Gdanning
11mo 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.
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
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
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
7mo 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?
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
10mo ago
How can so many people be publishing stuff with this quote in it, and none of them paused long enough to check their source?
When I search on Google Scholar for that quote, I find only the source you link. Ditto when I search for the two phrases, “all education is political” “teaching is never a neutral act”. So, basically no one is publishing that quote. What people ARE doing is paraphrasing Freire as saying that all education is political and that education is never neutral. Which, as you note, is an accurate paraphrase of his claims. (This master's thesis, which might or might not quote accurately, attributes the following quote to Freire's Pedagogy of Freedom)
Education as a specifically human action has a “directive” vocation, that is, it addresses itself to dreams, ideals, utopias, objectives, to what I have been calling the “political” nature of education. In other words, the quality of being political is inherent in its essence. In fact, neutrality in education is impossible. Not impossible because irresponsible or subversive teachers so determined or because some teacher or another decided so.
Gdanning
11mo ago
So would you agree that blackface is not "anti-black" per se?
Yes. The traditional minstrel shows, as I understand it, depicted black people as stupid or foolish etc. But I don't know that that is true of Al Jolson in The Jazz Singer (though I have never seen the whole movie, so I might be mistaken). Nor it is true of 99% of people who dress in "blackface" nowadays, to play homage to Michael Jackson or whomever.
criticizing Catholic doctrines of homosexuality sounds paradigmatically "anti-Catholic" to me. Pushing back on political efforts by the Catholic church seems "anti-Catholic," especially given the Church's long political history.
Then, you really do have an odd definition of "anti-Catholic." The Mormon Church used to teach that blacks were the cursed descendants of Cain and/or Ham; were those who criticized those doctrines therefore "anti-Mormon"? I don't see how.
Catholics, maybe, but Catholicism? This seems like splitting hairs incredibly fine
Isn't that exactly what Martin Luther did? He criticized the Church, but not the religion.
"You can keep your Catholicism, we're just going to level your Church, caricature your symbols, mock your practices--no, we're not anti-Catholic per se, don't be ridiculous!" That seems implausible to me.
I can see how one might assume that initially. But, if one looked at the website of the organization in question, and saw zero references to Catholicism there, I would think that one would update one's beliefs.
Gdanning
7mo 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
9mo 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.
Gdanning
10mo 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
10mo 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
11mo 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
5mo 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
6mo 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
9mo 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
9mo 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.
Maybe ask these guys?
More options
Context Copy link