Linky Friday #107
Progress:
[Pr1] From Tod Kelly: A fascinating story of flatworms, the nature of memory, the fickle judgement of science, and the Unibomber.
[Pr2] From Mad Rocket Scientist: I’m not even entirely certain how this works. I’m assuming the polymers that are added to the mix allow the mix to retain the printed shape until water can be applied, kind of like Shape Sand.
[Pr3] Tim Lee says that the in the future, cars will be extensions of your smartphone. This is long overdue.
[Pr4] Introducing a bus that runs on poop.
[Pr5] I have a question for Apple/iPhone peeps: Is it really that hard to selectively turn off app notifications on the iPhone?
Culture:
[Cu1] Karol Markowicz, Soviet-born but American raised, watches The Americans. (Please be stingy with unrot13ed spoilers, as I have not yet seen anything from the new season.)
[Cu2] You may laugh at this, but when werewolves stop at the Georgia state line, you won’t be laughing then.
[Cu3] Here are nine names on the verge of extinction. I’m partial to the name Villan, though I’d go with Miracle in a pinch if I were a salesperson.
[Cu4] Vamien asks and answers the question of whether Arrow is a huge rip-off of Batman. The answer is the affirmative. When watching the Arrow-Flash crossover, it very much made me think of the Batman-Superman relationship.
[Cu5] From Tod Kelly: The surprising history of Monopoly, including the little-known knowledge that the game was stolen from the actual creator — and about an original rule that would have rewarded players for “spreading the wealth.”
[Cu6] From Tod Kelly: The ethics of crowdfunding your medical bills. Related, medical expense crowdfunding appears to work quite well for those uninsured political celebrities who lobbied hard against Obamacare.
Crime:
[Cr1] While Stand Your Ground laws can go too far, sometimes the laws governing how we can protect ourselves go too far in the other direction. In both The Practice and Boston Legal, there were episodes relating to a burden of proof for self-defense that I found troublesome, as their freedom depended on whether or not they could demonstrate that the deceased was moving in their direction.
[Cr2] Orleans Parish is prosecuting a witness who recanted his testimony from a 20-year old murder case. I doubt Washington Parish will be similarly inclined in this case…
[Cr3] From Mad Rocket Scientist: Reducing prison populations is not as simple as letting non-violent offenders out. Prisons hold a lot of violent offenders as well.
[Cr4] From honors student to hired hitman, the classic 2012 story from the New Yorker.
[Cr5] Judges in Alabama are so intent on keeping the death penalty alive that they’re willing to overrule juries to send white people to Death Row.
Politics:
[Po1] Cobb appraises the Giuliani-Obama conflict, saying “really revealing itself in this battle of blather is how much the American electorate has been reduced to bickering over symbols.” What it made me think of is how we’ve turned out leaders into symbols.
[Po2] I attribute one of the dumbest things ever said in politics to Fritz Hollings (D-SC), and his work on copyright has lead to infuriating results, but be can be so dang earnest sometimes. (No pun intended.) I can’t reveal it, but there’s a touching story involving him and someone that I know.
[Po3] Whether you are in favor of Teach For America or against it, a new study backs you up.
[Po4] The administration has backed off plans to ban a particular kind of bullet for the AR-15 that the police said criminals didn’t really use. {second link via MRS}
[Po5] Mickey Kaus quit the Daily Caller after they spiked a piece of his critical of Fox’s “weak” stance on immigration. I am, at times, tempted to roll my eyes at the paranoia at the anti-immigration crowd. But then I remember: the deck is stacked against them, and everybody important on their sidewill likely betray them, if given the chance.
World:
[W1] This article, explaining how much Monsanto could possibly stand to gain from the unrest in Ukraine, makes me wonder if Monsanto won’t become the new Big Oil in the cultural map. Monsanto does seem to be popping up more frequently as a villain on television.
[W2] Anne Applebaum says that Britain is retreating from the world stage, and the world is worse off for it.
[W3] From Tod Kelly: The country with the highest rate of cosmetic surgery, surprisingly, isn’t the Unites States. It’s South Korea.
[W4] From Tod Kelly: Some Indian girls know what’s important.
Cu1: “(Please be stingy with unrot13ed spoilers, as I have not yet seen anything from the new season.)” well, fudge, because this current season best addresses her qualms and misgivings.
(I will say that the current season has caused the internet – I’m looking at you, AV Club – to be really enabled to get their Reagan hate on. But maybe not as much after this week’s episode).
Po1: More like Pos, amirite? I mean, fish, fishin flag pins? Again? If Giuliani was simply the cross-dressing, straight-talking, mafia-slaying, nein-elebum leader that the article paints him as, he’d wouldn’t be that bad. (and he might be President). But he’s not. What he has been is a Donald Trump clone who knows how the roil the waters and troll the media.Report
postscript to Po1, he’s not wrong about symbols over substance, but it’s not a new or novel phenomenon. Probably most famously, the election of 1884 – “Ma, Ma, Where’s My Pa” vs “Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion”Report
But maybe not as much after this week’s episode
So I just watched it last night, and had this reaction:
“Url, C & R urycrq fgbc n greebevfg obzovat ba n pnzchf!”
“Gung’f tbbq!”
“Nyfb, gurl nffvfgrq va n thl trggvat arpxynprq, jvgu fbzr bs gur zbfg oehgny qrngu-enggyr fbhaq-rssrpgf V unir rire urneq!”
“Gung’f onq.”Report
Yeah, right when that guy went off the screen, I said out loud “uh, [shoot] is he going to get [that thing]?” and sure enough he walked back on screen with it and the other thing he needed.Report
Yeah, this season is giving Hannibal a run for its money, in terms of Scenes That Make You Go, “Yeeeeeesh”.
Also, when is Ryvmnorgu tbvat gb unir gur fpnyrf snyy sebz ure rlrf urer? Gubhtu fur JNF ebpxvat gung fpbbc-arpx fjrngre. Naq Tnnq orggre yrnir Znvy Ebobg nybar. Vg’f abg Znvy Ebobg’f snhyg.Report
First question – never. fur’f fgvyy gelvat gb oevat Cnvtr vagb gur yvsr. Ohg gurl ner tbvat “fbsg” ol yrggvat ceb-ncnegurvq lbhat thl tb. Juvpu bs pbhefr vf tbvat gb pnhfr n yngre pbasyvpg orgjrra gung thl naq gur nagv-ncnegurvq thl Ryvmnorgu unf orra tebbzvat
My question is jura gur URYY VF GUVF FGBELYVAR JVGU SVFUVA ZNEGUN TBVAT GB RAQ?!?!?!
(rira gubhtu gur npgerff unf orra xvyyvat vg va gur ynfg srj jrrxf. Ohg vg jbhyq or rira orggre vs gung jnf zber yvgreny)Report
V qhaab, V gubhtug ure yrggvat gur thl tb NAQ ure nfxvat gurve unaqyre gb gel gb trg Cuvyvc’f fba bhg bs Nstunavfgna NAQ ure pbairefngvba jvgu Cnvtr “…ohg punatvat gur jbeyq qbrfa’g zrna eboovat onaxf, evtug?”, whkgncbfrq jvgu ure frrvat n thl trg arpxynprq, jrer vaqvpngvbaf bs cbffvoyr arne-shgher penpxf va Ryvmnorgu’f erfbyir gb oevat Cnvtr baobneq.
V’z fgnegvat gb jbeel gung Znegun vf tbvat gb fxngr ol sbe abj – V cerqvpgrq ynfg jrrx, jvgu gur qvfpbirel bs gur cra oht, gung fhfcvpvba zvtug snyy ba gur arj thl va gur bssvpr, naq ynfg avtug’f rcvfbqr frrzf gb or yrnqvat va gung qverpgvba. Ohg zna, jung’f unccrarq gb Znegun guebhtubhg nyy guvf vf gur zbfg yvxr n ubeebe zbivr.Report
I missed that subtlety at the conclusion of the conversation between Elizabeth and [that woman]; replaying in my mind, I can see where you’re coming from now.
I still feel that something’s going to snap her back in line, she’s been too invested for too long in the cause, and after all the bad stuff that’s happened to her personally, I can’t see her last straw being something horrible happening to someone who wasn’t the best dude to begin with.
abj, vs gur vagrearg fcrphyngvba bs Urael’f qrzvfr pbzr gehr – orpnhfr gurl’ir orra cynlvat hc gur ‘fba va qnatre’ natyr naq fb “JUNG N GJVFG!” vs vgf npghnyyl Urael. (naq gur npgbe vf dhvpxyl ntvat bhg bs uvf cneg, fb vg jbhyq or hfrshy gb trg evq bs uvz) – gung znl ernyvta Ryvmnorgu’f cevbevgvrf.
Ohg vg jbhyq nyfb raq gur fubj.Report
V unira’g urneq zhpu bhgevtug fcrphyngvba nobhg Urael, ohg vg jbhyq or n avpr pnyyonpx gb ynfg frnfba’f cybg vs vg gheaf bhg gung UR’F gur bar ernyyl fhvgrq gb orvat oebhtug baobneq – erzrzore, ur unf na bofrffvba jvgu Zef. Orrzna, fb gur Prager pbhyq fraq na oybaqr ntrag gb frqhpr uvz, naq jr nyernql xabj ur unf na nssvavgl sbe oernxvat naq ragrevat (arvtuobef’ ubhfrf gb cynl ivqrb tnzrf), cyhf ur’f nyernql na rkcreg ng sylvat haqre gur enqne – jul, jubyr jrrxf tb ol va juvpu rirelbar frrzf gb sbetrg gung ur rira rkvfgf 😉Report
I got to say, that gur pbapyhfvba bs ynfg frnfba’f cybg – gung gur bcravat fubj’f zheqref bs jung’f gurer snprf jnf jung gurer snpr’f xvq gur jubyr gvzr jnf qrrcyl hafngvfslvat. Gur fubj fgenvaf perqhyvgl nyy gur gvzr, bs pbhefr, ohg guvf gvzr? N grrantre, jvgu yvggyr gb ab genvavat, zragberq ol n lbhat svryq ntrag jvgu yvzvgrq rkcrevrapr urefrys, vf noyr gb trg gur qebc ba gjb rkcrevraprq bcrengvirf (rira jvgu gur ryrzrag bs rkvfgragvny fhecevfr) naq gura or noyr gb pbire hc gur pevzr fb cresrpgyl? Nzbat bgure guvatf, gur fubj qvfzvffrf ubj zhpu n cerff frafngvba gur zheqre bs n snzvyl – n juvgr snzvyl – bs guerr ng n (fbegn xvaqn) Byq Gbja Nyrknaqevn ubgry jbhyq or. Gura be abj.Report
Zl nffhzcgvba vf gung znlor gur bgure cneragf jrer rira zber oyvaq gb jung jnf tbvat ba jvgu gurve xvqf guna C&R ner (vg’f uneq gb or na nggragvir cnerag jura lbh unir gur fpurqhyr bs n Fbivrg fcl) – zl gnxr ba gung xvq jnf gung ur jnf npghnyyl n ovg bs n cflpubcngu/fbpvbcngu (cyhf VVEP vg jnf vzcyvrq ur’q cbffvoyl orra nohfrq ol gur sngure, be ng yrnfg qvfpvcyvarq irel unefuyl ol uvz?), naq VVEP gur Prager qvqa’g npghnyyl cyna sbe uvz gb xvyy uvf cneragf – gur Prager jnf gelvat gb erpehvg uvz, lrf, ohg gurl qvq abg ernyvmr ur jnf hafgnoyr naq jbhyq xvyy uvf sbyxf sbe gur “ybir” bs gur erpehvgre; jung ur qvq jnf npghnyyl n enaqbz npg bs fhqqra ivbyrapr gung ab bar fnj pbzvat. Ur qvqa’g unir gb pyrna gur zrff hc uvzfrys, bs pbhefr, gur Prager gbbx pner bs gung bapr gurl ernyvmrq guvatf unq tbar fvqrjnlf, ohg gurl fgvyy gubhtug gurl zvtug or noyr gb hfr uvz fb gurl yrg uvz yvir.Report
I missed the Centre’s involvement after the incident. I thought it went sebz gur zheqref, gb gur xvq tbvat qbja gb gur cbby, gb Cuvyvc jnyxvat bagb gur fprar gura jnyxvat bhg, gura gur xvq pbzvat hc sebz gur cbby naq (srvtavat) ubeevsvp fubpx, gb pbcf, zrqvn, rgp. I didn’t think the Centre had the opportunity to get involved before everything went pear shaped.Report
But I miss a lot of stuff until I read about it on the internet. Like why is Jnygre Gnssrg coming into the picture a big fishin deal? Orpnhfr ur’f Pynex, be engure gur qhqr gung Pynex vf fhccbfrq gb or. Naq fb gung zrnaf, sebz Znegun’f cbvag bs ivrj, jub gur urpx vf Pynex? – be engure, jung gur urpx vf ur qbvat nyy qnl?
Didn’t catch onto that aspect until reading about stuff this morning.Report
Znlor lbh ner evtug, boif. gur Prager qvqa’g pyrna hc gur fprar – ohg gurl pregnvayl gevrq gb guebj C & R bss gur fprag bs jung unccrarq (gurl unq gb xabj jub unq ernyyl xvyyrq gur cneragf, orpnhfr gur erpehvgre jbhyq unir xabja – gur xvq jbhyq unir gbyq ure, naq fur/gur Prager jrer cebgrpgvat uvz) naq gur xvq srvtavat fubpx naq fhecevfr naq tevrs fb fhpprffshyyl yraqf perqrapr gb zl gurbel gung va nqqvgvba gb orvat n ernyyl tbbq yvne pncnoyr bs rkgerzr fhqqra ivbyrapr (juvpu vf cebonoyl jul gur Prager jnagrq gb erpehvg uvz) ur jnf cbffvoyl NYFB n cflpubcngu.
Gung jnf bar bs gur arng gevpxf bs gur raq bs frnfba erirny, V gubhtug – hc hagvy gura, V unq ernq uvf qrnq rlrf nf “tevrs”, ohg va ergebfcrpg, sbe nyy jr xabj, gung xvq unq NYJNLF unq qrnq rlrf.Report
Cu1, redux – I figured out how to address Ms. Markowicz’s concerns without substantial spoilers.
To borrow from our main man Todd Kelly, “Ideology is the Enemy”. The Soviet system itself is never portrayed in a good light – but there can be individuals within that system can be ‘good’, or at least, sympathetic. Loyalty to people is mostly rewarded, but those with ideological blinkers are mostly subverted. (as are the selfish and the craven). Still, though, bad things sometimes happen to good people. And in the end, it’s all a Shakespearean tragedy (insert misattributed&mangled Stalin quote here), because we are aware how everything winds up (in the big picture), even if it’s never going to be shown on screen.Report
I found the Markowicz piece interesting from a sociological/personal narrative perspective, but not particularly profound. This realization she has is something that any American citizen who happens to be a woman or a minority has experienced to varying degrees.
Also, the degree to which political partisans demonize the authoritarian systems of the opposition, while simultaneously making excuses for the authoritarian systems that roughly align with their ideology makes the whole exercise suspect in my book.
Soviet communism was a really shitty system that helped propagate a whole bunch of other shitty systems. But the United States government, in response, threw its support behind a whole bunch of equally shitty regimes in the name of fighting the Soviet’s shittiness. The best way to stop doing things like this is to fully come to terms with it, in all of its humanity.Report
Bloomberg has a piece on who GOP candidates follow on Twitter. Jim DeMint of Heritage leads the pack, having everyone in the tribe except Ben Carson and Donald Trump.Report
The cost of paying for college by working the graveyard shift:
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/03/manual-labor-all-night-long-the-reality-of-paying-for-college/388045/Report
Our New Gilded Age. Wisconsin killed the Unions, now they want to kill weekend:
http://www.thenation.com/article/201817/these-republicans-want-take-away-your-weekend?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=socialflowReport
Yes we still need the weekend so Hillary can send you to camp and Barrack can make you vote. And ABC officers can beat your ass for buying water or being black while under 21.Report
What were those kids going to use that water FOR?
Nobody ever explores *THAT* question.Report
Might be using it to clean out ecigarette tanks.Report
This looks mostly like it’s bringing Wisconsin in line with other states.
My wife works 7-on-7-off (12 hour shifts), which actually works out pretty well, except for cases when something comes up and she doesn’t get the 7-off as scheduled.Report
I have to wonder how many legislators who insist that the U.S. is a Christian nation founded on Biblical principles will vote to abolish the Sabbath.Report
I could handle a six-day week but only if both days of the weekend were still part of it.
Why wouldn’t they get rid of Monday?Report
Funny article. At some point those on the general political right are going to have to come to better terms with the fact that structures outside of the law can exercise significant political and economic power in detrimental ways. And likewise, those on the left are going to have to admit that individual human adults are often capable of negotiating morally permissible, even optimal, relationships outside of explicitly-stated legal codes and layers of bureaucratic oversight. Most people who aren’t partisans seem to grok this, so maybe the chattering classes will eventually catch up.
Also, the thing that cracks me up about unions is the insistence that the term “anti-union” is perfectly substitutible with the term “anti-worker.” There is something so lovably Bolshevik about that world view. Unions cannot be alienated from the working class, because unions are the expression of the working class.
You’d think that in 2015 America union advocates would have figured out that this sort of explicitly Marxist conception of class consciousness is not a winning strategy outside of a relatively small segment of the population. One day they’ll figure it out. Or they won’t.Report
@jr That is all fine and good except for the strawman stuff about what liberals believe. We don’t actually think everything has to be done through legal or bureaucratic ways. The easy fall back for any criticism of something a liberal suggests is to suggest what you are saying. Except we are saying everything should be done that way, somethings yes, other things no, not at all. Big difference.
re: unions Here is a link to a Tenn legislator who really really hates unions. This might have been worthy of linky friday.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/03/tenn-goper-slams-volkswagen-creating-200000-jobs-is-intentionally-a-magnet-for-unionized-labor/Report
“We don’t actually think everything has to be done through legal or bureaucratic ways.”
Only food, health care, housing, education, transportation, political advocacy, recreational pharmaceuticals, radio, tv, the internet, wood burning stoves, toilet tanks, and soda pop.Report
Legal and bureaucratic means are only necessary if people refuse to change their behavior after moral, ethical, and logical appeals fail.
We agree that murder should be illegal.
Now we’re haggling.Report
I was just arguing with my aunt about Unions. She was lamenting the loss of Union membership & the expansion of Right to work. I reminded her that part of the decline in union membership is because younger workers don’t find unions appealing, and hard core union members fail to selling the benefits, or adapt to what younger workers want from a union.
See alsoReport
I don’t claim any special insight into people’s psyches. I only know what they say.
I am reacting to Saul’s comment and to The Nation article, which says that in the absence of explicit legal codes mandating a day off and a bureaucratic process to manage exceptions, the weekend is in danger of disappearing, because workers won’t have sufficient power to resist “the proverbial gun to the head.”
This is what the article says:
It’s not a strawman if that’s what someone is literally saying. If that’s not what The Nation actually believes, perhaps they would be better served not to intentionally exaggerate the positions of their political opponents in hopes of throwing red meat to their readers.Report
Sometimes you need to legislate against money and I have never seen the Freedom of Contract as anything more than neat rhetorical slight of hand from the Capitalist class.
There is nothing wrong with having some legislation that says these things are important and we can do some stuff to the detriment of markets for better values.
@mad-rocket-scientist
I think your Aunt is right to mourn the death of unions. One of the greatest triumphs of the right has been to pit worker against worker. Jay Gould’s great observation that he can pit one half the working class against the other. I think for things to get better for employees we need to stop this kind of “crabs in a bucket” fighting. I notice this during strikes when workers are fighting for their rights and benefits. People get angry and say “Why do those workers have benefits that I don’t have? Fuck those guys” instead of saying “Why don’t we organize to get what those guys have and are fighting for?”Report
@saul-degraw
Dude, aren’t you a lawyer?Report
@j-r
Does being a lawyer mean needing to agree with all legal decisions and concepts? Isn’t it an adversarial system
I think arbitration is great as alternative dispute resolution between two parties of relatively equal bargaining power and sophistication like business partners or two companies working on a deal. I don’t think it is good when it is part of a contract of adhesion and one-side as more power than the other.
Just because libertarians don’t believe in asymmetrical power relationships, doesn’t mean that asymmetrical power relationships don’t exist.
Freedom of Contract can also work between parties with relatively equal sophistication and bargaining power. It does not work for the mass of humanity in the employer-employee relationship.Report
@saul-degraw
The death of the concept of workers organizing – sure.
The death of unions as they currently exist – not even a little bit. We’ve had this discussion before, and I know there are laws which perpetuate the status quo, but unions as they are know, and the laws that govern how unions can form, are killing the idea of organizing workers.Report
@saul-degraw
Sounds like you’re saying freedom of contract for me, but not for thee, because thee needs the paternalistic protections of the state.
And did you even read the comment that I made above? Sometimes it feels like you’re arguing from a script and unable to adjust to take in what people are actually saying.
The whole point is that there is no such thing as “the interests of the working class,” anymore than there is such a thing as the interests of the middle class or of the wealthy. Classes are aggregates of individuals who have different priors and different preferences. For instance, some people might actually enjoy the freedom to trade a day off for more money without having to negotiate an onerous bureaucratic process. So, why should all working class people subsume their individual wants into that collective bureaucratic process?
By the way, unionization is an interesting topic, because of the number of people who treat it not as an issue of optimal industrial organization, but as an ideological issue. Me for instance, I’m not anti-union at all. I even oppose right to work legislation on the principle that employers and workers should be able to negotiate a closed shop if that’s what they want. I am quite agnostic on unions. Don’t have a need for one myself, but for those that want them, I say go right ahead. Everyone has the freedom to associate with whom they please and bargain how they see fit. For many union advocates, my position becomes de facto anti union, because I don’t want to use the power of the state to enforce a specifically pro union status quo.
At some point union advocates will realize this and stop making the pitch for unionization on these very crude worker solidarity terms and instead focus on providing value to individual members. At least that’s what they’ll do id they want to survive.
I have a feeling that history will show my view on this to be correct, but we will see.Report
This is not the same as saying that those who support the repeal of such legislation “want to kill the weekend.” There are, as far as I can tell, only a small number of states (as in, less than 10) that prohibit working seven consecutive days. Do you really think hourly workers in the remaining 40+ states lack weekends (at least to the extent they have only one employer, which is what we’re talking about here)? When an hourly worker has to work a seven-day week, that means the employer is paying overtime. Employers do not like paying overtime. But employees like getting it – within reason, of course. That means that if they’re asking an employee to work a seven-day week, it’s going to be in response to an unusual situation where the employer’s in a particular bind. Even then, the bill seems to require that the employee’s decision be voluntary (ie, presumably not under threat of loss of job).
None of which means that you have to like the bill. Perhaps it’s important to you that worker’s weekends be viewed as sacrosanct regardless of whether an individual worker in an individual situation might be thrilled to give up the occasional weekend to make some overtime. Seriously, there’s nothing wrong with that, my own values aside. And I get why unions oppose it – indeed, they should, for a number of reasons.
But to object on the grounds that advocates of allowing workers the agency to work seven day weeks “want to kill [or take away] the weekend” isn’t even wrong. If you said “Republicans want to allow employers to take away your weekend,” that would still be incorrect and hyperbolic and deny that workers possess any agency whatsoever, but at least there’d be an argument for it. But to say that the law itself threatens to make weekends disappear only makes sense, even as hyperbole, if you assume that “individual human adults are [not often] capable of negotiating morally permissible, even optimal, relationships outside of explicitly-stated legal codes and layers of bureaucratic oversight.”Report
@saul-degraw
At some point union advocates will realize this and stop making the pitch for unionization on these very crude worker solidarity terms and instead focus on providing value to individual members. At least that’s what they’ll do id they want to survive.
This! This right here! This is the point you seem to be failing to get. The old guard unions DO NOT provide sufficient value to a lot of current & incoming workers. They either legally can not, or they refuse to, adapt & evolve to the wants & needs of these workers, and thus they are dying because they can not provide sufficient value to justify the cost (financial or otherwise).
Unions seems to be willfully blind to this, otherwise they would have adapted, or if legally constrained, they would have flexed their considerable political muscle long ago to give themselves more flexibility.Report
@kolohe Respectufully, that is non sense squared. Yup liberals, and a hell of lot of middle of the roaders and conservatives, think something like enviro matters should be regulated. I think the fancy talking people call it an externality. But enviro matters often effect all of us so some level of gov reg seems to make sense.
Along with @jaybird this is teh kind of weak libertarian sauce that suggests that reg means people are controlled or have no freedom. If the gov says all foods have to be labeled does that mean people can’t have a six pack and a box of twinkies for lunch. No; people can eat or drink whatever they darn well want to. They just have to suffer the tyranny of product labels. Of course you could say people can’t have their burger in NY with an extra helping of trans fats….guilty as charged. That is of course very far away from the line that liberals want everything to be legislated and ruled. Because of course you can’t actually prove that. You can find things liberals do want rules about and just deploy some handwavium to suggest that means “everything.”
Its a strawman that you can only push by ignoring things that don’t fit your argument.Report
@greginak
Again, you’re using that term “strawman” incorrectly. Something is not a strawman just because you find it unflattering.
We can very easily find concrete examples of progressives championing these positions. There’s lots of dumb crap that libertarians believe that I have no problem admitting to and criticizing. Not sure why it’s so hard for you to do the same.Report
Try buying raw (i.e. unpasteurized) milk. That’s not a labeling restriction; everyone knows what they’re getting into, but the Federal government will nonetheless (eventually) bring people with guns to shut the whole thing down. For the milk buyer’s own good.Report
@jr Ummm no it is a strawman because it isnt’ a true statement about what liberals think and common trope used by conservatives. Everybody’s side does stupid things, liberals are not an exception in any way. Liberals, in the most general statement, think regulations are good for some things. Not all but some. That is the big difference. People like @kolohe can point to milk regs as an example of some regs as if that somehow proves liberals don’t believe people can make there own personal choices or want everything controlled. But it does’t prove that, it proves in some cases people believe in regs. As @jaybird seems to also have trouble with, it depends on the situation, not a dogmatic ideological belief. Unpasteurized milk is a big meh to me, put up a safety label and let people bask in their superior milk. Lead in paint or gas….ummm no regulate the heck out of that. CFC’s regulate them away. Soda cup size….FREEDOM and 64ozers.Report
It’s not true and besides, everyone does it?
Pick one.Report
@greginak
A straw man is a false representation of an argument. You can certainly claim that what @kolohe and @jaybird are saying fails to capture the full range of the progressive position on these issues, but they are not false.
Plus, I quoted Saul and Saul’s article directly and you accused me of straw-manning. Still not convinced you h ave a full grasp of the term. But we can agree to disagree.Report
“Liberals, in the most general statement, think regulations are good for some things. ”
I could get behind this statement if the “some” is qualified to like, 90% of things. I’ve rarely run into any liberal who didn’t think regulation would improve every issue I’ve ever discussed with them. “There outta be a law” was a common phrase. But hey, maybe my sample is biased given I live in one of the most liberal states in the entire union.Report
Actual straw-manning in blog discussions is fairly rare, because we’re usually talking about the opinions of large classes of people rather than individuals – you can pretty much always find a [member of group] voicing a particular opinion, so it just turns into a tedious debate about what’s typical/representative of the group.
Much more common is weak-manning — you can hardly have a blog discussion without a hefty dose of that.Report
I worked a graveyard shift job for about three semesters (one of which I had an additional 10/wk part-time job besides). I did have the advantage of having downtime on the job that I could use to study. Still, I ended up doing nothing (the job, school) particularly well (my exiting GPA was respectable. I hope that my kids don’t do (or need to do) the same thing.
@saul-degraw There was a semester where all of my classes were on Tuesdays and Thursdays, which lead to a situation where I would go to work on Monday night, classes all day Tuesday, work again on Tuesday night, then and only then could I sleep. That was the worst semester ever. Perhaps coincidentally or perhaps not, it was also the semester I started smoking.
My father-in-law actually typically advises young people to take student loans. Which, if you knew my father-in-law, is really saying something since he comes from the “Avoid Debt At All Costs” school that my parents do, and is also big on work ethic like my folks (which is how I ended up having a job in addition to my courseload, despite my own college being paid for).Report
I’ve been complemented for having a work ethic despite my welfare-state loving liberalism.
There is nothing wrong with having a work ethic but there do seem to be people who take the idea of a work ethic to cartoonish extremes. I see a work ethic as doing your tasks well and doing them on time and taking them seriously. Part of doing work well is understanding the limits of what the body can take and do before all tasks suffer.
The idea that working the graveyard and doing classes is somehow more virtuous or creates a better society is nuts to me. What is it that enthralls so many people to the idea that life should be as difficult and harsh as possible? Why not exist on this earth to make life easier for all?Report
Having a strong work ethic is good. I don’t think that should have to include some of the things I’ve done over the years, though in a way I am glad to know that I can do it, at least temporarily, for stretches. There’s also value in knowing how to do it, when you have to, to cope.
But largely, I agree with you about the limitations of its virtue. The limitations of which I have gotten a better view of with regard to my wife, actually. Residency, one of the fellowships, and stretches of her job in Arapaho. The toll it can take is large, and it can often be counterproductive to body, mind, and spirit.Report
My company (a big, big, BIG company, btw) has a ‘use it or lose it’ vacation system. They don’t let employees accumulate vacation (and they’re quite generous with it and sick time, more so than any other large company I’ve worked for).
Their reason? People wouldn’t take vacations. It was affecting their work.
If you lose more than a day or so of vacation due to not using it? HR comes asking “why”. They’ve found they get more and better work out of their employees if they get time off.Report
The State of Colorado had a similar vacation policy when I was working as a budget staffer. The one exception that was allowed was if you submitted a plan in advance in writing for why you needed more time in one big chunk. Signed off on by your manager. Even then, it might not be granted. One of my colleagues, who was Bulgarian, got permission to carry time over so he could make an eight-week trip during the interim to visit his dozens/hundreds of Bulgarian relatives.Report
@morat20
There are companies out there who offer unlimited time off, & strongly encourage employees to take the time, because they get better results.Report
Kingsmen is a hit. I can’t tell if this is despite or because it is a reactionary-fascist piece of propaganda that works as a Glenn Beck wet dream:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2015/03/20/the_secret_to_kingsman_the_secret_service_s_box_office_success.htmlReport
I would have enjoyed the movie more if it were more libertarian. But, at least, it wasn’t more communist.
We’re going to see The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel 2 tonight. I hope it’s libertarian!Report
There is more to thinking about something than “Things go boom. Cool!!!”Report
Why do you hate the Mythbusters, Saul?Report
I don’t hate Mythbusters but I appreciate the allusion to the Road to Damascus.
Mythbusters at least comes up with a reason for things go boom that is more decent than a Glenn Beck wet dream.Report
Some might argue that explosions in the service of an ideology is more than just explosions!Report
Short review: The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel 2 was insufficiently libertarian.Report
Saul, what does Samuel L Jackson look like?Report
I know what he looks like and everyone needs to earn a paycheck. That doesn’t mean I have to give my money to the plot and his acceptance of the role does not destroy the reactionary nature of the plot.Report
Darn it Saul, why can’t you play along? You were supposed to say “what?”
Anyway Moviebob – who can likely out-“problematic” you six days a week and twice on Sunday – his hot take was that (a portion of) the movie is actually a take-down of American mass culture and worldwide political hegemony. (in favor of the more refined British culture and hegemony)Report
I’m pretty sure that Pulp Fiction falls into the category of “Black And White 2-D Movies Still Shot On Film That Were Made Before The Kids These Days Perfected The Craft”, Kolohe.Report
Have you seen Kingsmen yet?Report
We went through this last Linky Friday.
Jackson plays a tech billionaire who convinces (not threatens, not blackmails but convinces!!) Obama and other world leaders that a good chunk of humanity needs to die to save the environment and the planet.
If that is not a Glenn Beck-Steve Sailer wet dream reactionary, I don’t know what is.
I also think there is a strong undercurrent of only “gentlemen” should rule the world.Report
Look on the bright side, Saul. If gentleman ruled the world, you’d have no problem getting all that BBC programming you like subsidized.Report
A great advantage of being liberal is that you can more freely dismiss stuff objectionable to your worldview, as there is still a lot of stuff left over.
Except for the “Everything is problematic” crowd, anyway. Report
There is something to be said for the execution of a film.
It was beautiful precisely because it was such a messed up premise, but the film plays with it so well.Report
Also, you miss a key feature of the convincing – those that aren’t convinced, are imprisoned in the mad-man’s fortress. Since the vast majority of people in power are, in some way or another, selfish & obviously interested in maintaining power (despite the stories they tell us about how much they care), it isn’t a stretch to believe that a large number of those offered the choice, take it (especially if they are moderately intelligent and are paying attention to the news of other powerful people disappearing – not hard to put it together).Report
PR1: So here’s my thought: assuming the results are good and the regenerated flatworms are “retaining” the memories from their pre-decapitated selves, the most likely explanation it’s not *exactly* the memories that are being stored outside the brain (I mean, not directly anyway).
It’s that the body/genetic code of a flatworm already has to store information somewhere that is used to regenerate *a* brain, and every time the current brain gets updated with new memories, that “map” (wherever it is) for regenerating a future new brain gets updated too – so that when the new brain gets built, it is built using the info from the most recent “backup” of the old one, so it contains the memory by default.
I guess what I am saying is, it’s all super-cool, but only an animal with this extent of regenerative ability probably possesses this ability.
That said, if I am wrong and this is not how this is occurring, it could lend credence to the possibility of the currently-wacky idea of “race” or “species” memory, with sperm and eggs functioning as possible vectors for memory transfer from generation to generation, even in the absence of any education via socialization.Report
I wondered about genetic expression here.Report
Yeah, I had heard about that, good point. Interestingly, that also involves stress, which some people speculated was a possible flaw or causal mechanism in the flatworm experiments.
Another, even more far-out possibility is this – memories are stored ENTIRELY outside physical bodies (in filing cabinets on the astral plane!) and brains are simply two-way transmitters that have the ability to send the memories there (to the Twilight Zone!) and retrieve them later.
SO when the flatworm brain gets rebuilt and is essentially genetically-identical to the old brain, it is also tuned to the same “wavelength” as the old brain and can access the same files.Report
You can’t rule it out!Report
I’m not saying it’s aliens, but…it’s totally aliens.Report
It’d be pretty funny if a genetic vector generally just transmits very simple, universally-applicable stuff like “be afraid of very loud sounds”, dating all the way back to the comet that killed the dinosaurs; but occasionally some weird random bit of additional data makes it down the line, causing you to think you remember that you were totally a prince in Atlantis.Report
How did you know I was a prince in Atlantis?Report
People who heard the subsonics found in the growls and snorts of oncoming predators were more likely to keep reproducing than the people who did not hear such subsonics.
It’s just that the Atlanteans’ attempt to weaponize subsonics resulted in the island sinking.Report
After 45 years I still remember being taught about reactions to subsonics. As a teen I was walking through the Omaha zoo, past part of the leopard exhibit where there were still big bars so you were within ten feet or so. I didn’t realize that there was one that close when it gave me one of those “feel it more than you hear it” growls. I came down about fifteen feet away, with every hair on my body standing on end.Report
Everything I know about science I learned from Ghostbusters.Report
@glyph
I can believe that.Report
Don’t come cryin’ to me for help when you’re being roasted in the depths of the Sloar.Report
I need Chris to come in here and tell me to settle down, Beavis, but isn’t the most recent theory on memory storage that it has to do with the actual configuration of neurons? So that would support the idea that, if a flatworm already has to store a blueprint somewhere to build *a* brain, it might as well store a version of that blueprint containing the most recent neuronal configuration.Report
Build-A-Brain™Report
it might as well store a version of that blueprint containing the most recent neuronal configuration.
That’s very logical, too. It also raises some interesting questions about inheritable knowledge vs. instinct and the differences between.Report
Pr2,
My wager is that they control the moisture content and chemical reaction rate to produce a printable condition/product at the nozzle. The fiber content looks pretty high also, maybe approaching chopped fiberglass structures. The interface of how the bricks lock together would be interesting.Report
So they can print fancy bricks. In China they’re printing big enough pieces to fit together into actual buildings.Report
Yeah, I’ve watched that develop for about a decade. There is a significant difference between the technology of one and the other.
Pesky builders will soon need to be retrained for a new career in pounding sand.Report
As a side note:
http://www.3ders.org/articles/20130520-3d-printed-bullets.htmlReport
I hope in my lifetime we will see composites of amber type resins with calcium-phosphate fibers.Report
If I can print fancy bricks, I can print fancy houses.Report
Electrical raceways, plumbing raceways, light fixtures, switch boxes entertainment centers, kitchen counters, showers, tables, hobbit doorways, window planter boxes etc.Report
Po6: from Will Truman’s twitter feed. NH school kids get a better lesson than School House Rock on how a bill does – and does not – becomes a law.Report
Po4: Sounds like par for the course on gun control. Add a law to the books and alienate your bargaining partners for something that’s 100% symbolism.Report
I’ve started to suspect they are creating runs on guns and ammo to inflate the GDP. Also we will probably end up with a fishing republican president that will make Obama look like a saint.Report
Does any conspiracy theory ever sound to silly or outlandish to be believed?Report
That’s by design.Report
Back when more of them were theories than comspiracies. But that time has passed.Report
So that is a no. No conspiracy theory ever sounds to insane. That was my theory. Nice to have it confirmed.Report
So Greg feels like his theory has been confirmed… who benefits?Report
The funny thing is, the firearm that the ATF is so worried about (the AR-15 handgun) is one they approved of, and had the power to regulate more effectively if they wanted, without even having to be their normal, inconsistent self.
Also, AR-15 handguns are the size of sub-machine guns. You can shoot it one handed, but you won’t be hiding in your pocket or waistband, you’ll need a large coat and some kind of shoulder rig or large pocket. So not exactly the choice of criminals.
Basically it’s a fully manufactured crisis, which just served to piss off a whole lot of gun owners & advocates, which would have likely died in court anyway, and now gun owners/advocates have even more animosity toward Obama, the BATFE, and gun control in general.Report
This is what amazes me about the gun control policy process. Gun control advocates insist on living paycheck-to-paycheck on political capital, burning whatever capital they have or can borrow on small gestures of zero value. It inevitably prevents them from accruing enough goodwill to actually achieve something that moves them toward their stated goals. I think @j-r has it right when he says the whole thing is about signaling tribal affiliations and not at all about actual outcomes. It’s a little bit like banning the kilt.Report
ARRRR! Ye kin have me kilt win ye pry it furm me cold, dead hips!Report
I’m sure there’s signaling involved, but I’ve met too many people who have a unwarranted raging fear of guns and truly think that anyone who likes anything associated with guns, is mentally ill, evil, or the like.
Frankly, it’s a similar attitude that you find on social justice warriors on a tear. Perhaps it stems from the same place?
Maybe it come from the place wherein people decide they have a right to tell you what to do “for your own good” or because you don’t seem to be, insert a choice: educated enough, thinking correctly, or just a evil bigot.Report
Cu5-I’m reading the Monopolists right now, its a fun little read. The basic outlines of Monopoly’s history have been known for years for anybody interested in researching it a little. This includes its’ origins as the Landlord Game that was designed to teach Georgist economics. The Monopolists isn’t exactly touching new ground but it is linking all the pieces together more systematically and with greater detail than previous histories of Monopoly.Report
In board-game enthusiast circles, Monopoly is regarded as the epitome of “the bad old days” of game design, and game designers will point out how its various rules and feedback mechanisms create a situation where the winner is a foregone conclusion early in the game and yet the players have to suffer through a few more hours of miserable tedium before the game is over.
What not everyone realizes is that the miserable experience is by design. The Landlord game was not designed to be a fun experience for the whole family–It was designed to demonstrate the misery and powerlessness of the masses in a capitalist economic system.Report
There’s an essay going around about how Monopoly is a much better game if you actually play by the official rules, which, among other things, require that if a player lands on a property and declines to buy it at face value, it must be auctioned off immediately.Report
@brandon-berg
You mean people don’t play by the official rules? Ok sometimes we make variant rules*, but seriously, who drops that rule?
*The one where you pool all money owed to the bank at the centre of the board and the person who next lands on free parking gets it is a fun one when you’re a kid.Report
@murali :
It may be a fun rule, but it is not a rule that leads to a fun game.
by the official rules, monopoly is a game in which distribution of property quickly decides who the eventual winner will be, and then becomes a game of slow attrition as the winner slowly claims the loser’s resources. Avoiding the auction rule just makes the property distribution phase slower and more random, while the house-rule that gives you money when you land on free parking just slows down the already terrible attrition phase.Report
(Obligatory)
http://existentialcomics.com/comic/19Report
@alan-scott
So it was a Brechtian game without the catchy songs?Report
I’m going to try to write a Kant, Hegel, Meinong, and Whitehead (or Pierce) version.Report
@saul-degraw , By accident, maybe? I know the Landlord game as originally designed included a second act that was a cathartic happy ending that Brecht would presumably dislike.
But would Brecht approve of the degree to which a player of monopoly forges an emotional connection with the little race car? And speaking of catchy tunes, is Charles Darrow the Bobby Darin of board games? Is it really just a coincidence that both Catan and Mother Courage involve 17th century European soldiers that steal livestock?
Clearly these are questions that can only be answer by a series of posts on Brechtian Theater!Report
@brandon-berg what I read is that Monopoly is a faster game if you play by the original rules. Whether or not this makes it better is a matter of debate.Report
@alan-scott the Landlord game was intended to teach Georgist economics but lots of people seemed to have a rollicking-good time playing it according to the Monopolists. It was fun enough for people to make home-made versions of the game and share it with friends and family for three decades before it transformed into monopoly.Report
Unabomber, not Unibomber. He was called that because he bombed UNiversities and Airlines, not because he worked alone.Report
And not because he had a unibrow either!!Report
Nor because he was trying to create partitions of unity.Report
And not because he had a unibrow either!!
Or is “unibrow” a potentially egalitarian compromise between highbrow art and its lesser forms? 😉Report
Po5 – The Kaus resignation is a huge story, not about immigration but about the conservative movement and about the new media.Report
On the other hand, Kaus has always been an odd duck in the blogging world. He’s practically the guy for which the ‘even the liberal New Republic’ trope was invented. He’s alienated a lot of people along the way – ideologically, not personally, but professional alienation is still alienation.
Last, the fact that Tucker Carlson is a hack is not quite news. Which is shame, because he doesn’t have to be – during the early portion of the 2008 campaign cycle (and after the dressing down from Stewart, but that wasn’t the cause) he ditched the bowtie and had a Weigelian sense of (actual) fairness and balance in political reporting. But then he reverted to form with the DC.Report
I don’t care for either guy, but good for Kaus. If your boss lets his personal conflicts of interest prevent you from doing your job right, you should quit and feel good about it.
Still, he should really leave those poor goats alone.Report
The lunacy of California’s referendums
http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2015/03/20/california_can_t_kill_its_kill_the_gays_ballot_measure.htmlReport
So a bunch of homophobes can stand outside shopping malls and farmers’ markets? While I think the referendum/initiative power could use some significant refinement, giving the AG the power to ban initiatives before they even start signature collection isn’t a terribly good idea.Report
Pretty much this. If the proposed initiative didn’t help LGBT rights, I would be amazed in any case. And there is a reason we don’t let AG’s into the legislative process.Report
@francis @aaron-david
I think that the system was started with noble and good intentions but it is now just a mess where anyone with an agenda can get a measure on the ballot and this creates a mess of a system. Also this includes corporations which is ironic because the referendum and initiative system was designed to destroy Southern Pacific’s stranglehold on the the legislature.
More often than not, these ballots are more trouble than good. Three Strikes is a good example.Report
I think that the system was started with noble and good intentions but it is now just a mess…
You’re just not a westerner yet, Saul, despite where you live. With my western hat on, you can have my ballot initiative privilege when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers. Despite the problems, I believe that the goad on the legislature that the citizen initiative process provides is still more of a feature than a bug. And I’m from the state that can give California a run for “most dumb things implemented by initiative.”
With tongue only partially in cheek, the President bemoans low voter turnout. There’s nothing like a few good controversial ballot initiatives to up the turnout (especially coupled with universal vote-by-mail).Report
Dang. I wanted to phrase that last parenthetical comment as “especially coupled with universal vote-by-mail — another Western innovation that Easterners decry”.Report
I have no problem with vote by mail.Report
This stuff is pretty great for LGBTQ rights. I mean, this is the best thing since Fred Phelps. I’d even sign to get the fucker on the ballot. Cuz obvi.
These guys make the long game easy for us.Report
Yeah, I found myself thinking “if I wanted something that could both end the ballot initiative process *AND* help undecideds say something like ‘I had better not vote for the guys most likely to offer tentative and weak support for that guy'”, what would I want to happen?
And then this story popped up.Report
On my Facebook feed some liberals are decrying an attempt in Texas to give the AG similar veto authority.Report
For all that the current proposed measure is ridiculous and will never even get onto the ballot, we’re talking about the same initiative process that stripped gay Californians of our right to marry less than a decade ago.
Too many initiatives are nothing more than hate-ons for disfavored groups–and I’ve seen studies that intitiatives that restrict minority rights are significantly more likey to pass than initiatives as a whole. I’d be perfectly comfortable with very restrictive checks on the initiative process.Report
Razib Khan is the latest victim of SJW McCarthyism:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2015/03/new-york-times-drops-razib-khan-204287.htmlReport
I wasn’t aware that the New York Times was owned by the federal government. But if you’re taking the position that media companies have an obligation (moral? legal?) to provide a forum for a wide range of voices, including those generally in opposition to the ownership, the NYT is pretty far down the list of violators.Report
I wasn’t aware that the New York Times was owned by the federal government.
Neither were the Hollywood studios that blacklisted communists.Report
And let me add the i doubt the Times a unaware of Raizib’s views when they hired(He’s listed his blog post on the issue as one of his personal favorites). The Times caving the the SJW bullies bothers me while the Times not hiring him in the fist place would not have. This demonstrates how much power SJWs have and how quick polite society caves the their every whim.Report
Even as a guy that has linked to him here (and taken flack for it), I’m still not sure what the NYT was thinking hiring him.Report
@will-truman
Razib’s blog is one of the most informative and enlightening I’ve come across someone at the Times probably thought the same thing. Nicholas Wade their longtime science editor recently wrote a book that reads like a collection of Steve Sailer columns.Report
Hell yeah. We even got to Mickey Kaus.
Who controls the British Pound?
Who keeps the metric system down?
We do! We do!Report
The influence of SJWs is vastly overstated. The really powerful ones, like Feinstein, Boxer, Ginsburg, and Kagan, are all married.Report
(Not Kagan.)Report
Damn, you’re right. Have I forgotten that coming up during her confirmation hearings, or did the usual suspects actually behave themselves?Report
Yeah, even as a one time friend of Razib’s (we didn’t have a falling out or anything, just the drift of time), I can’t imagine what the NYT was thinking in hiring him. It’s not just the “social justice warriors” who’d go after them for that hire.Report
@mike-schilling It came up. I read an article where her roommate was quoted about all the times they talked about cute guys. I felt so bad for Kagan; it must have been humiliating.Report
In practice I’ve found that the acronym SJW is only used by people with bigotry problems. It originated with the Gamergate crowd after all.Report
Specifically, people who have a problem with the bigotry of the SJWs.Report
Yes, I admit it. I’m a bigot against misogynists, racists, and various other assholes. So be it.Report
I would remind you that extremism in the defense of unbiased video game reviews is no vice.Report
I call SJWs bullies for a reason; SJWs are able to have a massive influence because no one is willing to stand up to them. Here’s one example:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k–lBw8nTCk
http://abc7.com/archive/7475737/
Out of 1000 people maybe 1 will find it racist, but because Hallmark is so afraid of being considered racist they pulled. SJWs were able to impose their will on the public despite being vastly outnumbered. That’s why counter organization is needed if caving to the demands of SJWs results in boycotts companies will stop doing it.Report
comment stuck in moderationReport
Oh, well, as long as you’re convinced that they deserve it, I guess it’s not really bigotry.Report
Maybe it’s specific to the slice of west-coast liberal geekdom that inhabits my facebook feed, but I’d say “Social Justice Warrior” is something of a reappropriated term.Report
To be clear, condemning actual racism, sexism, and other forms of bigotry is totally legitimate. The problem with SJWs is their tendency to use spurious accusations of racism/sexism/etc. to score political points, discredit those who disagree with them, or for personal aggrandizement. Actually, I would say that’s more their defining characteristic rather than a tendency. People who condemn actual bigotry aren’t SJWs—they’re just decent people.Report
Really, some of my best friends oppose bigotry.Report
If you call SJWs bullies, what do you call people whose response to women they dislike is threats of rape and murder?Report
They’re worse, certainly. Was there someone here defending them that I overlooked?Report
Right, @brandon-berg as long as people oppose what you think is bigotry, they’re good people.
But, if thy go too far, their evil SJW’s who are destroying the innocent lives. Right?Report
SJW predated the Gamergate crowd. It’s just that the popularity of Gamergate got the term out there into the non-weird parts of the internet.
Urban dictionary, for example, has definitions that date back to 2011.Report
Speaking only for myself, I happily embrace SJW, though I could do without ‘warrior,’ and would replace it with ‘activist.’
Working for better social justice seems, to me, honorable and good. And I really don’t care if other people don’t like it.Report
Working for better (X) seems, to me, honorable and good. And I really don’t care if other people don’t like it.
Yeah, I grew up in the Southern Babtist Church. You wouldn’t believe what those people thought was honorable and good and they didn’t care if other people didn’t like it. They knew, in their hearts, what God wanted them to achieve on His behalf.
Now, of course, I know that this time isn’t like last time and these people aren’t like those people and these causes are just and those causes weren’t…
But I’d like to spend a lot more time on X and definition of other terms (“honor” “good”) than on how skepticism is evidence of being one of those people that doesn’t like it and we’ve already established that we don’t care if they don’t. Like last time.Report
@zic
If people who claimed to work for social justice actually ended up contributing to more social justice it would be good, but that is not the case. Instead what we get is people who work for what they think is social justice (but which may or may not in fact be what a just society requires) and even if they get the goal right, their actions or words may not necessarily actually contribute to the right goal. SJW is a pejorative not out of some perverseness, but because the people so described are either unserious, unintelligent in their pursuit of their goals or both. If one is genuinely committed to justice, then one must be open to arguments that call into question the validity of one’s own conception of justice. One must also be open to considerations that would indicate that the means one pursues does not achieve one’s ends. Otherwise, its just self indulgence. You can’t even call that person well intentioned. A good will must be meaningfully committed to finding out what justice actually requires. A lot of people termed SJW are not only mistaken about what justice requires, they are so confident that they are right that they are not open to arguments otherwise. Questioning their rightness is just more proof of perfidy.Report
@jaybird sometimes your BSDI’s are illuminating. Sometimes, they’re just hogwash.
Conflating religious beliefs that a denomination would impose on others with social justice falls into the hogwash category. I’ve got no problem with a SB practicing their beliefs, but the SJW in my rails at imposition.Report
@murali
If people who claimed to work for social justice actually ended up contributing to more social justice it would be good, but that is not the case.
This is nuts, first of all. If people who advocate for social justice were not successful in at least some of their efforts, we’d be a pretty sorry world.
But I see a world where things do change, and often for the better. Where social justice does win the day on occasion. And while I also see people who do exactly what you’re saying — If one is genuinely committed to justice, then one must be open to arguments that call into question the validity of one’s own conception of justice. They just don’t get to be the topic of snarky blog postings because they’re serious about considering arguments against their perspective.Report
@zic
how are your beliefs about social justice different from the religious person’s conservative beliefs? Of course they are different in content and you may even tell me that your beliefs are true while his beliefs, so long as he keeps it to himself are just harmless delusions. But surely he would could just reverse that claim.
Do you see why the principle of public justification is important if you wish to avoid BSDI accusations? If neither your beliefs are publicly justifiable, then its simply a matter of imposing one’s beliefs on others. On the other hand, if you can show that given the conservative’s beliefs he is also rationally committed to abiding by the requirements of social justice as you describe it, then the situation is genuinely asymmetrical.Report
@zic, you just agreed with me. Yes, of course, there are people who are serious about social justice (and things are getting better in a number of ways) and they are not the subjects of snarky blog posts because they are serious about considering counterarguments. The people whom the epithet is aimed at are not those people, just the unserious ones.Report
I don’t use the term myself, but when I see someone use the SJW as an epithet, they are implying that the SJW is not actually fighting for social justice, but something else (self-aggrandizement, silencing opponents, etc.). Which is sometimes true and sometimes not, and sometimes partially true. The varying degrees of accuracy make the term less than useful, in my view, and falls in the category of “large brush attacks.”Report
@murali I’m sorry, but how do you know the difference between serious and unserious? Who’s the lucky duck that get’s to hand out those labels? Is Bill McKibben a SJW? Radley Balko? Elizabeth Warren? They all seem quite thoughtful and serious to me.
And just because someone is speaking in tribal affiliations (and so spouting ideology without deep thought) does not mean that, in some aspect of their lives, they are not serious about or well informed. The SJW label is simply another way of dismissing people who often are serious, of saying they’re not, really. It’s just another form of hippie punching.Report
Conflating religious beliefs that a denomination would impose on others with social justice falls into the hogwash category. I’ve got no problem with a SB practicing their beliefs, but the SJW in my rails at imposition.
What are the new words for “agnostic” and “atheist”?
Because I feel the old “superatheist” inclinations bubbling up again.
And they feel familiar.
And, of course, just like last time, they’re not the proper response to the stimuli.
But, just like last time, they’re being triggered (for lack of a better word) by the same ones.Report
Here’s the results of SJW efforts. Seriously, it’s not about liberal or conservative, red or blue.Report
@jaybird that’s too much a Zen riddle for me to parse.
But I’ve been pretty consistent in my time here that I do not think a religious group has a right to impose their beliefs on others; see all our discussions of HL and contraception for copious examples. I’ve also been critical of efforts to suppress religious expression — critical of France’s head-scarf rule, for instance; but at the same time, I would also criticize the household that insisted a daughter wear a scarf if she opted not to wear one; she has the right to decide if she believes that particular form of expression, not her father, her mother, or her government.Report
I’ve been pretty consistent in my time here that I do not think a religious group has a right to impose their beliefs on others
We probably also disagree on our definitions of “religion”, now that I think about it.Report
Here’s the results of SJW efforts. Seriously, it’s not about liberal or conservative, red or blue.
SJWs had nothing to do with that. That happened because of capitalism.Report
I do not think a religious group has a right to impose their beliefs on others; see all our discussions of HL and contraception for copious examples.
If they were imposing thier their beliefs then every Muslim employer that doesn’t buy their employees an Easter Ham is imposing their beliefs on others.Report
I’lll skip the ham, but I’d greatly appreciate the green eggs, thank you.Report
“Here’s the results of SJW efforts. Seriously, it’s not about liberal or conservative, red or blue.”
Yah, and here’s one that looking alot like one too:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/02/03/columbia-student-i-didn-t-rape-her.htmlReport
SJWs are the people who destroy the lives of in order to advance their own carers and/or feel good about themselvs, like J.K. Trotter and Jamelle Bouie just did to Razib Khan. Since these people have no problem destroying they have no business complaining when people make their lives miserable. And before anyone puts words in my mouth I don’t mean that people should threaten them in any way.Report
That’s the nub of the disagreement. What are “they” actually trying to accomplish, and who counts as “they”? The weakness in the SJW attacks is that it paints an awfully large brush. Some of “them” are self-promoters, some of “them” are trying to score political points, and some of “them” are trying to make the world a better place by their reckoning.
The broad use of the phrase implies that either (a) they are rarely justified, which I don’t believe is true, or (b) that they should be defined by the most excessive uses of influence and by their most rabid members, which is not particularly fair.Report
It’s like Chris Rock said: there’s principled people, and there’s SJWs.Report
We can ask whether someone attempts to justify his or her positions in terms that those who disagree with him not only appreciate but also accept. But, even suppose we agree that someone can be wrong about assessments about seriousness, notice that we are having a somewhat different conversation now. Instead of a blanket defence of anyone who claims to work towards social justice, we acknowledge the possibility that some people who claim to be working for social justice are not in fact contributing to the cause. Now, its just a question of who is serious and who is not.
But even then, it is not too difficult to see who is not being serious. In discussions, the person who always seems to be saying that their pet cause is different, who fails to apply the general rules he or she is willing to apply in all other cases. The person who refuses to change their views even when it is pointed out that they are inconsistent. That person is not serious. Being serious about justice is hard. Fewer people adequately manage it than they think. Most people don’t think seriously enough about justice.Report
There’s an interesting essay here that has this particular excerpt that makes the following point that resonates very much with me:
I feel like every single term in social justice terminology has a totally unobjectionable and obviously important meaning – and then is actually used a completely different way.
The closest analogy I can think of is those religious people who say “God is just another word for the order and beauty in the Universe” – and then later pray to God to smite their enemies. And if you criticize them for doing the latter, they say “But God just means there is order and beauty in the universe, surely you’re not objecting to that?”
(Warning: I haven’t read the rest of his blog but I’ve got this thing scratching in the back of my head that says “it might be bad to link to that guy’s blog…” and my cursory searches aren’t lifting up anything but I don’t want to deal with the “wait, you’re quoting a guy who said *THIS* a couple of months ago???” question. I’m hoping that this disclaimer will be sufficient for that.)Report
I’d be inclined to agree if the most extreme members weren’t having very real effects, but given the way that people in power will cave in even the most tenuous of cases(like the Hallmark black hole card) I think there needs to be some organized pushback. When people have their careers ruined of minor slip ups (Razib is not an example of that although i think it’s just as bad but for other reasons) there’s a problem.Report
That’s the nub of the disagreement. What are “they” actually trying to accomplish, and who counts as “they”? The weakness in the SJW attacks is that it paints an awfully large brush. Some of “them” are self-promoters, some of “them” are trying to score political points, and some of “them” are trying to make the world a better place by their reckoning.
The broad use of the phrase implies that either (a) they are rarely justified, which I don’t believe is true, or (b) that they should be defined by the most excessive uses of influence and by their most rabid members, which is not particularly fair.
I’d be inclined to agree if the most extreme members weren’t having very real effects, but given the way that people in power will cave in even the most tenuous of cases(like the Hallmark black hole card) I think there needs to be some organized pushback. When people have their careers ruined of minor slip ups (Razib is not an example of that although i think it’s just as bad but for other reasons) there’s a problem.Report
Is Khan’s career ruined? As I understand it, he’s about where he was a month ago.Report
From the Wikipedia article on Gamergate:
Others were targeted by similar harassment, doxing, and death threats under the Gamergate umbrella. Those who came to the defense of those targeted were labeled by their opponents as “white knights”, or “social justice warriors”
So, anti-SJWers, those are your allies. Enjoy.Report
@mike-schilling
If you want to go there Edward R Murrow and Stalin were on the same side during McCarthyism.Report
I prefer “Social Justice Techno-Mage.”
But yeah, there are a lot of people (mostly young) on Twitter and Tumblr who are kinda getting into these cycles of aggressive, confrontational behavior, and given how social media works this spirals out of control fast. We’ve all seen it. But then, it seems more a property of social networks than social justice — unless anyone here is actually proud of the way gamergaters have behaved. Or the -chans. Or the “redpill” creeps. I could go on.
Anyway, outrage culture and meme culture and great big storms of stupid are the new normal. I just laugh and give a nod to chaos.
#####
There is a core to social justice that springs up from civil rights and gay liberation and feminism, and that stuff has a long history. Thus to say “Oh it’s capitalism and not at all social justice” is literally stupid. Social justice, as we understand it, emerges within capitalism.
And sure much of social justice was and remains explicitly anti-capitalist. Nothing new here.
I consider myself capitalist-critical. I advocate a mixed economy.
You know, like what we actually have.Report
You’re either with the HUAC or you’re with the Communists.
In the early 1950s, the Communist government in North Vietnam launched a land reform program, which, according to Steven Rosefielde, was “aimed at exterminating class enemies.” Victims were chosen in an arbitrary manner, following a quota of four to five percent. Torture was used on a wide scale, so much so that by 1954 Ho Chi Minh became concerned, and had it banned. It is estimated that some 50,000 to 172,000 people perished in the campaigns against wealthy farmers and landowners. Rosefielde discusses much higher estimates that range from 200,000 to 900,000, which includes summary executions of National People’s Party members.
So, anti-HUACers, these are your allies.Report
“Social Justice Techno-Mage”
You bring the wizard hat, I’ll bring the glowsticks. 😉Report
@will-truman
Do you still have that open letter from the radical leftist? It might be instructive in relation to the SJW discussion.Report
Torture was used on a wide scale, so much so that by 1954 Ho Chi Minh became concerned, and had it banned.
So your point is that Obama is a communist too?Report
I’d be inclined to agree if the most extreme members weren’t having very real effects
Like the real effect of being paid less than the man I supervised? When I queried this, my boss referred me to his boss (who made those decisions,) and I was told, “Well, he’s got a wife and a kid.” I pointed out that I was a wife, and wanted to have a kid, and when I did, I’d have to take some time off without pay, and that difference in our wages, over a single year, would actually cover my wages on the off chance that I did have to take maternity leave.
Or like the real effect of being raped and not daring to tell anyone because I knew I’d be viewed as the person who done wrong — wrong place, wrong dress, wrong state of inebriation?
You can always find a few examples of things run amok; but just because someone was unjustly run out of a job or an opportunity or suffered some public shaming doesn’t mean that there’s not this blackwater of injustice baked in and taken for granted and have a lot more actual real effect. When people speak out about those very real effects, I hear this babble of nonsense about claiming victim status.
So which is it? Real effect or glorifying in being a victim?
But my real effects are no less important, no less real, than yours.Report
Do we know how well Ho Chi Minh’s ban was followed? Was it as well as ours is being followed?Report
Anyway, it’s a good thing that y’all are so highly principled in your pursuit of The Good that you can take over terminology from people waging literal war on women [1] without mussing up your haloes.
1. Online death threats and rape threats plus doxing is a threat of actual violence. Going into hiding as a result, as some victims have done, is not an overreaction.Report
The US had never tortured anyone, and everyone knows we tortured people, and anyway they deserved it.Report
@will-truman – no, his orbit was shifted when Ceti Alpha VI exploded.Report
@zic @mike-schilling
What you two are doing is equivalent of def ending Joseph McCarthy by saying “look at all the people Stalin is killing.” Changing the subject using guilty by association “you know who else opposes me”.Report
@will-truman
Given the oversupply of candidates and the power of SJWs on college campuses I find it hard to believe that this won’t hurt his chances of finding an academic position. Why hire him and risk a SJW Sh*tStorm when you can hire someone else.Report
The US had never tortured anyone, and everyone knows we tortured people, and anyway they deserved it.
When I first read this, I laughed at it as a brilliant swipe against Obama (among others).
Then I began to suspect that that wasn’t was you were doing and you might be arguing against a position you thought I was holding.Report
That’s only if we all agree on your particular definition of SJW McCarthyism, @dand.
Ironically, one could argue you’re practicing the very thing you’re preaching against — being a social justice warrior, defending people who you think have been needless harmed, and denouncing other’s right to speak out.Report
@zic
You’re the one who keeps trying to change the subject from SJWs getting people fired to something else. Why not defend the SJWs getting Razib fired rather than changing the subject?Report
Anyway, it’s a good thing that y’all are so highly principled in your pursuit of The Good that you can take over terminology from people waging literal war on women [1] without mussing up your haloes.
If you want to use that logic the term Social Justice was coined by a notorious Anti-Semite.Report
From Wikipedia:
A Jesuit priest named Luigi Taparelli is typically credited with coining the term, and it spread during the revolutions of 1848 with the work of Antonio Rosmini-Serbati.
But you’re right that it seems to have been coined by a priest.Report
I stand corrected, but my broader point still stands; if gamergate discredited the use of SJW then the term “social justice” was discredited by Father Coughlin.Report
What a silly game.
I will never forget the dude who told me “social justice” was socialist because it has the word “social” in it. This looks a lot like that.Report
Why not defend the SJWs getting Razib fired rather than changing the subject?
Because I don’t believe the SJW’s didn’t get Razib fired.
MSNBC is cleaning it’s liberal house. Is this a result of conservative bullying?
Or is it market forces?Report
As far as I can tell, Razib was fired because Gawker highlighted his association with racists, and the New York Times was like, “Oh, shit!” So they did what pretty much any major publication would do, regardless of whether your social justice bogeypeople exist.Report
Actually, social justice derives from national socialism, though in a way it really back to the ancient Greeks, since it’s an anagram for “stoical juices”.Report
As much as I enjoy hating the Thesis, I do find that the Anti-Thesis to be somewhat of an effed-up position as well. It’s just significantly less effed-up than the Thesis.
The problem is that the Anti-Thesis always regresses to the mean with the upside of being co-opted into whatever new Thesis feels like establishing itself.
At least it remains brisk to say “No. Eff No.” to the Thesis.
Though, at my age, I’d rather learn how to figure out how to stop playing the game.Report
Because I don’t believe the SJW’s didn’t get Razib fired.
MSNBC is cleaning it’s liberal house. Is this a result of conservative bullying?
He was fired a day after he was hired and only after the SJWs raised a ruckus.Report
Maybe not any major publication, but certainly most primary metropolitan newspapers. Every publication has parameters. With or without the associations, a lot of what Khan has to say is outside of the NYT’s. This was foreseeable, which is why I consider the initial hiring so odd. But I guess they were willing to ignore it, except that Gawker’s revelations made it harder to ignore. Gawker is a publication, rather than some SJW Twitter mob.
I don’t think it’s a SJW thing. Nor do I actually think it was a market thing, in its entirety. More along the lines it was a “Who are we, and who do we serve?” thing.Report
As far as I can tell, Razib was fired because Gawker highlighted his association with racists, and the New York Times was like, “Oh, shit!” So they did what pretty much any major publication would do, regardless of whether your social justice bogeypeople exist.
That’s the same type of guilt by association tactics that were common during McCarthyism; you belong to an organization that was founded by communists, you joined a communist group in 1939, you praised Stalin in 1935.
I’ve looked at Razib’s posts at Taki’s and I can’t find one that’s offensive, the only objection seems to be that they were published at a website that also publishes racists.
Let’s take this guilty by association logic one step further, Razib was writing for ScienceBlogs at the same time as PZ Myers, that makes PZ Myers a racist.Report
Dude, I was writing for ScienceBlogs at the time. I even did a podcast with him back then.
He himself has views on race that any major publication is going to want to avoid associating with, not because of you SJBs, but because the ideas are on fire on their own terms. Read the letter that the Gawker piece links.
Is he a racist? I don’t think so. Are some of his ideas poisonous to a writing career at a major mainstream publication? Rather obviously.Report
I clicked on Dand’s link to Taki’s to check out some of Khan’s pieces, and the first thing I saw was:
Most popular:
1.Are Jews Losing Control of the Media?
by Steve Sailer
So, Dand, thanks for the link (truly), but Christ on a crutch, what a cesspool.Report
@chris
I’m sure you read that letter differently but in the context of the Sailer piece it was response to I interpreted it as saying that Sailer was possibly overstating the risks of a colorist/blondest caste system developing as a result of immigration.
I read this line:
Mr. Hallaway`s question turns on making similar assumptions about intermarriages between whites and East Asians as Mr. Sailer does about intermarriages between whites and New World Indians and whites and blacks.
As stipulating for the purposes of discussion that the genetic differences in IQ were real without necessarily agreeing with it.
The Times has no problem employing Nicholas Wade who’s views on race are more extreme than Khan’s(as far as I know Khan has never come up with Just So Stories about race and IQ like Wade did in his book)Report
@zic @veronica-d – unfortunately, I think these Social Justice Character Class pins were only available in person at a specific event; if they become available as a thing one can buy generally, I will be right on it (though, sadly, no Druid available) – http://www.themarysue.com/social-justice-pins/
@will-truman I don’t use the term myself, but when I see someone use the SJW as an epithet I’m not sure that’s really representative though – since you (AFAIK) don’t visit the vile *chan cesspits of the Internet that provide 95% of the usage of the term, you’re probably witnessing more exception than rule.Report
It’s also worth noting that in this context “fired” means that the NYT is still willing to publish his editorials, and he’s still willing to write them, only NYT doesn’t have to deal with the fallout of him being an official columnist should he continue to publish racist apologetics at VDare or Taki’s.
So these SJWs managed to strip an author with “out there” racial views from having a platform of legitimacy that those views did not deserve, without really impacting his ability to be heard–and especially his ability to be heard regarding the non race-related opinions for which the NYT approached him in the first place. Boo frickin’ hoo.Report
@alan-scott get’s at something important here.
There’s a difference between having an occasional guest post and being on the masthead here, after all. I comment here a lot, I’ve written a few guest posts, but I am not a reflection of OT’s public face.
At the NYT, I’d presume there’s greater editorial consideration over the tone and content of the guest posts then there is for the mast-head writers, too.Report
@dand I’m pretty sure I did read it differently, because I read it as it was written. That is, I read the same race-based IQ positions that Razib has been arguing for over a decade. Positions that (even he admits, if you read him carefully over the years) are incredibly speculative, incredibly offensive to many, and in this context, perhaps dangerously so. Positions that the NYT almost certainly wants nothing to do with in a new, regular, staff or staff-like contributor. You don’t need Twitter mobs to get this result. You just need the Gawker piece and a recognition on the part of the NYTs that they didn’t do their homework. I bet they’re vetting the hell out of those other new writers as we type.
This seems so obvious that I can’t imagine you don’t see it, and if you don’t, I highly recommend you consult your physician about blinder-removal surgery. The SJWs and feminists you see in your mind are giving you selective myopia.Report
@chris
I’m pretty sure I did read it differently, because I read it as it was written. That is, I read the same race-based IQ positions that Razib has been arguing for over a decade
I don’t think Razib has ever stated that he is certain that race differences in IQ exist, he has always remained agnostic on the issue (he seems to think that there will be more within the next decade and a half one way or the other). I suppose it’s possible that when he wrote that letter his views were different, but I thought he was excepting the premise for the sake of argument. In my years of reading him he has never stated that he is certain that the race based differences in IQ are genetic in origin.
Positions that (even he admits, if you read him carefully over the years) are incredibly speculative, incredibly offensive to many, and in this context, perhaps dangerously so. Positions that the NYT almost certainly wants nothing to do with in a new, regular, staff or staff-like contributor.
If that’s the case why do they still employ Nicholas Wade whose positions are more extreme?
You don’t need Twitter mobs to get this result. You just need the Gawker piece and a recognition on the part of the NYTs that they didn’t do their homework.
I find it hard to believe they didn’t know about his opinions on race when they hired him; he links to one in his footer and he posted another one days before they hired him. How could they have hired him without noticing? I think they didn’t find his opinions offensive but didn’t want to end up on the receive end of an SJW attack so they caved under pressure.
The SJWs and feminists you see in your mind are giving you selective myopia.
They aren’t in my mind; I interact with these people in real life on a daily basis. I like to avoid conflict in person so a just nod and go along with what they’re saying. Don’t say it’s in my head.Report
Razib harbors some skepticism, as you’d expect a scientist to do. However, he’s consistently argued for genetic differences since he began blogging. No one who’s read him would think he believes otherwise, even if he does reserve room for doubt.Report
Cr1 – I don’t see how this case shows the laws themselves going too far in the other direction against self-defense – though I should mention it absolutely shows how screwed up coverage of domestic violence still is. First, the article complains about “stand your ground” protecting men but there being no equivalent law protecting women being subjected to domestic abuse. That conclusion makes no sense – to the extent a state has a “stand your ground” law, it seems pretty clear to me that it would cover most domestic violence self-defense situations. It would not cover situations in which the abuse victim murders her abuser at a time when he’s not committing an act of abuse, and that is certainly something worth discussing, but it doesn’t appear to be relevant to this particular case.
Second, the issue in this particular case doesn’t seem to be that the law is making it overly difficult for her to put forward a defense – after all, the jury voted 11-1 to acquit her. It seems instead to be a case of an overzealous prosecution. There are things that can and should be done to address the problem of overzealous prosecutors, but none of them are or should be specific to any particular defense situation. For instance, it seems appalling to me that in a system where you’re supposed to be convicted beyond a reasonable doubt, an 11-1 vote in favor of acquittal is only a mistrial rather than a full acquittal. There’s also issues of removing qualified immunity protections from prosecutors and police.Report
I can’t recall from previous discussion, but is a claim of self-defense an affirmative defense, or is it something else?Report
It’s an affirmative defense, but in just about every state nowadays the government has to disprove affirmative defenses beyond a reasonable doubt. I’m not a huge fan of that standard in murder self-defense cases,* though I confess that this Connecticut case is making me think that maybe it’s wise to have such a low bar for asserting self-defense.
*My view is that intentionally killing or committing an act of violence against someone else, whether or not in self-defense, is stepping into the shoes of the state, which is theoretically defined as the entity which possesses a monopoly on the use of legitimate violence. Because of that, the burden should theoretically be on the defendant to prove that the deceased was committing a crime warranting the use of deadly force, just as the burden should be on the state to prove that a defendant committed the act the state accuses her of committing. In a self-defense case, the defendant is essentially admitting that they committed the act, but is saying they have an excuse, just as the state in other circumstances openly commits acts of violence for which it has an excuse that it must prove. The Connecticut case is reminding me that this all assumes the prosecution acts fairly.Report
That is what I thought, and why I asked the question, because from the little I’ve read, the prosecutor seems to be acting as if he doesn’t have to overcome that self-defense bar at all.
I get your point about why you have issue with an affirmative defense (the logical end of that is one person who kills another, then calls the cops & claims self defense, which forces the state to demonstrate that the self defense claim is invalid, which could be tricky). But, as you said, this assumes an ideal world where the state acts fairly and solely in the interests of justice.
Like you said, a jury hung at 11-1 for acquittal should be a pretty big clue that moving for a new trial is a waste of time & resources (absent some hint of jury tampering).Report
Well, @mark-thompson , that does address your client’s contentions vis-a-vis the Sheriff, but what about the deputy?Report
Israel only nation condemned in UN for women’s right violations:
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4639165,00.htmlReport
And I got flack for saying that the US was basically a waste of time….Report
Cu4: Of course Arrow is a rip-off of batman.
It’s a rights thing: the creators want to make a show about batman, but they’re not allowed to: Someone else has “dibs” on batman. As far as I can tell, WB wants to have batman only appear in movies–that’s one reason why Gotham is a prequel show that only has Bruce Wayne as a child. Smallville also used the Green Arrow as a Batman Proxy character, and for the same reasons.
It’s not really surprising, though, that this is how their using the Green Arrow. The character was basically created as a Batman clone in the 40s, and stayed that way until Adams and O’Niel gave him a beard and political views at the beginning of the 70s.
Batman: The Brave and the Bold also deserves a shout-out for taking the pre-’69 version of the character and doing something really cool with that.Report
Didn’t know that about Smallville. Makes sense when you put it that way. I figured that they would try again with a TV show after the failure of Beware, but maybe not.
I’m a little better that DC wouldn’t let them use Ted Kord.
Brave and Bold is/was pretty awesome.Report
Cartoons are on a separate track, but they still have to deal with the same sort of BS.
In Justice League Unlimited, there’s a point at which all of the Batman supporting characters quietly disappear (they were allowed to keep batman via a special agreement). And then the next season, Aquaman is gone and the character who was clearly going to be Black Manta has been replaced by an expy. All rights issues.Report
I thought everyone knew that south korea was plastic surgery heaven. Seriously, google the pictures of any random bunch of Korean singers or actors. They all look alike. Its mildly creepy.Report
I had some first hand experience with this when I dated a chinese woman who talked about going there with a friend to get some “work done”: crows feet or something. I was surprised since 1) she didn’t need it, 2) she was in america (why not get it done here). She said it was cheaper there, but she still couldn’t afford it.Report
Cr3 — I have some quibbles with this one. First, we know that cops sometimes wrongfully charge people with resisting arrest just because they need to excuse their own violence; and such persons would then be considered ‘violent offenders.’
One of the most common complaints I heard from people who’d been arrested while reporting rested here; cops ruffed me up, and then charged me with resisting (often for something as simple as raising a hand to defend the face from a blow).
Second, we know that prosecutors typically pile on as many charges as possible.
Those two things combined suggest that there’s probably some percentage (I don’t know that it’s large, but I also don’t know that it’s small,) of folks who are incarcerated for violent crimes who’s only violent crime might stem from their actual arrest.Report
Rather than try to find the link for that thread…
To me, the SJW who fits the pejorative is a breed of activist who is an outrage junkie. They actually fit the term “Warrior” in the sense that they seek out fights for the fight itself & are much, much more concerned with winning the individual battle than they are the war.
To that end they tend to take extreme offense at the slightest provocation, real or imagined, & a scorched earth approach to debates, focusing on what they consider a win (even if it’s just shutting down the conversation) rather than convincing people.Report
I honestly wasn’t sure what you meant by Open Letter from a Leftist thing, or the thread you’re talking about.
I think SJW can mean what you’re talking about, and in my internal dialogue that’s how I might use it. In practice, it means “People who take offense at things on the basis of gender/race/etc.” Which makes it a less useful term.
I consider Khan’s past work and associations to be pretty relevant, for example, which is why I wouldn’t see this as a whipped-up-outrage sort of thing.Report
This link. http://www.mcgilldaily.com/2014/11/everything-problematic/
I have no dog in the Khan discussion. I was more interested in trying to fashion a practical definition between serious activists & unhelpful outrage junkies.Report
If the was po admits “hands up” is a fraud I wonder if liberals will stop saying it?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2015/03/19/hands-up-dont-shoot-did-not-happen-in-ferguson/Report