The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
No bio...
User ID: 174
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
4hr ago
Cultured meat has been a staple of the tech-futurist utopian memeplex for years, if not decades.
And a staple of SF for longer than that... but in many SF settings, the vat-grown stuff is considered inferior.
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
13hr ago
we're kind of fucked if we don't resolve the sex war.
Well, not fucked, really.
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
13hr ago
You can poke fun at women two, though it's different kinds of jokes.
Not if there are any around.
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
1d ago
I'm definitely a misanthrope. But the question (and my answer) is kind of silly, IMO. It's a forest; in many such bears are kind of expected. Being "stuck in a forest with a bear" is just being "stuck in a forest".
But also you don't have to be a misanthrope to not want to have to hear people-noises when you're hiking in the woods.
None of that is the actual rule. This is the actual rule:
If a recipient adopts or applies sex-related criteria that would limit or deny a student's eligibility to participate on a male or female team consistent with their gender identity, such criteria must, for each sport, level of competition, and grade or education level: (i) be substantially related to the achievement of an important educational objective, and (ii) minimize harms to students whose opportunity to participate on a male or female team consistent with their gender identity would be limited or denied.
ETA: The Supreme Court (and lower courts) should look at this, look at Title IX, note there's nothing in Title IX about gender identity, and throw out this regulation as lacking statutory basis. But they won't; they'll save it with deference if nothing else.
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
1d ago
That's why I'd choose "bear". If I'm out in the woods I don't want to hear someone yapping away, or worse playing music through speakers or overly-loud headphones.
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
2d ago
There was a lot of grumbling about Title IX before that, mostly about how it either hurt men's sports programs (because if they couldn't get enough women in the women's programs, the men's programs had to be cut) or how it resulted in lavishing money on tiny women's sports programs. But I don't think it was considered fundamentally illegitimate (as opposed to wrong-headed) until the Dear Colleague letters.
The operative part of Title IX is
No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.
It is possible, though unlikely, that the Supreme Court will find that a large part of the enormous edifice of regulation hung off of this simple statement is a violation of the major questions doctrine. It is more likely that specific regulations will be struck down as having no statutory basis. But if the regulations are upheld, there's no way nullification will be accepted.
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
2d ago
He was right about Democrats aRe the Real Racists; the problem with DR3 isn't that it's wrong but that it's useless. He was wrong about everyone on the right whose tactics or beliefs he disliked actually being a progressive leftist, even if he got a few right merely by coincidence.
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
5d ago
Yep. When push comes to shove, most American Jews will prefer siding with Hamas over siding with Republicans. They'll try to win the fight for the left, but they won't defect to the right.
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
5d ago
The protests are neither (at least not predominantly) antisemitic nor a resurgence of 20th century antisemitism.
Which is why the protesters wave the flag of Hamas and chant about how Jews should go back to Poland.
The fact that there are foolish Jews who cleave to their enemies does not change this.
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
3d ago
You know how I said this is all planned? This is all planned. The actual students ("useful idiots" in Cold War parlance) are just being used (with the connivance of the media) to put a sympathetic face on a movement run by well-funded professional protestors.
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
8d ago
Robinson should just be overturned in its entirety, sidestepping all this. The Cruel and Unusual Punishment clause is about the penalties which can be imposed for lawbreaking, not about the actions which can be forbidden. There's nothing about status or conduct in there. But the court is too conservative to overturn bad non-conservative precedent (except on abortion)
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
5d ago
The normative "peace protestor" wasn't pledging allegiance to the USSR, but they were doing the Soviet's bidding just the same. Different players, same playbook.
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
5d ago
Some instances (almost always of non-affiliated / non-students outside of campus grounds) do not allow you to impugn a whole protest movement.
I can certainly impugn the whole protest movement, since it is a whole.
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
6d ago
Thiel was indeed a lone wolf. A very big lone wolf, though.
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
7d ago
The courts will allow the law to be hacked like a computer if they're sympathetic to the position of the hacker.
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
9d ago
You don't see the monkey's paw in your proposal? You now have divided the country, 1984 style, into the criminals, the proles -- the people living on these reservations -- the Outer Party (the people living in the regular part of the country), and the Inner Party (the people who decide who goes where). Life in the regular part of country becomes extremely regimented, with everyone constantly in fear of being sent to the reservation for the most minor (or imagined) of offenses if they happen to get on the wrong side of the Inner Party.
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
10d ago
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
7d ago
Because the people who would have to do this are believers in the institutions, even when they go against them. You see that with gun control, where the gun grabbers do NOT respect the Supreme Court. You saw it a bit with abortion, especially toward the end of Roe v. Wade. But you won't see it here.
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
8d ago
That is exactly what municipalities wish they could do. "Just tell us what laws we are allowed to write that allow us to clean up our streets?!"
In this case, the intended rule is "You can't clean up your streets AT ALL until you solve the homeless problem in a particular way -- that is, provide shelter to all of them at public expense".
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
10d ago
The term often used is "demonstration" rather than "protest". This is because by existing, these "demonstrations" demonstrate the power of those running them, and thereby convince all involved they'd better get in line.
If they don't actually have that power, sure, they get pushed out of the way and they lose. But anyone messing with these "protestors" will certainly receive the full force of the law, while the "protestors" will be handled with kid gloves, so it is clear they do have the power.
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
8d ago
Why do you think it’s misplaced sympathy and not, I dunno, doing their jobs?
From ScotusBlog:
But Justice Brett Kavanaugh was at least initially dubious that reversing the 9th Circuit’s decision and allowing the city to enforce its ordinances would make a difference in addressing the homelessness problem. How would your rule help, he asked Evangelis, if there are not enough beds for people experiencing homelessness? Kavanaugh returned to this point a few minutes later, asking Evangelis how sending people to jail for violating the city’s ordinances would help to address the homelessness problem if there are still no beds available when they get out. Such individuals, he observed, are “not going to be any better off than you were before.”
This is not the issue at all! The questions contain within them the implication that the laws have to make the homeless people better off. And thus the implication that somehow the Constitution protects the interests of the homeless over and above the other people who want to use the parks and public spaces that the law actually is in the interests of. This is just sympathy for the wretched, not "doing their jobs".
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
13d ago
The legislature can't run back into session every time someone comes up with a new medical procedure to make sure that you need a license to do it.
Yes they can. Because "you may do nothing without a license unless we specifically say so" is not the law.
Except that it steals a march on those who would ban the real animal stuff in favor of it.
More options
Context Copy link