MelodicAthlete
No bio...
User ID: 1861
MelodicAthlete
10mo ago
Doesn't this ruling mean that White/Asian applicants have a pretty good shot at suing and winning a discrimination lawsuit against a University implementing such a system?
A University needs to get the message to dozens of employees in the applications office but somehow not have any emails/text messages that could come up in discovery.
MelodicAthlete
10mo ago
Obviously universities will look to get around this, but I don't see a "poison pill" here:
Roberts: "But, despite the dissent's assertion to the contrary, universities may not simply establish through application essays or other means the regime we hold unlawful today."
Doesn't this leave universities open to lawsuits if they attempt to racially balance? The 14th amendment has a strict scrutiny standard.
MelodicAthlete
10mo ago
You're not going to see me defend Clinton's server, clearly it was wiped to preclude any further evidence gathering. The FBI should have simply seized the server, not asked her politely to hand over hand-picked "relevant" emails and then allow her to erase it. But she complied with that very lax standard. Also her apparent motive (FOIA noncompliance, mixing government work with business) is worse than Trump's, which is purely his ego.
If Trump had complied by handing over the physical documents when asked, I doubt he would have been prosecuted. His defiance and his stupidity are major factors here, he admits to committing a crime on tape, which makes it so easy to prove in court.
MelodicAthlete
10mo ago
Correct. Clinton clearly set up her server to evade FOIA and got kid gloves treatment from the FBI. But she at least played along with the investigation a little bit and could feign some ignorance. Trump was brazenly defiant and they literally have a recording of him breaking the law. All he had to be was 10% less stupid but he couldn't pull that off.
MelodicAthlete
10mo ago
Two things can be true at once:
-
Democrats, Establishment media and the USG bureaucracy hate Trump. They have put a lot of thin gruel in front of the public for 7 years, with 3 years of breathless Russiagate coverage and a sham impeachement over Ukraine. Conservatives rightly became desensitized about the boy who cried wolf.
-
Trump legitimately does reckless things in pursuit of his ego.
As someone who resented the media/natsec agencies for (1), I really don't see how anyone can defend what Trump did with the documents scandal. He is literally on tape talking about sensitive national security documents with a journalist while admitting it's not declassified. As much as the establishment is after him, I think no former President would have gotten away with taking natsec related documents and then refusing to turn them over.
MelodicAthlete
11mo ago
A guy goes to the bar to get a bud light. Hipster guy says "Bud Light? chuckles". Cool trans/lesbian/NB person comes up and orders a Bud Light. Or rolls their eyes at the hipster guy from across the bar while drinking one. It includes the people you want to include and attempts to manufacture some alliance between red america and trans. Something like that is "inclusive" while complimenting your current audience's good taste in the face of insufferable craft beer drinkers (of which I am one).
MelodicAthlete
11mo ago
Does she look like she's ever drunk a beer for fun, instead of standing around giving lectures on feminism while everyone else was trying to have a party?
Much of the appeal of her Comedy Central show Broad City was Ilana being half naked and partying a lot. Not sure how much was a completely fabricated character, but if it's based partially on her then she was probably pretty fun to be around in her college days.
MelodicAthlete
11mo ago
Light beer seems like the type of product that you would never switch once you've made a choice. Once you pick Bud Light in your early 20s, you just stick with it for the rest of your life. So it's a choice that people rarely re-examine and the brand benefits a lot from inertia. I don't think conservatives are going to be upset forever about Bud Light, but getting them to switch back seems like it will be an uphill battle.
MelodicAthlete
11mo ago
I can't claim to know a lot about marketing, but I don't know how this campaign got out of the gates:
-The word "Shit" is spoken a dozen times in their beverage ad and "Shit" is printed on their product. If your ad campaign works, people associate Miller with "Good Shit". Like I took a good shit this morning.
-Mud wrestling ads from 2003 are not on the forefront of anybody's mind in 2023. Nobody associates Miller with those long forgotten about ads. Nobody except for the all female marketing team responsible for the ad, who apparently were looking over old ads and posters and took them personally.
-Like Bud Light's marketing executive, Miller is taking a swipe at their core demographic of straight guys. Why are companies hiring marketers who hate the consumers of their products? Do they think they can do a 1:1 trade for a cooler demo?
-Who is going to participate in this Stalinist campaign? Who still has Miller Lite bikini ads from the 90's and wants to destroy them so they can Stand With Women?
-Literally destroying beauty (blurred faces, turning into mulch) and using homely women to sell your product.
MelodicAthlete
1yr ago
The progressive goals of (1) Criminal Justice Reform - getting rid of three strikes laws, decriminalizing open drug use, light to nonexistent prosecution for being a public nuisance and (2) promoting public transit, seem to be in tension here. Riding the bus or subway would be more appealing to normal people if psychopaths who are prone to outbursts weren't "just a part of living in the city".
MelodicAthlete
1yr ago
The incentive structure is not the point. The point is that the person sending the tweet has a good heart.
MelodicAthlete
1yr ago
Yes and the Republicans just sat by and watched them fight. The inability to select a speaker is a different level of dysfunction compared to the inability to pass $4T in new spending (while inflation was picking up steam) requiring 100% yes on a pure party line vote.
MelodicAthlete
1yr ago
Democracy in Crisis just means progressives not getting what they want. But why would the Democrats want to stop this? It makes Republicans looks incompetent and signal boosts the embarrassing Gaetz wing of the party. Imagine The Squad pulling this against Pelosi in 2018. Republicans would just laugh.
You're correct that Emmett Till's murder had a significant impact on support for the Civil Rights movement and a 1-for-1 comparison to the Zebra killings isn't accurate. The Zebra killings did not have a historical impact of note. Likewise, it's still early, but George Floyd's murder doesn't seem to have had a long term impact on policy. We are probably experiencing some sort of Ferguson Effect with rising murders and de-policing right now, but that part will probably be short lived and will be forgotten in 20 years. In that sense, his murder is not historically significant.
You have mentioned that you're not making claims about media coverage as it relates to this topic, so feel free to ignore the rest of this. This is my primary issue (maybe not the OP's), and maybe we were talking past each other a bit.
Despite its apparent lack of historical significance, I don't think Floyd's name will disappear from mainstream media coverage in 25 years, but will be revived in mainstream press whenever useful. Similar to how Emmett Till's name appeared 0 times in NYT coverage in 1980, and 72 times in 2018. Perhaps I'm "poorly informed" that I had never heard of the Zebra killings (dozens killed). Like many, I typically rely on popular media, news media, and the education system to inform me of these stories. But I also have the feeling that if I ask 10 younger people close to me (many Californians), maybe 1 has heard of Zebra. This seems odd to me but fits a pattern of the media suddenly becoming uninterested in a mass shooting when the perpetrator's identity/motives are "off-narrative" (or being cagey with details, not publishing his picture). That was the "racial angle" I was referring to.
Thanks for the links.
MelodicAthlete
1yr ago
The story of 70+ people being murdered is of course going to circulate at the time it's happening and not be completely buried. The question is why is it considered literal bar trivia? As mentioned, many of us hadn't heard of the killings at all and have heard of many Dahmer-type serial killers. The obvious reason is the racial angle. Five Klan members killing 70+ black people in the 1970s would still be widely discussed today, but I'm not sure what could convince you of that.
I'm not suggesting a sensational Top Men coverup of the story. It's more mundane than that. People in media will highlight and dwell on stories that conform to their world view and forget or downplay those that counter their worldview.
MelodicAthlete
1yr ago
Looking over Mohamed Noor's spotty biography, he may have benefited from Affirmative Action by MPD (see: Psychiatric concerns). The Somali community is significant in Minneapolis and they are underrepresented in policing. "Noor had been lauded in the past by Minneapolis mayor Betsy Hodges and the local Somali community as one of the first Somali-American police officers in the area".
Perhaps a story about an incompetent jumpy cop shooting a woman who posed no threat could have been deemed Newsworthy and sparked a debate about Affirmative Action.
MelodicAthlete
1yr ago
Earlier you had suggested that the Zebra Killings are not discussed in media because they lack "historical" relevance rather than the story being memory-holed for uncomfortable political reasons. Modern political issues can be given "historical" salience if there is motivation to do so. Bizarro Right Wing-NYT: "Activists say black on white crime is rare, the grandchildren of Zebra Killings victims beg to differ" could be used to promote racial profiling. In this scenario, activists would have statistics on their side, but enough repetition leads to a distorted view of the world.
Emmitt Till is relevant because the story of his murder gets reinvigorated every time progressives want to push for Criminal Justice Reform or to tie it in with some tragic police shooting, giving the story narrative throughline. Between him and George Floyd, people mentally have an anchor when it comes to lynching and police brutality. Vivid stories of "black on white" violence exist but don't receive the same level of obsessive coverage because it would lead the general public to have more right wing views of policing/crime. I don't think obsessive coverage of "black on white" violence is good because it would enflame racial tensions and because they account for a relatively small number of crimes. However, you can't get mad a people noticing the double standards in coverage.
MelodicAthlete
1yr ago
I have never heard of the Zebra killings before now. I would have expected to hear of 70+ racially motivated serial murders in a "non-historical" manner the same way as I have heard about Dahmer, Ted Bundy, the Unabomber, etc. None of those serial killers had a historical impact that you could point to, yet they all have Netflix specials.
There are ways to shape this into a historical narrative (or counter-narrative):
Why did the public have a growing taste for Tough On Crime policies in the 1970-90s? Why did large swaths of the public support racial profiling or de-facto racial profiling (stop and frisk, etc.) where Civil Rights organizations did not (as documented in the Zebra wiki)? People trash Biden today for Crime Reform in the 90's (strict sentencing, "Superpredators", etc.), but crime was a top issue in politics in this era.
If the NYT (especially with their writers who are very skilled at crafting narratives) repeatedly reminded the public of the Zebra killings, it would be on everybody's mind every time the topic of racial profiling or Criminal Justice Reform came up. Instead it's just deemed "not relevant".
MelodicAthlete
1yr ago
If LibsOfTiktok had made a habit of publishing the home addresses of those involved in the drag event, then yes that would be a threat to the personal safety of those involved. As it stands, the standard that got LibsOfTikTok repeatedly suspended was resharing videos that people voluntarily posted. How you think this is the same standard is beyond me.
MelodicAthlete
1yr ago
Yeah they're everyone's corner case, as they should be. Someone who isn't partial to their own children is typically considered a lowlife (i.e. deadbeat dad, druggie mom). When discussing politics, people can be awfully bold when it comes to distant hypotheticals, but it just makes me distrust what they're saying. I just don't believe someone who has real life children would say something like that and mean it.
MelodicAthlete
1yr ago
Do you actually have children?
MelodicAthlete
1yr ago
The more I think about it, this is actually a great demonstration. Prior twitter management censored political speech surrounding various issues (COVID, trans issues). Current twitter management censors accounts that are threats to personal safety. Which one is gets criticized by the mainstream press?
MelodicAthlete
1yr ago
You seem to be shifting the goalposts here, your only point now is this very narrow one where he is throttling an account that can be reasonably perceived as a threat to his personal safety when he said he wouldn't do that earlier. You're not making any broader claim about how he is being a hypocrite about Free Speech? Because the context for why he criticized old twitter management was very different than doxxing/safety threats.
MelodicAthlete
1yr ago
The jet tracker seems like a security threat by making Elon's whereabouts at any time so easily known by a potential assailant. I'm sure a twitter account could be created that publishes public home ownership information that only tracks prominent journalists. They would be right to feel threatened by this account. Jet tracker and public homeownership information are publicly available but aren't exactly voluntarily given.
Trying to frame this as hypocrisy ("Oh so Mr Free Speech doesn't want crazy people to know where he is at all times?!?!") on the same level of censorship as banning Babylon Bee for misgendering Rachel Levine is eyerolling.
I don't think this is the case after today. Any lawsuit like this would get national attention and won't get quietly swept under the table. I know progressive judges can go off the rails sometimes, but it's still considered a mark against you if your rulings get overturned by a higher court.
More options
Context Copy link