What are you thinking at the moment?

Talk about anything and everything.

Re: What are you thinking at the moment?

Unread postby Derek » 3 May 2022, 05:46

It doesn't speak to whether it's permissible to segregate people by race either, at least not until it was interpreted that way. Refusing to interpret the law in order to rule on issues not explicitly spelled out in the Constitution isn't an unbiased judicial philosophy, it's a conservative one - if in no other sense than that it almost always produces outcomes favored by conservatives. It's no great moral victory that the right of privacy as written in the Constitution was just determined to have a narrower scope.
User avatar
Derek
 
Posts: 7151
+1s received: 2822
Joined: 21 December 2012, 02:12
Country: United States (us)

Re: What are you thinking at the moment?

Unread postby McTaggartfan » 3 May 2022, 05:50

Derek wrote:It doesn't speak to whether it's permissible to segregate people by race either, at least not until it was interpreted that way. Refusing to interpret the law in order to rule on issues not explicitly spelled out in the Constitution isn't an unbiased judicial philosophy, it's a conservative one - if in no other sense than that it almost always produces outcomes favored by conservatives. It's no great moral victory that the right of privacy as written in the Constitution was just determined to have a narrower scope.


I'll take your word for it. Seriously.

I honestly don't care much compared to a lot of other things. So I'm content to believe you pretty unreflectively on this.
User avatar
McTaggartfan
 
Posts: 784
+1s received: 247
Joined: 7 February 2021, 02:12
Location: Washington, D.C.
Country: United States (us)

Re: What are you thinking at the moment?

Unread postby McTaggartfan » 3 May 2022, 06:02

McTaggartfan wrote:
Derek wrote:It doesn't speak to whether it's permissible to segregate people by race either, at least not until it was interpreted that way. Refusing to interpret the law in order to rule on issues not explicitly spelled out in the Constitution isn't an unbiased judicial philosophy, it's a conservative one - if in no other sense than that it almost always produces outcomes favored by conservatives. It's no great moral victory that the right of privacy as written in the Constitution was just determined to have a narrower scope.


I'll take your word for it. Seriously.

I honestly don't care much compared to a lot of other things. So I'm content to believe you pretty unreflectively on this.


To add to this, I should clarify that I don't mean to say I don't care about reproductive issues and their bearing in matters of ethical deliberation. But rather, I only meant I've not much interest in discussing them as a topic of casual conversation—especially when I'm forced to write about it over the forum, rather than talking. Sorry if that's disappointing :/
User avatar
McTaggartfan
 
Posts: 784
+1s received: 247
Joined: 7 February 2021, 02:12
Location: Washington, D.C.
Country: United States (us)

Re: What are you thinking at the moment?

Unread postby poolerboy0077 » 4 May 2022, 01:24

McTaggartfan wrote:Exactly! Constitutional law can't provide an unbiased answer, largely because the constitution doesn't speak to abortion; wherefore, it should be a matter handled by state and/or federal legislatures. That's why I called it "judicial activism."

Given that the Constitution doesn’t say that the SCOTUS has the last word in what the document means, I think we should democratically elect Oprah as the final voice in all constitutional matters. Oyez, oyez, oyez! All hail the honorable supreme being: SCOPRAH!
Blow: "Nowadays even Liam can release an album of his screechy vocals and it'll probably go #1..."
Ramzus: I can admit that I'm horny just about 24/7
homomorphism: I used to not think your name was deshay and that Erick was just being racist
Hunter: sometimes I think I was literally born to be a pornstar
User avatar
poolerboy0077
 
Posts: 9969
+1s received: 2766
Joined: 20 December 2012, 21:20
Country: United States (us)

Re: What are you thinking at the moment?

Unread postby McTaggartfan » 4 May 2022, 01:27

poolerboy0077 wrote:
McTaggartfan wrote:Exactly! Constitutional law can't provide an unbiased answer, largely because the constitution doesn't speak to abortion; wherefore, it should be a matter handled by state and/or federal legislatures. That's why I called it "judicial activism."

Given that the Constitution doesn’t say that the SCOTUS has the last word in what the document means, I think we should democratically elect Oprah as the final voice in all constitutional matters. Oyez, oyez, oyez! All hail the honorable supreme being: SCOPRAH!


If you can get popular support for it, I'm perfectly on board. At any rate, and difficult as it is to really admit, it might be an improvement over recent judicial appointments—not to mention the more recent additions to Congress.
User avatar
McTaggartfan
 
Posts: 784
+1s received: 247
Joined: 7 February 2021, 02:12
Location: Washington, D.C.
Country: United States (us)

Re: What are you thinking at the moment?

Unread postby Sullivan » 4 May 2022, 19:13

I don't like "shocked, but not surprised" and want it to stop being such a handy catchphrase in our retrograde times.

Yet events continue to conspire against me.
User avatar
Sullivan
 
Posts: 702
+1s received: 218
Joined: 25 July 2013, 02:12
Location: Chicago
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: What are you thinking at the moment?

Unread postby Marmaduke » 4 May 2022, 19:48

Sullivan wrote:I don't like "shocked, but not surprised" and want it to stop being such a handy catchphrase in our retrograde times.

Yet events continue to conspire against me.

I feel like the UK is probably relatively bad for that. I feel that’s very much our national vibe; a perpetual state of being unsurprised at how shocking we find the modern world.
User avatar
Marmaduke
 
Posts: 8564
+1s received: 3277
Joined: 23 December 2012, 17:56
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: What are you thinking at the moment?

Unread postby poolerboy0077 » 4 May 2022, 20:34

I’m loving all the theories as to whom leaked. Some in the right are blaming the left saying this a real insurrection as it attempts at undermining the institution. Others on the left are saying it’s a right winger who wanted to keep the votes in favor from changing later on. Some are insisting that it was Alito who leaked it to get his colleagues locked in. So many conspiracies swirling around.
Blow: "Nowadays even Liam can release an album of his screechy vocals and it'll probably go #1..."
Ramzus: I can admit that I'm horny just about 24/7
homomorphism: I used to not think your name was deshay and that Erick was just being racist
Hunter: sometimes I think I was literally born to be a pornstar
User avatar
poolerboy0077
 
Posts: 9969
+1s received: 2766
Joined: 20 December 2012, 21:20
Country: United States (us)

Re: What are you thinking at the moment?

Unread postby McTaggartfan » 4 May 2022, 21:36

poolerboy0077 wrote:I’m loving all the theories as to whom leaked. Some in the right are blaming the left saying this a real insurrection as it attempts at undermining the institution. Others on the left are saying it’s a right winger who wanted to keep the votes in favor from changing later on. Some are insisting that it was Alito who leaked it to get his colleagues locked in. So many conspiracies swirling around.


Then you must've been in perpetual bliss the past few years, given how many conspiracies have been "swirling around" (esp. on the far right)!
User avatar
McTaggartfan
 
Posts: 784
+1s received: 247
Joined: 7 February 2021, 02:12
Location: Washington, D.C.
Country: United States (us)

Re: What are you thinking at the moment?

Unread postby Sullivan » 4 May 2022, 22:11

Marmaduke wrote:I feel like the UK is probably relatively bad for that. I feel that’s very much our national vibe; a perpetual state of being unsurprised at how shocking we find the modern world.

If I were a British citizen maybe the national vibe here would bother me. But I'm a U.S. citizen, and therefore anywhere is better than the U.S.
User avatar
Sullivan
 
Posts: 702
+1s received: 218
Joined: 25 July 2013, 02:12
Location: Chicago
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: What are you thinking at the moment?

Unread postby Derek » 5 May 2022, 00:00

poolerboy0077 wrote:I’m loving all the theories as to whom leaked. Some in the right are blaming the left saying this a real insurrection as it attempts at undermining the institution. Others on the left are saying it’s a right winger who wanted to keep the votes in favor from changing later on. Some are insisting that it was Alito who leaked it to get his colleagues locked in. So many conspiracies swirling around.

Someone was speculating that Alito leaked it so red states would have the opportunity to line up legislation ahead of time. That seems unlikely to me, but hey, who knows.

Others are saying that the decision spells out a strategy or intention for overturning Obergefell. I really don't know what will happen if that's the case. It seems like a fight they wouldn't want to pick.

Also clock the "whom" you dumb bitch.
User avatar
Derek
 
Posts: 7151
+1s received: 2822
Joined: 21 December 2012, 02:12
Country: United States (us)

Re: What are you thinking at the moment?

Unread postby Derek » 5 May 2022, 02:59

poolerboy0077 wrote:
Derek wrote:YouTube is extremely invested in getting me to watch Netflix' Heartstopper.

It hasn’t recommended it to me, which probably means you like sappy teen romance like Michael. He watched it and said he loved it. You would too but don’t want to admit it to yourself.

Update on that, I did watch it and while it's not my cup of tea, it is obscenely, gratingly cute. It's a feverish wish-fulfilment fantasy but it was done pretty well.
User avatar
Derek
 
Posts: 7151
+1s received: 2822
Joined: 21 December 2012, 02:12
Country: United States (us)

Re: What are you thinking at the moment?

Unread postby poolerboy0077 » 5 May 2022, 13:26

Derek wrote:Also clock the "whom" you dumb bitch.

That’s actually a (weird) auto-“correct”. I don’t use that word out of principle because of nerds like you.

Derek wrote:
poolerboy0077 wrote:
Derek wrote:YouTube is extremely invested in getting me to watch Netflix' Heartstopper.

It hasn’t recommended it to me, which probably means you like sappy teen romance like Michael. He watched it and said he loved it. You would too but don’t want to admit it to yourself.

Update on that, I did watch it and while it's not my cup of tea, it is obscenely, gratingly cute. It's a feverish wish-fulfilment fantasy but it was done pretty well.

You were totally watching this on your stomach cross-legged while giggling.




Do you all think that it’s possible to change religious people’s minds on the subject of abortion? Like, they’ve had changed their position on things over the years, not necessarily out of some epiphany of enlightenment but probably more as adaptation to the modern world but do you all think abortion is necessarily different here, or do you think we’ve just been focusing on imaginary culprits? This question is separate from the recent leaked Opinion given that most Americans favor legalized abortion and the reason we got the judicial makeup that we have is that progressives didn’t go out to vote in 2016.
Blow: "Nowadays even Liam can release an album of his screechy vocals and it'll probably go #1..."
Ramzus: I can admit that I'm horny just about 24/7
homomorphism: I used to not think your name was deshay and that Erick was just being racist
Hunter: sometimes I think I was literally born to be a pornstar
User avatar
poolerboy0077
 
Posts: 9969
+1s received: 2766
Joined: 20 December 2012, 21:20
Country: United States (us)

Re: What are you thinking at the moment?

Unread postby Brenden » 5 May 2022, 18:18

poolerboy0077 wrote:This question is separate from the recent leaked Opinion given that most Americans favor legalized abortion and the reason we got the judicial makeup that we have is that progressives didn’t go out to vote in 2016.

I think you mean that the Democratic Party shoved an unlikable candidate with decades of baggage and vitriol down our throats who had the hubris to snub states like Michigan on the campaign trail thinking she was going to win in a landslide.

Oh, and also the narcissistic justice who despite growing list of ailments including several different cancers wanted to hold out for a female president before retiring, thereby gambling with the makeup of the court.
Disclaimer: All views expressed in my posts are my own and do not reflect the views of this forum except when otherwise stated or this signature is not present.

ImageImageImageImage
User avatar
Brenden
Administrator
 
Posts: 9158
+1s received: 3525
Joined: 20 December 2012, 20:12
Location: Maryland
Country: United States (us)

Re: What are you thinking at the moment?

Unread postby Derek » 5 May 2022, 19:26

poolerboy0077 wrote:
Derek wrote:
poolerboy0077 wrote:
Derek wrote:YouTube is extremely invested in getting me to watch Netflix' Heartstopper.

It hasn’t recommended it to me, which probably means you like sappy teen romance like Michael. He watched it and said he loved it. You would too but don’t want to admit it to yourself.

Update on that, I did watch it and while it's not my cup of tea, it is obscenely, gratingly cute. It's a feverish wish-fulfilment fantasy but it was done pretty well.

You were totally watching this on your stomach cross-legged while giggling.

I teared up a little at the end. And once it was over, I felt sort of depressed. I was like... damn, my childhood fucking sucked.
User avatar
Derek
 
Posts: 7151
+1s received: 2822
Joined: 21 December 2012, 02:12
Country: United States (us)

Re: What are you thinking at the moment?

Unread postby poolerboy0077 » 5 May 2022, 22:08

Brenden wrote:
poolerboy0077 wrote:This question is separate from the recent leaked Opinion given that most Americans favor legalized abortion and the reason we got the judicial makeup that we have is that progressives didn’t go out to vote in 2016.

I think you mean that the Democratic Party shoved an unlikable candidate with decades of baggage and vitriol down our throats who had the hubris to snub states like Michigan on the campaign trail thinking she was going to win in a landslide.

Oh, and also the narcissistic justice who despite growing list of ailments including several different cancers wanted to hold out for a female president before retiring, thereby gambling with the makeup of the court.

I’m not saying Hillary and RBG aren’t cunts, but the option to not vote got us here. :shrug:

Derek wrote:I teared up a little at the end. And once it was over, I felt sort of depressed. I was like... damn, my childhood fucking sucked.

That’s hilarious. That was Michael’s reaction. He was depressed the entire weekend.
Blow: "Nowadays even Liam can release an album of his screechy vocals and it'll probably go #1..."
Ramzus: I can admit that I'm horny just about 24/7
homomorphism: I used to not think your name was deshay and that Erick was just being racist
Hunter: sometimes I think I was literally born to be a pornstar
User avatar
poolerboy0077
 
Posts: 9969
+1s received: 2766
Joined: 20 December 2012, 21:20
Country: United States (us)

Re: What are you thinking at the moment?

Unread postby Derek » 5 May 2022, 22:37

poolerboy0077 wrote:
Derek wrote:I teared up a little at the end. And once it was over, I felt sort of depressed. I was like... damn, my childhood fucking sucked.

That’s hilarious. That was Michael’s reaction. He was depressed the entire weekend.

Pff, like he had it so bad. Did he ever tell you he was prom king? I knew I was gay and I was incredibly lonely.
User avatar
Derek
 
Posts: 7151
+1s received: 2822
Joined: 21 December 2012, 02:12
Country: United States (us)

Re: What are you thinking at the moment?

Unread postby Brenden » 6 May 2022, 13:49

poolerboy0077 wrote:
Brenden wrote:
poolerboy0077 wrote:This question is separate from the recent leaked Opinion given that most Americans favor legalized abortion and the reason we got the judicial makeup that we have is that progressives didn’t go out to vote in 2016.

I think you mean that the Democratic Party shoved an unlikable candidate with decades of baggage and vitriol down our throats who had the hubris to snub states like Michigan on the campaign trail thinking she was going to win in a landslide.

Oh, and also the narcissistic justice who despite growing list of ailments including several different cancers wanted to hold out for a female president before retiring, thereby gambling with the makeup of the court.

I’m not saying Hillary and RBG aren’t cunts, but the option to not vote got us here. :shrug:

So you think an answer to this systemic problem in American democracy is to compel people to vote because then they'd vote for the lesser of two evils?

How on earth would such a system ever lead to self-reflection on the part of the lesser-of-two-evils candidates/party? They would constantly feel reinforced by an apparent democratic mandate to stay the ultimately unpopular, disliked, and undemocratic course!
Disclaimer: All views expressed in my posts are my own and do not reflect the views of this forum except when otherwise stated or this signature is not present.

ImageImageImageImage
User avatar
Brenden
Administrator
 
Posts: 9158
+1s received: 3525
Joined: 20 December 2012, 20:12
Location: Maryland
Country: United States (us)

Re: What are you thinking at the moment?

Unread postby poolerboy0077 » 7 May 2022, 02:31

Wouldn’t they just further tailor their campaigns toward the remaining public who will continue to vote? In any event, what needs to change is the first-past-the-post system. Not engaging in the system we have just leaves you vulnerable to extremists.
Blow: "Nowadays even Liam can release an album of his screechy vocals and it'll probably go #1..."
Ramzus: I can admit that I'm horny just about 24/7
homomorphism: I used to not think your name was deshay and that Erick was just being racist
Hunter: sometimes I think I was literally born to be a pornstar
User avatar
poolerboy0077
 
Posts: 9969
+1s received: 2766
Joined: 20 December 2012, 21:20
Country: United States (us)

Re: What are you thinking at the moment?

Unread postby Derek » 7 May 2022, 06:01

I'm not sure if I accept the idea that we wouldn't be in this situation if more people voted. Democrats have had the opportunity to protect abortion with legislation in the past, and they didn't take it. Supermajorities are never real supermajorities, majorities are never real majorities, there's always an obstructionist or a technicality or a precedent getting in the way. Even now there is no chance they'll change the filibuster because it's in the interest of everyone sitting in that room that the rules prevent them from taking as much action as possible. The majorities are never real because they make sure of it.

What exactly is their strategy? Every democrat runs on issues like abortion and minority rights, but taking actual action is never part of their agenda. The subtext is, vote for us and we'll take action - if we win every seat and every state. In reality, you vote democrat just so that for the next term it's not a republican. In the wildest dreams of the average democrat, there is no transformative policy or vision that is capable of creating a self-sustaining political movement. Canceling student debt, universal healthcare, unions, wealth tax, guaranteed income, abortion rights - there is nothing on the table except a transient lack of power for your enemies.

The only convincing reason to vote blue no matter who is for the Supreme Court makeup, and even that they managed to fuck up by not responding in kind to McConnell's abuse of procedure. We're vulnerable to extremists already and we will be as long as the Democratic part is the way it is. What option is there except to let them lose?
User avatar
Derek
 
Posts: 7151
+1s received: 2822
Joined: 21 December 2012, 02:12
Country: United States (us)

PreviousNext

Recently active
Users browsing this forum: CommonCrawl [Bot], Google [Bot], Mojeek [Bot], rogonandi, StraightGuy95 and 90 guests