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.
Gdanning
1yr ago
The idea someone with less than full locked-in syndrome should get medically assisted suicide is not only insane… its aesthetically revolting.
Hm, what about the aesthetics of going out one's way to write a lengthy disquisition piling on people who are so unhappy or mentally ill that they choose suicide, and doing so solely in regard to the manner of their suicide, as opposed to the fact thereof?
It's notable here that the members were arrested on their way to protest, they did not even have the opportunity to leave the vehicle.
I am not familiar with the specifics of this case, but it is important to note that this is NOT notable. in Idaho, as is the norm:
"[A] conspiracy is established upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt that there is an agreement between two or more individuals to accomplish an illegal objective, coupled with one or more overt acts in the furtherance of the illegal purpose. . . ." State v. Smith, 161 Idaho 782, 787, 391 P.3d 1252, 1257 (2017) (alteration in original) (quoting State v. Garcia, 102 Idaho 378, 384, 630 P.2d 665, 671 (1981)), reh'g denied (Apr. 20, 2017). Thus, an overt act must be (1) committed by one of the coconspirators (i.e., someone who is a party to the agreement) and (2) the act must be done in furtherance of the illegal purpose.
State v. Medina, 447 P. 3d 949 (Idaho: Supreme Court 2019).
Hence, IF they agreed to riot, then the crime was complete the moment that anyone committed an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy. That includes acquiring weapons, or a car, or many other acts. See State v. Averett, 136 P. 3d 350 (Idaho Court of Appeals 2006) ["In State v. Brown, 113 Idaho 480, 745 P.2d 1101 (Ct.App.1987), this Court stated that, "the overt act requirement is satisfied by slight evidence," and that the "act in furtherance of the conspiracy need not itself be criminal." Brown, 113 Idaho at 493, 745 P.2d at 1114. It is not required that there be a direct connection between the overt act of legally purchasing items used in the manufacture of methamphetamine and the criminal act of producing methamphetamine. The legal act of purchasing items necessary for the manufacture of the methamphetamine is sufficient to establish an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy."].
Hence, it does matter that, as you note, "it is not illegal to have a shield."
"We're coming for your children" is saying something very real . . . the statement means they intend to influence the perception of children towards the LGBT movement in defiance of their opposition.
Which, unlike child molestation, is a perfectly legitimate goal in a democratic society. Just as those who lobby for or against teaching all sorts of things do all the time.
Also, if your nanny is not familiar with the saying, "you can't judge a book by its cover," or is too lazy to leaf through a book for toddlers, you need a new nanny. And some people want their kids to read those books. That is why the library carries a variety of books, some of which appeal to some people and some of which appeal to others.
In 1995 a hearing on terrorism after the Oklahoma City bombing, Feinstein recounted how, in the 1970s, she was the target of the New World Liberation Front which first attempted to blow up her home. After the bomb failed to detonate, Feinstein explained, she decided to arm herself.
Gdanning
11mo ago
Hm. In the 11 years I have lived in NYC, I have taken the subway every day, except during the early days of COVID, but I can't recall every being being harassed or verbally threatened by homeless people. Nor do I recall friends complaining about it. I have certainly had my senses assaulted by smelly homeless guys once in a while, but that's it.
Gdanning
1yr ago
halting drag activities in children's spaces is trans genocide for both sides
Drag =/= transgender. Not even close.
Gdanning
1yr ago
The quality of discourse here is . . . usually . . . of the kind that “high brow” (by internet standards) websites THINK they are having
No, it really, really isn't. The quality of the discourse here is incredibly shoddy. It is 95% as if Ibram Kendi were debating Ben Shapiro.
Gdanning
1yr ago
So, when Group A files a lawsuit and reaches a settlement, some other group which has not filed a lawsuit has somehow been treated unjustly? Perhaps you should wait until Group B files a lawsuit and we see what happens, before you get all outraged.
Gdanning
1yr ago
but one of the most distinct aspects of our current polarization is how the dominant tribe justifies its antipathy towards the opposing tribe by accusing it of bigotry. Dehumanization isn't unusual, but dehumanizing people by accusing them of dehumanization seems novel.
I don't know why you are conflating calling someone a bigot is the same as dehumanizing them. Archie Bunker was depicted as a bigot, but he was not dehumanized. Dehumanization is something quite different.
Gdanning
1yr ago
I'm curious why you describe the idea of utopia depicted in the poster as "ugly." The poster itself is not aesthetically pleasing -- the color scheme is pretty awful -- but is the scene it depicts any uglier than, say, this one?
I also don't get your claim that "Liberals at the moment seem very bad at articulating what kind of a world they want to create" -- doesn’t the poster do just that? It apparently does clearly enough for you to opine that said world is "ugly."
Gdanning
5mo ago
Sounds like it's required if the state deems it so for your case
Yes, that was my point. "For your case," not in every case, as you seemed to claim. And, honestly, would you have written if she had had one of the other conditions listed on that web page, such as narcolepsy, or epilepsy, or a heart condition which can cause fainting? Isn't the issue the degree to which her particular condition increases the risks of causing an accident, which at this point we don't know?
Gdanning
5mo ago
While I agree with the Rittenhouse verdict, the comparison doesn't work. Rittenhouse intentionally killed two people; when someone does that in circumstances other than those where self-defense is completely obvious (eg, defense of home), of course he is going to be arrested. In contrast, here there is no evidence that the killing was intentional. Moreover, the police had probable cause at the time to think that the Rittenhouse murders were premeditated.
Gdanning
9mo ago
Criticism of the movie itself is weak, with the arguments boiling down to "it's not realistic" and "the plot doesn't always make sense", things that could be leveled at any summer blockbuster.
Yes, and those exact criticisms ARE levied by critics at summer blockbusters, all the time. I see that the film has a 74% critics rating on Rotten Tomatoes, which is the same as Elemental and Asteroid City, and better than the Little Mermaid, Indiana Jones and Fast X. Are you sure there is a culture war angle here?
Gdanning
1yr ago
How is that relevant to my point, which is that claiming that someone is a bigot is not the same as dehumanizing them?
Gdanning
1yr ago
White Woman + Latino Man = 1 Asian Child, 1 Black Child and 1 tan baby.
The first two children are apparently adopted.
We didn't set out for books with overt propaganda.
Surely if that is an example of propaganda, it is covert, rather than overt. For example, I am guessing that many people do not think it is sending the message that you think it is sending.
Gdanning
1yr ago
First, it was hardly "one lie."
Second, why does it matter whether someone becomes top 1% rich, if that is in fact fair compensation for what they suffered. There are plenty of people, after all, who would refuse any amount of money to be subjected to what some of those parents were subjected to. Either the monetary compensation was commensurate with their damages, or it was not. Whether it puts them in the top 1% or 10% or 0.001% is not relevant.
Finally, everyone seems to be forgetting that Jones presumably profited from telling those lies -- that is, after all, why he said them. At the very least, a tortfeasor who profits from his tort should be forced to disgorge those profits, which in this case might well exceed $10 million.
Gdanning
1yr ago
Really? People will feel disgust at encountering a disabled person? Not empathy?
You of course, are not the OP, but it seems to me that the Green position on these matters is that disabled people, nor any of those other types of people, are not inherently ugly. So, if that is the basis of the claim that the scene depicted is ugly, then that answers my question: That calling the scene "ugly" is just another way of saying "I disagree with the political positions espoused." Which is fine; like I said, I thought the OP was making a different type of claim.
Gdanning
1yr ago
Really? The woman with pink hair is not obese. Nor the woman in the wheelchair. Nor the two people making out. Nor the guy talking on his cell phone. Nor anyone on the balconies, other than maybe the exercising woman. In fact, there is almost no one in the pic whom I would call particularly obese.
Re the demographics of the pic, that is a different question than re whether the scene is ugly. And someone else noted that this was displayed in a particular area, the demographics of which might be different
Gdanning
4mo ago
Right, 116-132.
Nevertheless, your implication that the Court gave short shrift to the First Amendment issue is, again, disingenuous.
Why is the citation to Schenck a low point? It is cited only for the principle of "the importance of context in holding that “the character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done.” They didn't cite it for its holding. Courts do that all the time; hence the common explanatory note, "overruled on other grounds."
To be clear, I am extremely skeptical that Trump's speech was not protected under the First Amendment, because incitement is a very narrow exception (though I note that none of the dissenters raised that issue, unless I missed it). But your criticisms of the Colorado court's First Amendment analysis are completely unconvincing.
Gdanning
4mo ago
Did the Colorado Supreme Court provide a more serious and deep analysis of the First Amendment jurisprudence, at least? "The district court also credited the testimony of Professor Peter Simi, a professor of sociology at Chapman University ...
The Court's discussion of the First Amendment issue runs from page 16 to page 32 of the opinion. I don’t know if that analysis is correct, but it is disingenuous to imply, as you do, that it nothing more than a citatiin to the testimony of a single witness.
Gdanning
6mo ago
Surely what makes it boo outgroup is the failure to contemplate the possibility that said outgroup might have legitimate reasons for doing what they did. Not to mention that the claim is a caricature of the outgroup's actual stance, since rather obviously the two black women appointed so far have had all the conventional qualifications for the jobs at issue. And, of course, a non-boo outgroup approach might consider that taking representation into account when appointing someone to a representative body does not seem to be unreasonable on its face.
I also don't see how this kind of settlement - available only to failed candidates based on their race - can satisfy an Equal Protection standard. Won't failed white candidates have a discrimination claim?
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?
Events like this feel deeply unfair - why work your whole life if you can get paid to not work?
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:
But I wonder whether NYC politicians (or bureaucrats) failed to mount a vigorous legal defense out of ideological sympathy for the plaintiffs.
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.
It's possible that NYC got spooked by recent high-profile discrimination lawsuit outcomes (jury verdict against Equinox here, settlement with Fox News here).
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?
Maybe ask these guys?
More options
Context Copy link