@dpp in the punditosphere this was a weak case, the one that seemed like a real stretch. if all the highly paid politics-knowers thought that, you’d think at least one of twelve would have been persuaded by the defense at least consider it somewhat marginal and have to mull over it a bit. i haven’t followed reporting on the presentation at trial closely, but the prosecution was apparently very persuasive!
@rst well, the hearts on rockets thing certainly was presidential!
@realcaseyrollins oh, in the new york times and associated podcasts ezra klein and ross douthat both advocated that. the good state of the union address calmed them for a bit, but recently i’ve heard (some random podcast probably, i don’t remember) it discussed again as the polling has gotten bleak.
@realcaseyrollins i wish i knew!
so much talk (however unmoored) about a withdrawal and an open Democratic convention. any such talk on the R side?
@Transportist well, i think this jury was compensated.
the speed of the verdict seems astonishing.
@Jonathanglick absolutely.
@Jonathanglick It is absurdly poorly argued, by a person who puffs himself up as an intellectual so extraordinary solidaristic values must give way. He caricatures every position not his own, although to be fair, that one caricatures itself. 1/
@Jonathanglick It’s not the shoddy argument that’s interesting in the piece. It’s the overtness and self-consciousness of the embrace of anti-universalism and overt supremacy as “Jewish”. There’s an extraordinary polarization occurring. Of course, two Jews three opinions. But when, somehow, this miserable war comes to a merciful close, will you and I and he recognize ourselves to be part of a shared community in any meaningful way at all? Should we? /fin
His ethical tradition does not strike me as unsurpassably subtle. To describe it as the Jewish tradition would be inaccurate and deeply antisemitic.
“[In times of war], it is correct to kill even the righteous among your enemy” seems like an excellent exoneration of Hamas.
What does “chosen” mean? To some, to the piece’s author, it’s exceptionalist, supremicist. To many Jews it is bitterly ironic and reflects a duty to which we are called rather than any privilege.
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/live-law-die-cross-israel
@the_roamer i just often feel this way …
“The Complex Problem Of Lying For Jobs” @ludicity https://ludic.mataroa.blog/blog/the-complex-problem-of-lying-for-jobs/
love the humans even when so often they’re intolerable.
could a supreme court justice be disbarred?
@felix that was you!
are you a monthly active user?
@sqrtminusone@emacs.ch that’s why i need infinity. the whole space gets crowded, polluted. only fleeing somewhere orthogonal to everything will suffice.
@sqrtminusone@emacs.ch when i retreat, i don’t want to share the same plane (or hyperplane) with what i am retreating from.
the conversation about supreme court recusal is a bit bizarro world.
in theory, recusal asks justices whose circumstances might prejudice their judgments to stand aside.
but our actual conversation about recusal takes as known and given the prejudice of justices. we look for pretexts to advocate that those whose prejudices we disagree with might be forced to step aside.
it’s repurposing of a vestigial mechanism.
one requires a universe of infinite dimension so there is always an orthogonal direction to retreat to.