We are all Slave now.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Are you advocating "claw backing" any ideological Justices already there?

I don't see a way to do that.

[Not Bob]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Would like to hear reactions to this, especially from SEC Chick.

I’m Not SEC Chick* (though I played her on TV), but this reads like a petition to close barn doors a hundred years too late. Unless it is a modest propsosal in a Swiftian sense, in which case it’s just not entertaining.

*I sorta am Not SEC Chick, though, amirite?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Would like to hear reactions to this, especially from SEC Chick.

Just to argue with a heading, there are plenty of places for ideologues on Appellate Courts. Con Law is meant for ideologues. Who else is really going to dig deep on it. Much of this, as Not SEC Chick has already said, is about shutting a barn door that was opened a long time ago (probably about the time of the English Civil War, actually).

But I do wish expertise in specific areas of law beyond litigation and con law were valued. We could use some patent lawyers or tax lawyers or trade lawyers or actual corporate lawyers somewhere in the process hearing cases on taxes, trade, IP, or corporations. And, maybe, if we valued other stuff as much as we do the goring of constitutional oxes, it would lessen the degree of polarization just because the sole focus wouldn't be how issue X affects the litmus test concerns.

[Icky Thump]

For 17 years, you have made emails from federal judges go to my junk folder, but now it includes all Pacer emails. Please stop.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I really don't know much about Harris and don't have a view about him apart from his contretemps with Klein, which did not show him in a good light. I'm not much of a fan of Klein, though I respect Tyler Cowen, who is. Klein's wife just wrote a hot book on a topic Sebby likes, so maybe that will pull him up in his opinion. I think of Klein as more of a curator of other people's views than as having interesting things to say himself, so I'm a little taken aback by Sebby's venom about him, which seems to have more to do with mood affiliation than anything he has said. The conservative part of Sebby's brain bridles at earnest liberalism and belief in policy, and is overcome by a powerful desire to tell people like Klein to shut up, and it has almost zero to do with the substance of what Klein might say.

eta: Maybe it's more appropriate to say that Klein is Lowrey's husband.

You realize that to bring mood affiliation into a discussion here basically blows up the place. Seventy percent of what people put here is cherry picked to suit their narrative of the world.

I could cite an article by Ta Nehisi Coates or Krugman in which they advocated cannibalism and it'd be lauded here. There are darlings of this place, exclusively progressive or liberal, whose works are treated with reverence. Murray deserves no quarter, but Harris? I think Harris' body of work on varied topics, most of which I've read, evidences a strong, open-minded intellect. And yet because he offended GGG's sensibilities (er, narrative) in his exchange with a buffoon like Ben Affleck, and chose to touch the third rail of censorship of Murray, he's a "bigot," a "racist."

Who's observing mood affiliation there?

Somebody needs to be the skeptic here. Because from what I see, there's an enormous amount of mood affiliation on this board.

Not so much from you. You're a son of a bitch to debate with, but you don't seem to have a strong ideology (or at least not one that isn't subject to change). So this is not in any way aimed in your direction.

"Don't you dare take shots at a view that I hold sacred" is never a wise posture. That's passion eclipsing clinical examination of issues. Klein would support this by the way, as he believes we should consider feelings. I'm not unsympathetic to that view. But facts are facts, and however deeply held a position might be, if there are holes in it, it should be criticized. I think identity politics is one of those areas. Generalizations are like abortion. Needed, but best avoided, and used rarely.

It's telling so many people here would happily call themselves progressive, as they have. Maybe you think you're one (your affection for free markets renders this impossible, by the way). I think myself one in some regards. But I'm conservative in other regards (like you). I know I'm socially liberal. But on fiscal policies, I go policy by policy. Sometimes, I like liberal ideas, sometimes conservative. My mind changes from day to day.

With the exception of a few bedrock concepts regarding individual freedom, I'm pretty much a relativist on everything, viewing theories and policies like a buffet. I think everyone is secretly the same. And yet here, to disagree with often doctrinaire liberal sacred cows earns one a massive pile-on.

I'd be careful discussing mood affiliation here. You are correct that I have knee jerk impulse to want to tell Klein to shut up. And that's perhaps unfair. But it's the same knee jerk reaction one receives here when questioning certain strident liberal or progressive opinions, or the darlings who offer them -- "I'm right, dammit... You're trolling!" Neither is true.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Not so much from you. You're a son of a bitch to debate with, but you don't seem to have a strong ideology (or at least not one that isn't subject to change).

Aw! That's the nicest thing anyone has said to me all day.

[Paisley]

Originally Posted by Not Bob

I feel oddly gratified whenever I learn that I read one of your posts before it was removed.

For those keeping track of such things, please note that a rich white high school kid can get a pass on participating in a murder of a supposed rival gang member if he says he only joined the gang because he was studying the gang culture.

This is our local high school. Incredibly bizarre and disturbing. And once again shows that justice is dependent on budget.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

You realize that to bring mood affiliation into a discussion here basically blows up the place. Seventy percent of what people put here is cherry picked to suit their narrative of the world.

I could cite an article by Ta Nehisi Coates or Krugman in which they advocated cannibalism and it'd be lauded here. There are darlings of this place, exclusively progressive or liberal, whose works are treated with reverence. Murray deserves no quarter, but Harris? I think Harris' body of work on varied topics, most of which I've read, evidences a strong, open-minded intellect. And yet because he offended GGG's sensibilities (er, narrative) in his exchange with a buffoon like Ben Affleck, and chose to touch the third rail of censorship of Murray, he's a "bigot," a "racist."

Who's observing mood affiliation there?

Somebody needs to be the skeptic here. Because from what I see, there's an enormous amount of mood affiliation on this board.

Not so much from you. You're a son of a bitch to debate with, but you don't seem to have a strong ideology (or at least not one that isn't subject to change). So this is not in any way aimed in your direction.

"Don't you dare take shots at a view that I hold sacred" is never a wise posture. That's passion eclipsing clinical examination of issues. Klein would support this by the way, as he believes we should consider feelings. I'm not unsympathetic to that view. But facts are facts, and however deeply held a position might be, if there are holes in it, it should be criticized. I think identity politics is one of those areas. Generalizations are like abortion. Needed, but best avoided, and used rarely.

It's telling so many people here would happily call themselves progressive, as they have. Maybe you think you're one (your affection for free markets renders this impossible, by the way). I think myself one in some regards. But I'm conservative in other regards (like you). I know I'm socially liberal. But on fiscal policies, I go policy by policy. Sometimes, I like liberal ideas, sometimes conservative. My mind changes from day to day.

With the exception of a few bedrock concepts regarding individual freedom, I'm pretty much a relativist on everything, viewing theories and policies like a buffet. I think everyone is secretly the same. And yet here, to disagree with often doctrinaire liberal sacred cows earns one a massive pile-on.

I'd be careful discussing mood affiliation here. You are correct that I have knee jerk impulse to want to tell Klein to shut up. And that's perhaps unfair. But it's the same knee jerk reaction one receives here when questioning certain strident liberal or progressive opinions, or the darlings who offer them -- "I'm right, dammit... You're trolling!" Neither is true.

It must be amazing to be the one person--the ONLY person--who can view differing arguments with any degree of skepticism and who can objectively evaluate different positions from a wholly unemotional and unbiased standpoint. We're lucky to have your perspective here.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Paisley

This is our local high school. Incredibly bizarre and disturbing. And once again shows that justice is dependent on budget.

Holy shit. From 3000 miles away I find this disturbing; it's got to be bizarre to be there. Are any of your kids near the same age?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

You realize that to bring mood affiliation into a discussion here basically blows up the place. Seventy percent of what people put here is cherry picked to suit their narrative of the world.

I could cite an article by Ta Nehisi Coates or Krugman in which they advocated cannibalism and it'd be lauded here. There are darlings of this place, exclusively progressive or liberal, whose works are treated with reverence. Murray deserves no quarter, but Harris? I think Harris' body of work on varied topics, most of which I've read, evidences a strong, open-minded intellect. And yet because he offended GGG's sensibilities (er, narrative) in his exchange with a buffoon like Ben Affleck, and chose to touch the third rail of censorship of Murray, he's a "bigot," a "racist."

Who's observing mood affiliation there?

Somebody needs to be the skeptic here. Because from what I see, there's an enormous amount of mood affiliation on this board.

Not so much from you. You're a son of a bitch to debate with, but you don't seem to have a strong ideology (or at least not one that isn't subject to change). So this is not in any way aimed in your direction.

"Don't you dare take shots at a view that I hold sacred" is never a wise posture. That's passion eclipsing clinical examination of issues. Klein would support this by the way, as he believes we should consider feelings. I'm not unsympathetic to that view. But facts are facts, and however deeply held a position might be, if there are holes in it, it should be criticized. I think identity politics is one of those areas. Generalizations are like abortion. Needed, but best avoided, and used rarely.

It's telling so many people here would happily call themselves progressive, as they have. Maybe you think you're one (your affection for free markets renders this impossible, by the way). I think myself one in some regards. But I'm conservative in other regards (like you). I know I'm socially liberal. But on fiscal policies, I go policy by policy. Sometimes, I like liberal ideas, sometimes conservative. My mind changes from day to day.

With the exception of a few bedrock concepts regarding individual freedom, I'm pretty much a relativist on everything, viewing theories and policies like a buffet. I think everyone is secretly the same. And yet here, to disagree with often doctrinaire liberal sacred cows earns one a massive pile-on.

I'd be careful discussing mood affiliation here. You are correct that I have knee jerk impulse to want to tell Klein to shut up. And that's perhaps unfair. But it's the same knee jerk reaction one receives here when questioning certain strident liberal or progressive opinions, or the darlings who offer them -- "I'm right, dammit... You're trolling!" Neither is true.

I think there were some others on the board who reacted pretty strongly to the Maher/Harris display with Ben Affleck. I'd dismissed both Maher and Harris as rabid racists long before that - I mean, they've both kind of made it their calling card. So don't think that show interrupted my "narrative" in any way - it was just the clowns doing their usual performance.

Harris was on the show because he was one of Maher's Islamaphobic bros. The whole point of was to get a couple of racist haters who like trashing Islam but know jack-shit about it together with a prominent liberal to get attention for their little hissy-fits. Usually, my reaction to such things is to ignore them, but in this case they were sufficiently over the top so a lot of people finally came to the conclusion I'd come to years before with respect to Maher in particular.

Everyone here is eager to engage with people with a wide range of intelligent opinions. Please don't mistake these clowns for that, though; if you do, you'll be down the Trumpian twitterhole pretty quickly. Soon you'll start telling me about how we're going to win this trade war, or explaining how Hilary sold uranium to the Russians. And how Obama shouldn't be able to buy groceries without a long-form birth certificate.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I think there were some others on the board who reacted pretty strongly to the Maher/Harris display with Ben Affleck. I'd dismissed both Maher and Harris as rabid racists long before that - I mean, they've both kind of made it their calling card. So don't think that show interrupted my "narrative" in any way - it was just the clowns doing their usual performance.

Harris was on the show because he was one of Maher's Islamaphobic bros. He was on because he is openly a racist shithead. The whole point of was to get a couple of racist haters together with a prominent liberal to get attention for them. Usually, my reaction to such things is to ignore them, but in this case they were sufficiently over the top so a lot of people finally came to the conclusion I'd come to years before with respect to Maher.

I'm eager to engage with a wide range of intelligent opinions. Please don't mistake these clowns for that; if you do, you'll be down the Trumpian twitterhole pretty quickly. Soon you'll start telling me about how we're going to win this trade war, or explaining how Hilary sold uranium to the Russians.

This is an example of generalizing run amuck. What you've done here is dangerous, and demonstrates a lot of what is fucking up our national discourse.

I'll have to unpack it, because there's a lot wrong here.

First, you cannot call someone racist because he's an alleged Islamaphobe. A racist hates people of a certain race, not of a certain religion. I suspect you are using racist where "xenophobe" or "religious bigot" is appropriate because it confers more moral authority. "Racist" has bite those terms do not. (But not for much longer, if people keep intentionally misusing it as you have here. Recklessly throwing any hyperbole around desensitizes people to it.)

Second, Harris is not an Islamaphobe. Nor is Maher. Both men look down their noses at all religions. The only reason they're labeled Islamaphobes is because they have stated that Islam is the most violent religion currently, the "problem child" of religions of the moment. That's fact. You cannot dispute that. Citing a fact does not make one a religious bigot.

That Maher brought Harris on to make a fool of Affleck is immaterial to this discussion. But since you raise it, I'd say it was a public service. Affleck should be mocked for being ludicrous and illogical, and for offering hyperbole in service of sophomoric virtue signalling.

Your last comment is truly dangerous generalizing. There, you take all of these disparate issues and lump them under the Trump banner. Trump has nothing to do with Harris or Maher (both of whom detest Trump, by the way). This is you conflating issues to confuse the discussion. Everyone hates Trump, so I shall link all these things to Trump and that will be my winning closer! Nevermind that Harris and Maher were critiquing religion long before Trump was on the campaign trail.

I do not agree with tariffs, or the trade war. I do agree that Islam is the most violent religion of the moment. I think Trump is a disaster, a national embarrassment. But I do not think that banning Muslims is a "racist" policy. It is a stupid religiously-bigoted and xenophobic policy. These are unique issues, unique offenses, and unique positions. There is no credible way to lump them under one umbrella, and your attempt to do so is transparent and comes off as disingenuous.

You have to stop with the generalizations and start looking at things on an issue by issue basis to have intelligent discussions about this stuff.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

This is an example of generalizing run amuck. What you've done here is dangerous, and demonstrates a lot of what is fucking up our national discourse.

I'll have to unpack it, because there's a lot wrong here.

First, you cannot call someone racist because he's an alleged Islamaphobe. A racist hates people of a certain race, not of a certain religion. I suspect you are using racist where "xenophobe" or "religious bigot" is appropriate because it confers more moral authority. "Racist" has bite those terms do not. (But not for much longer, if people keep intentionally misusing it as you have here. Recklessly throwing any hyperbole around desensitizes people to it.)

Second, Harris is not an Islamaphobe. Nor is Maher. Both men look down their noses at all religions. The only reason they're labeled Islamaphobes is because they have stated that Islam is the most violent religion currently, the "problem child" of religions of the moment. That's fact. You cannot dispute that. Citing a fact does not make one a religious bigot.

That Maher brought Harris on to make a fool of Affleck is immaterial to this discussion. But since you raise it, I'd say it was a public service. Affleck should be mocked for being ludicrous and illogical, and for offering hyperbole in service of sophomoric virtue signalling.

Your last comment is truly dangerous generalizing. There, you take all of these disparate issues and lump them under the Trump banner. Trump has nothing to do with Harris or Maher (both of whom detest Trump, by the way). This is you conflating issues to confuse the discussion. Everyone hates Trump, so I shall link all these things to Trump and that will be my winning closer! Nevermind that Harris and Maher were critiquing religion long before Trump was on the campaign trail.

I do not agree with tariffs, or the trade war. I do agree that Islam is the most violent religion of the moment. I think Trump is a disaster, a national embarrassment. But I do not think that banning Muslims is a "racist" policy. It is a stupid religiously-bigoted and xenophobic policy. These are unique issues, unique offenses, and unique positions. There is no credible way to lump them under one umbrella, and your attempt to do so is transparent and comes off as disingenuous.

You have to stop with the generalizations and start looking at things on an issue by issue basis to have intelligent discussions about this stuff.

Look, what both Maher and Harris do is make wild generalizations and stereotypes about Islam, the Middle East, Arabs, etc. Unpacking where they're being bigoted based on race and where on religion is tedious and unproductive and usually results in the answer "both". They each know jack shit about the region and its history. They cast aspersions against a wide range of people with no basis but their genetic pool and/or religion. You've obviously picked up many of their views from the above.

If you have problems with generalization, you really ought to puke at those two and stop with it yourself.

What a fucking waste of time. And yes, this sort of intellectually lazy bigotry (aka, "Economic Distress") is what Trump is all about.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

It must be amazing to be the one person--the ONLY person--who can view differing arguments with any degree of skepticism and who can objectively evaluate different positions from a wholly unemotional and unbiased standpoint. We're lucky to have your perspective here.

You have to look at these things issue by issue.

That National Review article saying we must never view Trump in an issue-by-issue fashion is perhaps one of the dumbest things I have ever read. It is intellectually indefensible.

For eight years, conservatives took the position that everything Obama did was bad. It was total war -- even when he pushed their own policies, they fought him. It was a national embarrassment, a degradation of our democracy.

I totally understand progressives (and apparently Buckley conservatives) detesting Trump and wanting to take the same approach. But that doesn't make it wise.

Policy is a buffet. You get behind what you like, fight against what you don't (or find a way to circumvent it). You also have to apply skepticism to every policy, as this is the only way to try to avoid the law of unintended consequences. No sane person says, "I am progressive, and therefore any policy that trends progressive is fine with me." This is, again, generalizing.

Being a relativist is a good thing. Religious freaks hijacked the term and made "moral relativism" a pejorative. I think we should embrace it and defend it. It's the first step toward true enlightenment, and the end of our sclerotic political parties.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Look, what both Maher and Harris do is make wild generalizations and stereotypes about Islam, the Middle East, Arabs, etc. Unpacking where they're being bigoted based on race and where on religion is tedious and unproductive and usually results in the answer "both". They each know jack shit about the region and its history. They cast aspersions against a wide range of people with no basis but their genetic pool and/or religion. You've obviously picked up many of their views from the above.

If you have problems with generalization, you really ought to puke at those two and stop with it yourself.

What a fucking waste of time. And yes, this sort of intellectually lazy bigotry (aka, "Economic Distress") is what Trump is all about.

Maher and Harris said all religions are nonsense. The sole unique thing they said about Islam is that it is the religion causing the most violence of all religions today. They have repeatedly said that, if they were writing 200 years ago, they would say the same thing about Christianity.

Christianity was the most violent religion of the period from 1400 to the 20th century. Do you have a problem with me saying that? Does that make me bigoted toward Christians?

Islam has been the religion responsible for the most violence of any religion from 1980 to present. That is simply a fact.

If you wish to debate how US foreign policy was involved in that, we can have that discussion. But that's a different issue.

It's not a waste of time at all. You are generalizing, and it is dangerous. And yes, Trumpian.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Aw! That's the nicest thing anyone has said to me all day.

Careful... If you admit relativist tendencies, the pile-on's coming for you next.