domain:academic.oup.com
Amadan
"I would put a screwdriver through your eyeballs if I could"
6m ago
Like Superman, Captain America's political affiliation has (intentionally) never been specified. He's supposed to represent America, and being partisan would destroy his entire mythos. (There have been various stories in which both political parties try to get Cap, and Superman, to join their ticket, and they always refuse.)
Obviously, over the years some writers have put their own political sentiments in the mouths of the heroes they're writing, but generally it's understood that flagship characters are not supposed to be Republican or Democrat.
atelier
Jimmys: unrustled
7m ago
Better Call Saul had some of the best cinematography I've ever seen on a TV set. The way they used visual cues to tell the story was almost unmatched.
zeke5123a
13m ago
Yeah I think that is right. Biden campaigned on “the adults are back in charge.” He then had a Saigon moment shattering the idea the adults are in charge.
If it was just Afghanistan, he’d be fine. But it opened him to criticism and he has continued to step into it.
Harlequin5942
17m ago
whereas in Russia the defining feature of Nazis is their hatred of and desire to displace and kill Slavs (and Russians in particular as the leading Slavic people),
As it happens, the Slavs were categorised by the Nazis as an Aryan race until 1939, after the conquest of Poland.
theCircusWeakman
24m ago
I think I share that hope/cope. IMO, partisan hacks just aren't going to leave a lasting impression on the judicial culture. Whereas Justices who focus on principled outcomes, like Scalia with his textualist approach, have an undeniable impact (Kagan famously said "We're all textualists now," which has not proved as true as I could wish, but the trend does seem to be in that direction--at least, very few opinions on either side of the Court in recent years have been as nakedly outcome-oriented and political as the decisions of e.g. the Warren court).
Bin Laden got his start in the mujahideen in Afghanistan, fighting the Soviets, supported and trained by the US.
(1) I specifically said Al-Qaeda, because the original claim was about groups, not individuals. For the specific claim I made: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_CIA_assistance_to_Osama_bin_Laden
Bin Laden was able to get Al-Qaeda going with his own money.
That bin Laden was a CIA proxy turned rogue makes for a great story and many people find it "too good not to be true". It supports non-interventionist ideologies, especially those who have never forgiven the US and the mujahideen for defeating the Soviets. The only problem is that it is not true, unless the CIA is far better at covering its tracks than we know. The suggestion in your comment (which may just be amphiboly) that he was trained by the US is a new one to me, though. I suppose it makes the story even better?
You could say that Al-Qaeda benefited INDIRECTLY from US aid to the mujahideen, but that's a clear motte-and-bailey. The original claim was (sarcastically) "we've never given weapons to some indigenous radical group because they were fighting the Russians, only to have them turn on us once that war was over!"
(2) "Didn't the Taliban get significant support from the US as well?"
You mean the organisation founded two years after the war with the Soviet-backed government ended? No.
However, someone could argue that the Taliban was the successor group of some mujahideen (specifically Pashtun ones around Kandahar) who had US support during the war, so I deliberately focused the discussion on Al-Qaeda, who seem to have undertaken 9/11 independently of the Taliban. Bin Laden claimed that Al-Qaeda was operating independently of the Taliban in the 9/11 attacks. He also did not attribute responsibility to the Taliban in tapes discovered in Afghanistan that (apparently) recorded bin Laden talking candidly. This was prior to his later (2004) admission of responsibility for the attack.
Indeed, the Taliban condemned the attack and were open (officially) to extraditing bin Laden to an Islamic country, if the US presented evidence. Of course, this offer was probably bullshit, and the US was justified in attacking the Taliban. However, the point is that 9/11 was not blowback for supporting a side in Afghanistan. If anything, it was the failure by the Bush I and Clinton administrations to support the establishment of a non-Taliban government in the mid-1990s that led to Afghanistan becoming a safe haven for bin Laden.
theCircusWeakman
32m ago
I think so too. Textualists are supposed to care about the meaning of the statutory language, without worrying too much about "legislative intent." But Gorsuch, sometimes, takes this principal so far that he seems to enjoy finding a perversely-literal interpretation of a statute which everyone agrees the legislature could not have intended. Bostock is the clearest example IMO: according to Gorsuch, the Civil Rights Act's prohibition of sex discrimination also unambiguously prohibits employers from discriminating against homosexual and transgender employees (of both sexes), despite the fact that (in the words of Judge Posner) "the Congress that enacted [the Act] would not have accepted" that interpretation. In fact, Congress had already considered and rejected a proposed amendment to the Civil Rights Act that would have extended its protection to "sexual orientation and gender identity," and (Alito points out in dissent) "until 2017, every single Court of Appeals to consider the question" rejected Gorsuch's reading of the text. According to Gorsuch, treating men and women equally is not important; the Civil Rights Act apparently requires men and women to be treated exactly the same, to the point that you can't fire a male employee for wearing womens' clothing (it's important to note that Gorsuch's reasoning here would apply to all male employees, regardless of their "gender identity."). So, can an employer take action against a male employee--who identifies as a man--who insists on using the women's bathroom? Wouldn't firing that employee be motivated, in part, by the employee's sex, according to Gorsuch's rule? Yet Gorsuch refuses to engage with this inescapable extension of his reasoning, lamely announcing that those cases "are not before us ... we do not purport to address bathrooms, locker rooms, or anything else of the kind."
So Gorsuch, one of the more reliable conservative votes, has on at least one occasion handed a huge culture war victory to the left because (in my uncharitable opinion) he thought it would be impressive to discover a "counterintuitive" reading of the statute. The reason Congress and all those appellate courts didn't interpret the statute the same way is that they just weren't smart enough to find the "unambiguous" meaning of Title VII, unlike the eagle-eyed textualist Gorsuch. Then he refuses to even consider the obvious import of his holding on nearly-identical culture war issues, like sex-segregated bathrooms and changing rooms, because--again--he's one of those elite compartmentalizing textualists who consider only the issues before them, and who are not swayed by irrelevant appeals to unlitigated issues and public policy concerns.
This turned into more of a rant than I intended, but I do think it supports the argument of some right-wingers that "thoughtful" conservative Justices can be a liability, since it only takes a couple of them to side with the defect-bot liberals and inflict huge damage on the right.
OliveTapenade
39m ago
It's hard to judge - the stats that we have generally compare members of the Stolen Generations (in Australia) typically compare them either to non-Aboriginal people of the same cohort, or to other Aboriginal people in general, rather than to members of remote communities.
These statistics suggest that an SGer is on average worse off than the median Aboriginal - but as you say, SGers were specifically selected from among the worst-off Aboriginals. Is an SGer better or worse off than they would have been had they not been removed? That's the question we don't have an answer for. AIHW's full 2018 report is here. From page 74 on they show that SGers were worse off than 'the reference group', but the reference group is Aboriginal people in general, not remote communities. We have some stats on health in remote communities here and here, but cross-referencing those is more work than I'm up for at the moment. Suffice to say that we know remote communities are significantly worse off.
Skulldrinker
50m ago
I have a hard time viewing these people as crazy strangers, since they've apparently been citizens in good standing, and anyone else I talk about this with gives me the "You just don't understand the threats that women face every day, hypervigilance, something-something patriarchy" speech, so I don't talk about it.
I'm also confused as to the cringing thing; wouldn't that piss off a threatening man and invite further harassment? In my case, it just crushed me emotionally. I'm apparently so unpleasant as to need warding-off, but not scary enough to avoid provoking. So scary that women sprint away, not scary enough that they don't try to get me to pay for their food or bilk me for attention.
zeke5123a
1hr ago
-
The current explanation for disparate results is disparate treatment even if we can’t find it on the premise that races are equal outside of how races are treated. But if you prove no races are different, then you’d be foolish to accept disparate results as prima facie evidence of racism.
-
Stereotyping makes sense when the cost of being wrong is high and the ability to obtain information is low (either there is a high cost or timing won’t permit it). For people who want to reduce stereotyping, the goal should be to make information easier to obtain. But frequently we do the opposite. For example, we don’t allow companies to provide IQ tests.
zeke5123a
1hr ago
If I were a rich man trying to keep the flyer a particular way, I might try to find a SCOTUS justice so he doesn’t start thinking “maybe I retire in order to make some real money.”
zeke5123a
1hr ago
Gorsuch is I think the only one formally trained in philosophy. He has a very interesting mind that creates unique opinions. His influence will be profound. Doesn’t hurt that he is a good writer.
zeke5123a
1hr ago
And sure they are right if the outcome is limited to the decisions at hand. But Scalia once talked about how he writes his dissents for law students since they are the ones who really have to grapple with trying to understand the law.
Regardless of how liberal or not liberal they are, Scalia heavily influenced numerous lawyers to move towards textualism.
My contention (maybe my cope) is that being honest jurists produces better thought out opinions. Better opinions have a real influence on the next generation. So you end up winning over time.
2rafa
1hr ago
Sure, but this misunderstands the reason for the Azov nazi LARP, which is that they hate Russians and Nazis fought Russians. Finnish neonazis are likewise primarily motivated by anti-Russian and anti-Communist sentiment. Again, almost all are actually antisemitic, but antisemitism isn’t incompatible with serving under a Jewish President provided you agree with his war aims. The Azov position is that Zelensky wavered on Russia but was strong-armed into his current position by (ethnic) Ukrainian patriots. Plus, it’s not as if Putin isn’t also very close to many powerful Jewish oligarchs and friends (and Russia to Israel), so the war can’t really be described as some kind of antisemitic struggle in any case. If Ukraine wins, Zelensky can always be replaced; if it loses, no Ukrainian is going to be in charge.
zeke5123a
1hr ago
Oh agreed there. Just not convinced he had sex with stormy (whereas much clearer that he had sec with McDougal).
zeke5123a
1hr ago
Woah buddy. Coming in shooting hot but not aware of the facts.
-
The legal issue in the Trump trial did not turn on whether Trump did or didn’t have sex with Stormy. It was orthogonal.
-
The jury made up of almost certainly Trump haters?
-
Do you also believe OJ was innocent? Believe it or not sometimes Juries get things wrong. Here that was exacerbated by a very biased judge.
-
Happy to elucidate the numerous legal problems with the conviction but seems like your mind is made up.
theCircusWeakman
1hr ago
"Weirdo turbo-lawyers" is exactly how I view most of the Justices, with the exception of a few who seem reliably partisan (Alito on the right, Sotomayor on the left; maybe Jackson as well, but it's too early to tell). Thomas in particular holds so many idiosyncratic views at odds with the rest of the Court that he seems like a sort of mad genius: he loves to write these audacious solo opinions confidently attacking well-established precedents, but I often find myself thinking "damn ... he might be right!" after reading them. (For example, he consistently argues that the Establishment Clause is not incorporated against the States; in other words, the Constitution does not bar States from establishing a State religion--see Section II of this opinion). There has been a lot of scrutiny lately over Thomas receiving gifts from Republican donors, with pundits suggesting they were bribes for voting a certain way. Maybe, but Thomas's opinions seem way too weird, and at the same time too carefully-thought-out, to be insincere. And if I was a billionaire trying to buy votes, I wouldn't bother with Thomas--Empirical SCOTUS has a "Justice Power Index," and Thomas is consistently on the bottom because he so rarely agrees with the rest of the Court.
SlowBoy
1hr ago
Some friends and I discussed this and propose the following improvement: 3-3-2-1. Keep the groups almost the same, except cleave Gorsuch into an idiosyncratic group of one. Thomas and Alito seem extremely compatible, but Gorsuch is the member of the court most often beating his own drum. And of all the conservative justices he's the one most likely to cross over to the liberal side, for reasons conservatives will unusually respect.
beefypo
1hr ago
People stereotype all the time, it is so ubiquitous that people hardly notice. I find it hard to believe you never stereotype.
If you are walking home at night in an isolated area, you would not be more cautious if you encountered a man vs a woman? If you need to move some heavy object, you would not be more likely to ask a man vs a woman? If you are trying to find the best local sushi restaurant, you would not be more likely to ask your Japanese friend vs others? If a customer walked into your place of work speaking Spanish, you would not be more likely to ask your Hispanic coworker for help vs others? If you are looking for a healthy lunch, you would not be likely to ask your fit coworker vs your fat coworker for a recommendation?
SlowBoy
1hr ago
I think the tendency to insert politics in this way is a more recent trend. Maybe Superman or Duke Nukem always had to save the president, because he's the president, that's the most important guy. But nobody cared about Senators and Generals, which I can recall showing up in X-Men, BvS, Marvel, etc.
I think as Superhero content has left comics and become mainstream, there's been a perceived need to dress it up as "more" than just comic books. Superhero movies aren't just fun anymore, they're social commentary, they're serious endeavors, they're real cinema, dad. Notably, comic books themselves went through a similar arc.
Personally I agree that all this semi-authentic political back-drama is silly, and I would prefer my schlock to not have to put on airs.
felis-parenthesis
2hr ago
That is not dead which can eternal lie,
And with strange aeons even blocks may die.
OliveTapenade
2hr ago
For what it's worth, I'm not a Catholic, trad or otherwise.
OliveTapenade
2hr ago
I'd request firstly that you not make assumptions about what I know or believe, and secondly that you don't misrepresent me. I haven't ceded anything - I've merely declined to argue for a position that I don't hold.
That said, since moderation has gotten involved, and we're pretty far from anything about the top-level comment, would you like to call the conversation here?
Walterodim
Only equals speak the truth, that’s my thought on’t
2hr ago
I want to believe that Court is better modeled as a club of weirdo turbo-lawyers.
Among whom Gorsuch prides himself on being the most idiosyncratic weirdo.
The liberal justices intend for their decisions to make a difference in the real world. The conservatives, so far as I can tell, are merely engaged in a legal debate society. They'll give the liberals a win out of sportsmanship if they come up with a clever enough argument (e.g. Bostock or McGirt v. Oklahoma) And while they're very insistent on making their points about the law, they'll never engage in the steps necessary to get those points translated into changes on the ground; they don't bother taking follow-up cases to slap down lower courts who didn't get the message. Though they ARE fond of slapping down the Fifth Circuit which does take conservative principles a little too seriously.
More options
Context Copy link