic? You linked to their website, but there is nothing there about Catholicism at all. That is in marked contrast to the websites of actually anti-Catholic groups.
Gdanning
9mo ago
I don’t have an opinion on that, because I try not to make generalizations based on n=2. And, given that Scientology is a religion, whereas QAnon is a political organization, I would certainly want to control for that. I would also want to control for the fact that QAnon has very much been in the news of late, whereas Scientology has not.
Gdanning
10mo ago
if so, so what? How does "mocking" an idea somehow become more "anti-Catholic" than criticizing it? And, tell me, what exactly does "anti-Catholic" mean? Surely, if it is objectionable, then it must mean something more than mocking ideas; it must mean saying something negative about people. That is what anti-Semitism is, right? It is not simply a statement that certain doctrines of Judaism are wrong; it is a statement that something is wrong with Jewish people. Ditto re racist statements, and homophobic statements, and sexist statements, etc.
There was no evidence presented that they planned to riot
So, you have read the trial transcript? Can you provide a link?
A jury can get things wrong,
Yes, but a jury that has seen all the evidence is much more likely to be right than some guy on the internet who hasn't, especially when that person has an obvious bias.
Gdanning
8mo ago
I know exactly what PF was going to do when they got to the event.
No, you believe that. You don't know it. Note that the jury, which actually heard the evidence, found beyond a reasonable doubt that you are wrong. Perhaps a little humility is in order.
Gdanning
10mo ago
what exactly does a white person owe a state that actively discriminates against them?
Maybe ask these guys?
Gdanning
8mo ago
You made a claim that the convictions are legally dubious. You based that on ostensibly "notable" evidence which is in actuality legally irrelevant.
an alternative universe where they did arrive at the park and marched as they had planned to and exactly in the manner they have been documented to march in every single other case, it would have been harder to allege a conspiracy to riot.
This amounts to a claim that, when police have evidence that people are conspiring to commit a crime, they must wait for them to actually commit the crime before arresting them, in case the police are mistaken. Have you ever advocated that in any other context, in which members of your team were not the ones being arrested?
Gdanning
10mo ago
Yes, it is clear that they are referring to Catholic nuns. No one disputes that. But, contrary to your claim, evidence of malice is missing.
And your hypothetical does not work, because the picture you describe seems to advocate for the destruction of LGBTQ people or organizations (I have no idea what it means to be malicious "against a theme."). Were there evidence of the group advocating the destruction of Catholicism, or taxing churches, or telling people not to send their kids to Catholic schools, or even complaining about ostensibly homophobic Church teachings, you might have a case. But I don't see any such evidence.
Gdanning
3mo ago
I didn’t say anyone is "bad." I was describing their possible motivations, not their moral value as people. For example, Trump was right to say that there were "very fine people on both sides" at Charlottesville; in fact, the vast majority were probably perfectly fine people. Even James Fields's actions were perfectly understandable, even if they were morally wrong. I have known of ]gang members who have done terrible things, but who are not terrible people](https://oaklandvoices.us/tag/lam-vo/page/2/). Whether a person's actions are wrong does not mean that the person is a "bad person," and indeed with some exceptions, claims about the moral worth of individuals are meaningless, at best.
If you are doing worse, then you seem to be in the minority. And see here
Perhaps your personal situation is not representative of the norm, and that the cited data, rather than being "statistical bullshit," more accurately describes the norm than does your anecdote.
Gdanning
1yr ago
If Chansley was indeed violent
Violence is not an element of the crime Chansley pleaded guilty to, obstruction of an official proceeding. So it is irrelevant whether he was violent.
Gdanning
1yr ago
The scale of the punishment had exactly zero to do with his failure to comply with discovery. That failure resulted in a default judgment on the issue of liability alone.
The scale of the harm is not greater here. The parents were subjected to years of egregious harassment. In contrast, the CHOP was in existence for less than a month.
Gdanning
9mo ago
QAnon being in the news of late is very much a function of who makes the news, and this is largely the same cohort that writes movie reviews for major publications
That's the point. QAnon is the flavor of the month, so a filmmaker's association with QAnon is more likely to be mentioned. Scientology is yesterday's news, the legal travails of a has-been actor notwithstanding, so a filmmaker's association with Scientology is less likely to be mentioned. This is not a new phenomenon.
in fact several governments have refused to consider it a religion, classifying it variously as a scam, a cult and even an organized criminal enterprise
- Not in the United States.
- Regardless of whether it is a cult, it is not a political organization. So, the whataboutism still doesn't work.
Gdanning
9mo ago
Perhaps there are 2 movies, but there are hundreds of critics to observe. n(umber of relevant entities) != 2. Yes, but I don't have that evidence. At best, I have the claim of some guy on the internet re what the evidence shows.
Oh well obviously one actor has politics they disagree with, so we should definitely control for that before determining whether critics care about actors' political opinions."
But, again, the example you raised -- Tom Cruise -- is about religious belief, not political beliefs. So, you seem to be saying that that example is not germane.Which I agree is the case.
Gdanning
10mo ago
Well, if you can't understand the difference between an empirical claim about a general phenomenon and and empirical claim about a specific phenomenon, then I can't help you.
But to be more explicit, your post seems to me to be little more than "boo outgroup", and 1) your evidence that your outgroup is doing what you claim is incredibly weak; and 2) you have no evidence that what that handful of outgroup members has done is unique to your outgroup, so, yes, who cares?
And to be completely clear, those who cite Freire seem to me to almost always be full of shit. Especially some former colleagues of mine who literally argued that the fact that "teaching is inevitably political" gave them license to push their political views in class, when of course it actually means that they had a responsibility to present students with views they disagreed with.
Gdanning
5mo ago
OP claimed that she was allowed to carry a gun because she was "important", but in fact it is because she faced an unusual threat.
Gdanning
8mo ago
I don’t understand why you think references to buildings designed from the 1950s to 1974 refutes the claim that brutalism has not been in vogue for 40 years.
Gdanning
8mo ago
Dude, modernism predates Brutalism. The point is not that contemporary architecture is beautiful, nor that is ugly. It is that if you are going to criticize contemporary architecture, then it helps to come across as knowing what you are talking about. Take a look at the newest buildings built in NYC, for example. How many are brutalist?
Gdanning
10mo ago
So, when instead of searching on Google Scholar I instead search for the exact quote in regular old google, I get 19 hits, one of which is you. When I search for “all education is political" "teaching is never a neutral act” freire, I get 91 hits, including you. That is pretty much "basically no one." As others have noted, you are complaining about lazy quotations, an unfortunately very common phenomenon, but one which in this case at least has the merit of accurately representing the views of the cited author.
Gdanning
10mo ago
megacucks
I know it is probably a waste of time to engage with someone who uses such terms, but I would like to suggest the possibility that real men undertake the hard work of trying to get those with power to live up to their ideals. It is children who respond by running away, be it to China or elsewhere, or who take the easy road of engaging in violence. Martin Luther King was a man; Huey Newton was a child. And, not uncoincidentally, King was highly effective, while Newton was counterproductive.
For example, certain protestors without authorization got into private areas for senators to protest Kavanaugh.
I am not familiar with those specific people. Did they do so with the intent to disrupt an official proceeding? And, apparently 300 people were arrested at some point. Not sure if they are the ones you are referring to.
Moreover the elements of the crime require that it be unauthorized
Where do you see that? The statute reads:
(c)Whoever corruptly—
(1)alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or
(2)otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.
I think you might be thinking of another charge such as entering or remaining in a restricted building
This is at least a mitigating factor.
Well, he did get the low end of the sentencing range. And, besides, the final offense level it calculated after mitigating and aggravating circumstances are added. Eg: According to the plea agreement, his agreed-upon offense level was reduced for acceptance of responsibility
Gdanning
1yr ago
Yes, I suppose I misspoke slightly; Stop WOKE does not not technically require teachers to assign readings from both sides. Nevertheless, under the course description, teachers are free to do so, and are certainly free to teach the course in an objective manner. That is the main point: Florida seems to be claiming otherwise, which is incorrect.
A recommended text for "The Reparations Movement" is Coates' "The Case For Reparations".
The point is that it is a recommended text, not a required text, as Florida implies.
((And in practice, there's a complex auditing system that goes on, here; I think you're vastly overstating the degrees of freedom a state has to modify the syllabi.))
Yes, I have gone through the AP course audit. But, like many people here (as well as the Florida DOE), you are conflating the course description with the curriculum or the syllabus. Teachers are not free to modify** the course description** -- for example, they generally cannot teach units that are not included in the official description. But, they are free to develop their own syllabus: There is no official syllabus, and the course audit to which you refer is a review of each teacher's syllabus.
It's physically possible to discuss the material without endorsing it (although whether such discussion would prepare students for an AP exam...), but do you really expect the average classroom to manage it?
Yes! By assigning readings on both sides.
I would guess that most of the people complaining are more concerned about who he was running against. And for some of those people, more specifically the race of that person.
More options
Context Copy link