Comment Quality:
Reading the VC comment threads post-Sotomayor, it's interesting how many of them are quickly descending into name-calling and over-the-top accusations from both sides. Granted, there is always a part of that with open blog comments: Some folks post Internet comments to enilghten, others to vent. And there are some topics, such as the OLC torture memos, that always seem to bring out hostility on both sides. But it's interesting — and to me, troubling — how the nomination, like the '08 election, is bringing so much of that to the surface so quickly so often.
UPDATE: This comment made me laugh out loud, as it was written, I think, without irony:
UPDATE: This comment made me laugh out loud, as it was written, I think, without irony:
It's really simple - Obamabots view every critisism of their Messiah and his chosen Apostles (in this case Sonia Sotomayor) as blasphemous acts. Therefore, people who make such critisism are quickly labeled racists, nativists, wingnuts etc.I hope one of our more liberal readers will hurry up and match that with a similarly idiotic comment from the left, just to balance things out.
This was once an enjoyable conservative/libertarian blog. However, nowadays it has been swamped by Obama's Sturmabteilung Internet troops. I really don't understand what's the pleasure of regularly following blogs from the other side of political spectrum. Go read DailyKomunist, please
My prediction is that -- given current political trends -- this will not get better; it will get worse.
Cheers,
The shrillness on all sides is also likely due to the participants being unable to do anything that actually effects eventual outcomes in any meaningful way. They are both the sorts of topics that are just about perfect for adult temper tantrums.
I kind of understand that other commenters find it difficult to react kindly to that.
This was once an enjoyable conservative/libertarian blog. However, nowadays it has been swamped by Obama's Sturmabteilung Internet troops. I really don't understand what's the pleasure of regularly following blogs from the other side of political spectrum. Go read DailyKomunist, please.
I stopped commenting here last year because it became pointless. It's usually (not always, but usually) name-calling done with a rich vocabulary. If I were a member of the VC, I don't think I would enable comments on my posts. There's my two cents.
Is he so badly informed that he actually believes that Sotomayor's statement was the equivalent of what he wrote? That seems really unlikely.
Or is he, let's say, not sharp and draws the false analogy because of a lack of mental processing capability? I guess that's possible.
Finally, he may be willfully trying to mislead his audience by misinforming them about what Sotomayor said and the context of her words. One reaction to that would be to post a reply that corrects the misinformation. But given how often that has been done on previous threats, it feels superfluous. So should we just ignore him? Or is it ok to call him words, just because it feels good?
I would definitely be part of the problem, as explained in my post just above. And that's the reason why I rarely comment.
I see this discussion mostly as a way to bloody President Obama. Sure, he was trying to cater to a critical demographic, but I don't think that he realized how much many Americans dislike Affirmative Action.
It is not because they are racist, but rather, because it seems somewhat unfair to privilege some based solely upon their membership in some preferred group, instead of looking at their qualifications.
Oh, and at least going to college, it isn't the white males that are disadvantaged, but rather, the white females who are disadvantaged the most.
This doesn't seem too different from the reaction to the nomination in the rest of the world. There have, after all, been lots of over-the-top accusations against Sotomayor, and not just from fringe characters. We differ, I think, on what the proper reaction to that is, but that it arouses anger isn't really surprising.
As for torture, I don't see how it can fail to lead to very hostile comments. I don't see the common ground for discussion.
Can those on the bench ever achieve job satisfaction, any more than Torquemada never could, simply because it is an empty hole in their hearts, in their souls, where they have to do ever more cruelty just to to get the same thrill by torturing people?
The regular apologists for the judiciary seem to hope people will grow weary and tired of the travesty, but in other venues the hue and cry continues to grow to fevered pitch.
It's up to the conspirators to set the bar - and they have set the bar very low.
Just this week, Jonathan Adler made a post calling Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor,"nasty."
David Kopel made a post calling Vice President Joe Biden "comical," and saying he, as Vice President, "has greatly underperformed Sarah Palin."
Jonathan Adler recently argued that "of course it is possible" that President Obama has engaged in a criminal "conspiracy" to put white-owned car dealerships out of business in favor of minority owned car dealership.
These criticisms completely lack substance. They are clear and recent examples of "name-calling and over-the-top accusations."
And these examples aren't even the most egregious - David Bernstein has recently accused former President Jimmy Carter of being a terrorist.
Eugene and Dale Carpenter keep their posts civil and informative, I appreciate that.
I enjoyed the days of Orin Kerr's solitary blog, which was great despite being the most boring blog in the history of the internet, because it was free of Bernstein and Kopel.
Calling those you disagree with Obamabots and comparing them to Hitler's political apparatus -- even with the use of an obscure word -- seems to be precisely the type of name calling Prof. Kerr was referring to.
I don't agree with everything I read here, and that's a big part of why I read the blog. I read blogs to test, strengthen, and possibly change my own views. Name calling and conclusory pronouncements are unhelpful.
With regard to Judge Sotomayor, this level of vitriol was pretty much pre-ordained. The left has been grousing about the conservative turn the Court has taken on many issues, and the right has made judicial nominations (and "activist judges") one of their favorite talking points of late, so you knew any person was going to get that thrown at them.
Both sides have been planning this for a while, and the person nominated didn't matter. Note how both sides had their arguments ready and out there before we knew anything about Sotomayor. Many conservative commentators (including on this site) have expressed reservations about her being an activist who is wrong on the issues and will lead to judicial tyranny merely because she was nominated by Obama, without looking at her record. And liberals are starting to walk back their effusive praise when they realize her record isn't all that liberal.
The more we find out and look at her cases, the more boring she seems except for a couple quotes, in contrast to the craziness on both sides.
Well said -- you beat me to it.
True. Where is the Jesse Jackson for white males?
I Am
Somebody
I May Be Middle Class,
But I Am
Somebody
I May Be Middle-Aged
But I Am
Somebody
I May Be Living Off My 401K
But I Am
Somebody
I May Be 5'-9"
But I Am
Somebody
I May Have Bought GM Stock
But I Am
Somebody
My Clothes Come From the Men's Wearhouse
My Face Is Clean-shaven
My Hair Is Thinning
But I Am
Somebody
I Am White
Black
Brown
I Speak the English Language
But I Must Be Respected
Protected
Never Rejected
I Am
God's Child
I Am
Somebody
Actually the group he's calling "Obamabots" are not merely those he disagrees with, but specifically the commenters in question (at least the left side of them), and Orin Kerr has already described them as "descending into name-calling and over-the-top accusations". Surely it is not totally unfair to call leftists who descend into name-calling and over-the-top accusations "Obamabots". After all, the point being made by that label is that they are not thoughtful, and Orin Kerr's point is... that they are not thoughtful.
The substantial claim that Long-time reader is making is quite simple: the leftists started it, the leftists are fueling it, and the rightists are being drawn in by the leftists.
I don't know whether that's true or not. It's not automatically false. It is politically correct nonsense to automatically blame both sides of a war.
I'm a regular commentor on plenty of threads, and I've noticed myself getting a little heated lately. (Sorry, Professot Somin!) As I wrote yesterday on Eugene's thread re: Obama and Sotormayor, her quote gives rise to many delicate issues. On the right, it seems that since her controversial statement suggests to some, on its face, that her Latina experience makes her better qualified to judge than someone of a different race. And when people on the left seem to parse that suggestion out of existence, it confirms a belief that the left is trying to snake identity politics through this nomination process at the cost of the law, and perhaps that Obama is elevating and excusing a racist.
And on the left, her statements simply aren't that offensive. Her record is also quite excellent. The assumption from conservatives that her defenders are acting in bad faith adds heat to the mix, as does the rhetoric from ex-politicians now trying to beef up their profile. (Gingrich, Tancredo.) To the left, a perfectly qualified candidate who adds more legitimate perspective to the Court is being derided as, at once, a racist and an affirmative action hire. That seems maddeninly self-defeating, as assuming that affirmative action is meaningful in terms of career path seems a little racist itself, given that she has put forth exemplary work at every stage. Meanwhile here and elsewhere perfectly respectable organizations like La Raza are assaulted as being racist fringe groups by people who, in some cases, had not heard the term La Raza until this month. So the overall impression is that conservatives are going apopletic over a generally uncontroversial nominee, and making racially nasty comments while finding racism in Sotormayor's much milder statements. This confirms the bias held by some on the left that conservatives see "reverse racism" as far more prevalent and odious than plain racism, even as the tone of commentary on Sotormayor is tinged with such plain racism.
Try to balance these two views, and greivance and fun abounds. For my part, I think Sotormayor said something legitimately controversial, but much worse has been said about her in the ensuing discussions. I await her clarification at the hearings.
Overall, the posts by the Conspirators are pretty good, but the blog has been most enjoyable to me when there has been a lively and engrossing discussion in the comment threads. Of course, name calling, etc., greatly lessens that, but there still are a lot of good discussions here - just maybe not about Judge Sotomayor right now.
Someone named susan-2 posted something even more idiotic. I wish it hadn't been deleted. In this thread it served a helpful purpose.
There are a bunch of people who are trying to put Sarcastro out of business.
I hope most people haven't failed to notice that the politicians taking point on the anti-Sotomayor campaign are all out of power: Gingrich, Tancredo, DeLay etc. Those with something to lose are mostly keeping their traps shut.
Probably a good general description.
I agree with Bruce Hayden. The comment threads here are sometimes excellent, often very good, and sometimes entertaining for, well, zoological reasons, as in, what specific kind of angry person will show up here? The last kind gets old pretty quickly, unless the comments are funny and I agree with them.
In recent days, you've made several posts on “empathy” and none at all on the opinion written by Judge Sotomayor in United States v Falso (CA 2, 2007). That's an interesting fourth amendment case: It involves probable cause to seize a computer. Further, part I of Judge Sotomayor's opinion was joined by one judge on the panel, and part II by the other judge. Both of the other judges wrote opinions dissenting in part.
I have to really take exception to this one. A look at the post in question shows Alder is actually arguing against the existence of a conspiracy and only concedes that the mechanics of politics are such that political retaliation can exist in a system with politics. He then notes that IF ("a big if" in Professor Alder's words) the were politics involved in the closings it was more likely the result of ordinary protect your constituents politics. Your objection is only accurate to the post if you believe that all politics is squeaky clean and dirty politics is impossible. You seem to have come to the conclusion that Alder is arguing the exact opposite of what he did argue.
Your objection to Professor Alder's post merely because it concedes the possibility of dirty politics while arguing against the existence of them reinforces the "Obamabots" post in the original post.
I am fairly certain that the "name-calling and over-the-top accusations" that we have seen in Sotomayor threads is just a tiny fraction of the "name-calling and over-the-top accusations" that we would see if we had a Republican president who just nominated a white judge who had said that "I would hope that a wise white man with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a minority male who hasn't lived that life."
Satisfied now?
In fact, this site is the only one I know where political disagreement is ever expressed in the comments in a civil and informative fashion. I'm not saying that it happens all the time, and it may require fairly heavy monitoring by the Conspirators, but it's quite rare and interesting, so I hope the Conspirators manage to continue it.
No, because the comparison doesn't work.
don't forget OK!
So the comparison does work after all, once we take into account that there are arguments for either conclusion (that Latinas would be better, or that whites would be better).
Satisfied now?
It is entirely unobjectionable to say that a more experienced person is better than a less experienced person. if this is what you believe to be an accurate representation of what sotomayer said, what possible objection can you have to it? aside from the obvious "latina" factor, which would be frankly racist.
Actually, you should forget OK, after he used the term "idiotic" to describe one of the comments. If you want to excuse OK because the description "idiotic" is accurate, then how about we compromise: please accept, also, that many, maybe most, possibly all of the unflattering comments made by rightist commenters about leftist commenters are, in fact, accurate. If accuracy is indeed a defense against the charge of incivility, then the very commenters that OK complains about have a defense.
VC is a strange mixture of serious, thoughtful posters and... umm... other kinds of posters. The comments reflect that.
Incidentally, wm13 is exactly right about Balkinization:
Whether that applies here, I don't know. I'm a lib, but I try not to throw bombs, unless a commenter is just clearly not being serious, or in being serious is showing that their seriousness is devoid of all meaningful content. Dunno.
Upthread, you implied that "Obamabot" was shorthand for calling someone "not very thoughtful."
But is that right? The term rather suggests that the people it describes are robotic shills. That, rhetorically, does more work than calling them "not very thoughtful." It's the difference between me saying that your assessment ofthis phrase was not very thoughtful, and that it proves you to be a robotic shill in a state of hero-worship.
She said Afro-American in the 21st century? She might as well have just said the N-word!
Please take 20 seconds to consider
1) what is valuable in this blog
2) the behaviors that a) enhance, b) degrade that value
3) the fact that one's own behavior is the easiest to change
Now, recall Hamlet's soliloquy:-)
sure. only if you accept my description of you as an "idiot[]" to be accurate for believing that those characterizations are accurate.
What I get out of the VC are the times I can reflect on my own views and perhaps change them, as well as those times when I find common cause with some of the more liberal commentors with whom I usually disagree. I have found that civil discussions with people like Joseph Slater and Mark Field (a non-exclusive list though two commentors I deeply respect even when I vehemently disagree) do challenge the way I look at things.
But yes, sadly, there is unnecessary nastiness on both sides--and it does weaken the VC.
.
I find the flame wars here entertaining, regardless of which side seems to be getting better traction. Those who want to figure out an issue for themselves will use the posts and comments here as a resource to find raw source material.
.
I'm not at all surprised that judicial nominations have become politicized. That's the system of government the people have adopted -- politicize everything.
Beyond that, issues of race, and accusations of racism on both sides, will tend to get people's dander up.
How to keep Volokh.com readable
As for the recent overabundance of sugar, I'm not sure what the cause is, though I expect it to die down. I see parallels to Palinapalooza 2008. Part of the issue may be that both incidents are about a person, though one we don't know well. This allows emotions to attach more strongly than to a case or a concept or a lecture.
This too will pass.]
.
.
I'd recommend skimming comments. It's not hard to recognize when something will be useful or interesting, and if it's not...
My hypothesis: there is a core group of people who visit VC regularly, because they are interested in a wide range of topics. These people are more invested in the community and the bloggers who contribute, so they are more likely to be civil. Let's face it, blogs by libertarian-leaning law professors don't excite the vast majority of internet users on a regular basis.
On topics of wider interest, however, on which law professors are presumed to have particularly relevant ideas (such as torture memos and Supreme Court nominations), lots of irregular visitors show up from around the internet and add less-than-civil comments.
In other words, comment quality declines when the barbarians are at the gates.
I agree with this. There is considerably more vitriol than in the past, and I believe that it is due to having more liberals in the mix. Not a bad thing and though I'm on "the other side" of the fence I learn things from them. Generally it is due to them bringing out other arguments. Yes, this causes some over the top comments, but it is a small price to pay for a heated discussion with "meat" in it. I think I like Bernstien's idea of cutting off the comments after a period of time. Not sure if 4 hours is right or not. But often it is time to move along.
Orin, I wouldn't be too concerned with the level or civility of comments if I were you. I'm fearful that you might banish comments for yourself. I doubt I would stick around if comments were generally outlawed. They make this site worthwhile. I think Conspirators should regard their posts as if they were throwing a little grease on the fire to see how much light it generates. If none so be it, if a lot, great; if it smothers the fire that's too bad and better posting next time. Just keep a thick skin, and to be honest, I believe some of the conspirators have lost that thick skin, including you at times, Orin.
I have to believe that LTR was 100% sincere in writing that.
Reading, and arguing with!, people with different opinions, helps to keep your beliefs straight. It's easy to swallow groupthink at "friendly" sites. "Opposing" sites will call you on your easy assumptions, challenge your dubious premises, catch you on your bad logic.
I like to quote Socrates from the Gorgias:
Socrates had the agora; we have blog comments.
There were, as I recall, some in Socrates' Athens who disliked all this open disputation and wanted people to just accept things as they seemed to be ....
I rather enjoy both, but as for one-note Carpenter not so much.
"I have to believe that LTR was 100% sincere in writing that."
It is unbelievable!
Right on Anderson. And I'd add "arguing for the sake of arguing". It's a great tradition in our family! And gosh, one might learn something.
The first comments are the most important. A comment's importance is roughly proportional to the inverse of how many comments it is below the main post.
A comment that appears first is roughly twice as important as the second comment, and three times as important as the third.
A comment that appears fourth is 50% more important than the sixth comment.
If you regulate the first 20 or so comments by deleting over the top baloney until you have 20 decent comments, most people will never even go past that.
P.S.: Sonia Sotomayor is a racist. If I had photographs of her copulating with a dog--and I'm not saying that I do--I would release them just to torpedo her nomination. Think about that. And then think about how you wouldn't want my post script to be the first comment on this thread. But down here? It doesn't really matter.
OMG, that was priceless. I also laughed out loud.
No such luck. I'm happy to say that at least for this thread it looks like you're stuck with that one.
Stick to the hardcore legal topics and you'll have no problem. You won't have many commenters or a very interesting blog, but, what the heh!
Cheers,
If you think accuracy is a defense against the charge of incivility, then I have to question your understanding of incivility. If I replied to a comment about Judge Sotomayor by calling the commenter stupid and ugly, could that possibly be civil, even if it was accurate?
I'm convinced the largest problem comes from drive-by comments from non-regular readers.
I am tired of being told that I should base my political positions on what is going on in the EEC. I live in the United States and I am much more interested in reaching a consensus with Texas than with France -- both would be nice, but I'm sharing this country with Texans, not Frenchmen. Let us have an open and frank -- although not hateful -- dialogue with our countrymen -- and countrywomen.
I am a resident of Manhattan. I am also a member of the approximately 15% of New York County that voted for McCain. During the campaign, I said I was going to vote for McCain and one very nice woman said to me "You're so much smarter than I am -- there's no reason for you to vote for McCain." "Surely," I said. "If I'm smarter than you, I must have been able to come up with a couple of reasons to make this decision." After the election I was asked if I was bitter about Obama's election and if I hoped he would fail in running this country. I wasn't bitter. I never expected McCain to carry New York State and the course of the economy in September and October made the Obama election inevitable. Nor, certainly, do I hope he will fail: given that I live here, I want him to succeed.
Those are some of the comments I have heard from my friends to my political left. As I live in Manhattan, I don't hear much in the way of overt racist language in conversation, but certainly I do hear a lot of wanting Obama to fail, comparable to the editorial in the WALL STREET JOURNAL that proclaimed Bill Clinton's administration a failure -- five days before his first inauguration.
While I expect no one to be completely satisfied with Obama's administration -- after all, the only way to do that would be to have him make exactly the same decisions and carry out exactly the policies whoever is talking would do, nonetheless, more than the differences in philosophies and methods, I am concerned by the lack of real discussion -- both on the left and the right. If we are unable to agree, we are doomed.
Bob
Pot kettle, etc.
Likewise such folks as Dave N, Hoosier, and wm13 on the other side of the fence (as well as others I could surely name).
There are at least two things to say à propos this remark. Firstly, I'd like to echo some of the previous commenters and say that the blog would almost certainly be more civil if the posts focused more on law instead of politics. I'm not sure to what extent this blog was ever meant to be a political blog, but my sense is that in the last year or so the percentage of posts that could be considered political has increased.
Secondly, as someone who frequently brings in a European angle, I'd like to think I don't normally do that in order to make a political point. Rather, I tend to think comparative law is a very valuable exercise in order to clarify one's thinking about the law, because it challenges one's assumptions. (As I discovered yesterday, there is an ECtHR ruling saying there is no right to divorce implied in the right to marry, or anywhere else in the Convention. Who knew...) A proper legal discussion does not seek to achieve "consensus" (to quote Boblipton once again), but to evaluate competing lines of argument. In so doing, it can be useful at times to consider out-of-jurisdiction precedents. The same cannot be said for politics, though.
"Long-time Reader" cannot spell "criticism", but I believe "Sturmabteilung" is correct. He also spells "Komunist" with one M. (The "K" is presumably for effect, but using one M is interesting.)
What part of the world would most likely cause someone to have that spelling pattern?
I rather like your comments and they are one of the major things which make me read the comments to the end instead of trailing off after the first 20 or 30 comments where the "battle lines" are usually drawn. European law is not US law but even when I think the Continental (Napoleonic?) approach is stupid it doesn't hurt to be shown an alternative that produces a functioning society. Politics instead of law is a different matter, the starting points and balances reached in the politics of Europe and the US are so different that while we can learn from each other we cannot use each others for models or examples.
Maybe not for long, if some Texans have their way.
First, comparing debates on a blog with 'war' seems a bit over the top. Perhaps it is those who see political and legal disputation in this light who are likely to become uncivil.
Second, it rather depends on the 'war,' doesn't it? I'm sure careful historians could point to any number of conflicts in which 'both sides' - assuming there are only two - contributed to the belligerence and committed wrongful acts.
While I think that any upcoming political battle will always bring out the least rational responses, I find the comments on SSM and immigration issues most likely to turn ugly.
I certainly hope the Conspirators will not ban comments. I think that would be a real loss. As any libertarian should point out: we can always skip comments we don't like.
Hilariously ridiculous. Who said freepers couldn't be poetic?
And while I agree some of the conspirators make some pretty politically pointed posts (including some which I think are over the top) the post by Strict was pretty disingenuous
The only post this week by Adler where I find the word 'nasty' is the Sotomayor's "Temperament" -- Take Two post where the word nasty appeared in a NY Times article which quoted other lawyers describing her courtroom demeanor as nasty. Either Strict did not read this post correctly or is willfully misrepresenting Adler's remarks to take pot shots.
Kopel made that comment with respect to the many documented gaffes, lies and backtracks. You can certainly take issue with the term comical but I don't think its sufficient evidence of being mean spirited considering the mainstream media and gibbs have both had to clean up after Biden's gaffes. Claiming he 'has greatly underperformed Sarah Palin' as some type of barb says more about you and your sensibilities considering they were both VP candidates and the comparison isn't unwarranted.
The post in which you selectively quoted those parts is much different in tone than the tone you try to attribute to it. Here's the contextualized first quote:
Is it possible the Obama Administration is using the Chrysler restructuring for political gain? Of course it's possible; give politicians of either party the ability to reward friends and punish enemies and they'll often take advantage. It's not just the "Chicago Way," it's the way of politics. But in this case, it seems like there's much more smoke than fire.
Adler then spends the rest of the post effectively rebutting many of the claims while acknowledging it still doesn't look good. That means you selectively took those quotes to attribute the exact opposite thesis Adler had in order to impugn him.
I'll look for this but considering your track record I'm very skeptical of this characterization.
It's become clear that your accusations and comments in fact lack substance. Even worse they seem to be purposefully mis-attributing or selectively quoting posts in order to fit your clearly false narrative. It takes a lot of gall for such a person to then be concerned about 'name calling and over the top accusations'. It's also a shame other commentators have bought into your comment.
Take away that dynamic and you lose what has made this blog great.
Those of us who are anti-Left are that way for a reason, so there will be inevitable friction. So too was there friction in Elizabethan England and Revolutionary America. Now those are considered Golden Ages. Such friction is a sign of life and health, not decay.
* - JBG, Dilan, MarkField, Slater, Public_Defender, Randy R., Leo Marvin, Mattski, Anderson, LM, Harry Eagar, and several others, I'm sure.
Most blogs would be lucky to have such a roll as this among their entire commenting community. Here these are just the dissenters. The posters and those sympathetic to those posts should take their presence for the compliment that it is, not for granted, and certainly not to be lamented or cut off.
Back to my penalty box, apologies for leaving early.
I'd put good money that the K was a reference to Daily Kos.
Otherwise I agree that it was really the election that really lowered the quality of comments here. I still think that VC is better than 99% of other sites with respect to being able to engage with those who disagree with you in the comments. You still have to cut through a lot of worthless snark and baiting but its worth it.
Pace the comment quoted in the parent post, the VC was head and shoulders above all law blogs at one time; it's still probably the best one out there. But the political nonsense, the wasteland of trolls from both left and right that the comment page has degenerated into--these seriously detract from what could be an even more worthwhile academic and intellectual legal resource than it already is.
Still love what you guys do, though I wish certain contributors and a hell of a lot of commenters could treat this as something other than Another Political Blog. The Internet has more than enough of those--it doesn't have nearly enough of what the VC does best.
I'm flattered to be mentioned in that company at all, much less twice. Thanks to a password snafu I had to re-register under a new name, so now I'm LM and Leo. Obviously one's a sock puppet. I just can't figure out which.
As others have posted on EV's bleg on blogging software, I would like to see threaded comments, or at least the ability to reply directly to a commenter. Currently, it is very difficult to respond to a point made by the 15th post out of 150. I think this would also help improve the focus of comments.
In addition, so many of the posts are assertions, not reasoned arguments. Jukeboxgrad and Dilan (and I sure there are others) are exceptions, with links to sources to buttress their point of view. This was obvious during the torture memo debate, when those saying waterboarding was not torture made blanket assertions about their position, without any facts beyond their own certitude.
Agreed: We have some simply terrific commenters, and the ones you mention are among the best.
... There are enough Republicans who will vote for her because of her ethnic background, in an attempt maybe to cater to the Hispanics, that there won't be an effective filibuster. . . .
. . . Sure, he was trying to cater to a critical demographic, but I don't think that he realized how much many Americans dislike Affirmative Action.
It is not because they are racist, but rather, because it seems somewhat unfair to privilege some based solely upon their membership in some preferred group, instead of looking at their qualifications. . . . .
Under these criteria, no minority or woman would ever be nominated to the Supreme Court, no matter what their qualifications are. Each SC nomination would be considered:
1)catering to a critical demographic (does anyone believe Clarence Thomas or Sandra Day O'Conner were the highest qualified Americans for the Court when they were nominated?);
2) an Affirmative Action hire (unless they came from a privileged background); and
3) a member of a favored group (as we know, Reagan's nomination of Sandra Day O'Conner was the fullfillment of a campaign promise.)
Yes, of course, I guess it must be hard to understand that a gay man might actually consistently argue for gay rights.
If you want a real flame war, see Prof. Carpenter's posts. Hoo boy! I find out what some straight people *really* think of gays!
Orin: There IS a problem of reflexive support; it just isn't exclusive to the left.
Quite so. People are quite literally delusional, having imbibed several rounds of memes. As an instance of this, let me quote Thursdays's Financial Times lead sentence of its lead editorial: "None of Barack Obama’s officials marks the break with George W. Bush’s disdain for science better than Steven Chu, a Nobel Prize winning physicist."
The FT is arguably the most "mainstream" newspaper in the world and one-step removed from the domestic fray. Yet they've seemly internalized this talking-point without reserve.
Leo Marvin replied [...]
Leo, I wasn't stating that accuracy was a defense against the charge of incivility, I was answering a hypothetical interlocutor who thought that. Hence, "if".
I wrote:
ChrisTS replied:
Do you think "war of words" is over the top? If so, then feel free to substitute a softer term denoting a verbal conflict.
Yes, it depends, which is why I wrote that it's nonsense to automatically blame both sides.
Brian K. replied:
Brian, glad you're a sport, but now you have to deal with Leo Marvin:
I read "If accuracy is indeed a defense against the charge of incivility [...]" to mean you believed it was. If I misinterpreted, I apologize.
If I understand things correctly, you may be adopting a new platform?
If so, I think the new blog software should be able to implement a ratings system for comments. I think it might be able to help with this problem.
I posted a short argument for rated comments here, at 4:13am and 4:37am.
http://volokh.com/posts/1243708697.shtml
On a more philosophical note, VC through its comments is a community. Turn off comments entirely and you no longer have a community. Instead, you reduce it to one bully pulpit out of many on the Internet -- and a less interesting one, too, for people who like to learn things the original Conspirator might not mentioned.
"Long-time Reader" cannot spell "criticism", but I believe "Sturmabteilung" is correct. He also spells "Komunist" with one M. (The "K" is presumably for effect, but using one M is interesting.)
What part of the world would most likely cause someone to have that spelling pattern?"
My mother tongue is Serbo-Croatian and I learned German in school as a boy. Please excuse my sometimes spotty English spelling since I haven't spoken a word of it before I was 16 or 17. I'm no Joseph Conrad unfortunately. Hopefully I won't have to learn Spanish too, once Sotomayor and her La Raza buddies finish their Reconquista.
Joking, joking...
Bob
In an amoral swamp, the scum float to the top. Now they are at the bottom, and if rhetoric keeps the bottom feeders there, then let it rain invective.
We see no reason to alter the decision of the honorable special interest whore (AKA: judge) below, ad nauseum.
The fact that people who disagree with each other still want to talk to each other is something to be grateful for. And when people who disagree with each other speak respectfully to each other it is just a beautiful thing. (And thank you, Des!)
Allow me to take this one, since I grew up around lots of Yugoslavians pre-civil war.
The language spoken in Yugoslavia, which was created post WW I as a combination of various territories that no longer belonged to Austria or Turkey, plus some other bits and pieces, was mostly the language of Croats and Serbs, the two biggest groups. One language, since for eons these groups lived (more or less) peacefully in the same region. This language was called Yugoslavian, meaning south-slavonic, or Serbo-Croat. Throughout the history of Yugoslavia, it was that country's official language. Now that Yugoslavia doesn't exist anymore, calling the language Serbo-Croat has gone out of fashion. Instead, there is Croatian and Serbian, but they are still two dialects of the same language, although Croatian is written in Latin script, and Serbian in Cyrillic. Time will tell whether the languages will grow further apart now...
And replace republican with republikkkans for good measure.
Yes, and J. Gittings really should have used the word "Rethuglican"--that would really have been persuasive.
Two nations, divided by a common language, with different spellings sounds vauguely familiar.
In the case of Sonia Sotomayor, I think somebody made the point that everybody's mind is already made up. Not so. For one, mine is not. It is rather more easy to identify and condemn fallacious, intemperate, or misinformed arguments on one side or the other, particularly when they are recklessly thrown out in the first few days after a nomination is announced. It is much more difficult to reach a conclusion on the core issue of whether a particular nominee should be confirmed to sit on the Supreme Court. My instinct favors the nomination, because I would like to see another woman on the Court, because I believe it would be a step toward inclusiveness to have a Hispanic serving there, and because Judge Sotomayor herself has an impressive background, both on the bench and off. But my intelligence and caution tell me we should wait for all the facts to come out before pronouncing final judgment on her nomination. If confirmed, she is likely to serve for many, many years and to have a profound influence on our law. Let's listen to what she has to say in defense of her own nomination, and what her critics have to say, and then pronounce judgment.
Yes, but so would many of the most valuable and temperate comments. Privacy protects not just the intermperate or the nasty or the silly, but also some very thoughtful, frank, and well-informed commenters.
It also encourages frankness and honesty. I would be reluctant, maybe even unwilling, to put my name up on a public board where for years after I could be publicly attacked merely for expressing my honest opinion on a controversial subject. The fact that I value privacy should not be taken as an indication that I must therefore a wacko or nasty.
I lived for some time in proximity to the Defense Language Institute, and one of the professors of Serbo-Croatian was a client. My understanding is that there is one spoken language that is written in two different scripts, Cyrillic (Serbian) and Latin (Croatian). It roughly reflects the religious differences among the people, with the Serbians being mostly Orthodox and the Croatians mostly atholic.
I am an ex-Republican and thoroughly disgusted with the present posture of what was once a great political party. But this kind of over-the-top invective is counter-productive. It hurts critics of Republican policies and candidates far more than Republicans themselves. Heat without light does little to advance intelligent discourse.
There's no point in trying to have a rational discussion with people like this, is there? I mean, it's likle they just C&P some screed from Kos and think they're actually doing anything more than a Two Minute Hate sesssion.
Most of the points I'd make have already been made, but there's one more I'd add. In my experience, the better commenters are those willing to compliment the other side. Just in this thread, for example, Dave N and Desiderius -- who are certainly among the most valuable commenters here -- have the grace to recognize people who disagree with them regularly (the same holds true for Prof. Kerr). Instead of imposing a registration requirement, maybe there could be a rule that once a month you must write an elaborate, flowery (think 18th Century) encomium about a political opposite.
1. My own time constraints.
2. The level of discourse within the comments.
I think Prof. Kerr is correct; while I think VC maintains an overall higher level of discourse than many other sites, it has noticeably dropped in this time. At first I thought it was the (long) lead up into the recent election, but it shows no signs of clearing up since then. Anyway, I have a few rules that I follow when I do post. Sometimes I'm even successful.
1. Read all the comments. If someone else has already made your point, you don't need to make it, unless you have something to add.
2. After posting, wait a while before making another post, even if someone else posts something inane. Usually another commenter will make the point you wanted to make, and often they will make the point better.
3. If you make another post, it should be a new post. If you are posting the same material but with a better explanation because the other people "just don't get it" you might want to consider that, for whatever reason, the fault is not with you but with the others and no amount of explanation will help.
4. Assume good faith in other commenters. Some times this is really hard. Some times it might not be true. But think of the worst post you ever made, and realize that didn't make you a bad person. Extend them the same charity.
5. Avoid snark. (Not my strong suit).
6. The best comments fall into two categories:
a. The comments where you are honestly seeking more information or clarification. Questions are always good (but not the snarky or self-serving ones.
b. Comments where you have some actual knowledge or insight about the issue. Something more than staying at a Holiday Inn Express or a quick look Teh Googlez.
6. If the OP links to a case or an article.... *read it*. Please. It's not that hard. I know it's fashionable to blather on endlessly about things we know nothing about, but when the Conspirators go to the trouble of giving us the source material, please take the time to look at it before criticizing it.
7. Avoid any posts dealing with torture. Really. I think it's like an ouroboros... or a metapost. To read through all the inane comments about torture, with people screaming past each other, constitutes torture, but saying that might open a whole can of worms about what torture is, which I don't want to do, so... just don't. Please.
Anonymity fosters unaccountable flames and Trolling, yes. But it also permits comment from those who are in professional positions that make it impossible for them to post under any handle that hints at their real identity. An issue that is probably especially important to the readers of legal-related blogs.
Although Zippypinhead is, of course, my real given name. If you don't believe me, just check my entry on Wikipedia. And that's why, although I read many/most of the posts here and on some other favorite blogs, I generally don't comment unless I think I have something substantive to add to the discussion (including humor or at least weak attempts thereat). Because on the Internet nowadays, everybody knows if you're a dog...
The only real solutions to the problem of ridiculous flame-comments for a blog like VC are either (a) moderate and ban where necessary, or (b) don't have comments. Personally, I favor option "(a)."
You make a good point. If I were a tenured law professor, I would feel less constrained about expressing my views without a nom de blog. I post semi-anonymously because I am speaking for myself and I don't want there to be any confusion that I am expressing anyone's views but my own--and my views often differ from my elected official's.
On the other hand, I have not really hidden my identity. For example, Professor Cassell could determine my "true identity" by merely going to my class's photo display and looking for the graduate whose name most closely matches this one.
All excellent points--and even though I don't always succeed in following them, but they are all worthy aspirational goals.
Don't post in anger.
This is a rule I too often break myself, unfortunately, but I think it's a good one.
No matter how justified you think the anger is, it is better to calm down before posting. Your comment will be more coherent and persuasive, and you are less likely to embarrass yourself by writing something foolish, or to derail the thread. Trust me.
It was a joke. Sorry if that wasn't obvious. Irrelevancy? Probably? Incivility? I hope not.
Not what I had in mind, but I like to think a good comment, and I'm not suggesting mine was, is like good art, i.e., the reader can find nuggets of wisdom that never occurred to the writer. (Actually, that's the definition of a very bad comment, since inferring unintended meaning often leads to the sort of flame wars this thread is all about. But that's not helpful to my latest irrelevancy.)
As for anonymity: I think some of us are just not yet fully comfortable with the internet or the whole culture of being public to anyone and everyone. There might be concerns about one's colleagues or institution, but there is also just a matter of comfort level. When a student told me proudly that his new phone allowed him to be located anywhere on the planet at any time, I was aghast. WHY would he want that?
Old-fashioned, I guess.
True. And it's relevant and ironic to notice that they did the same thing ("slinging the 'racist' appellation") when Democrats opposed Estrada: they accused the Democrats of racism. So opposing SS is not racism but opposing Estrada is. The important thing is to yell 'racist' whenever it's politically convenient to do so.
==============
bt:
Thanks for the kind words. But I think Sarcastro is a lot funnier than I am, so you're being overly generous to imply that I'm in his class.
==============
desid, thank you for mentioning me along with a bunch of people who are a lot smarter than I am. And first history, thanks for doing the same thing. And Orin, thanks for seconding what desid said.
==============
first:
I personally find threaded comments annoying (as either a reader or commenter).
It would probably be easy to add comment numbering, which would help address that problem.
==============
paul:
You have yourself just delivered a talking point in the way first history aptly criticized: by making a "blanket assertion[s] about [your] position, without any facts beyond [your] own certitude."
==============
bob:
The "some" is probably more than a trivial number, given that the governor decided to toss them red meat.
==============
mattski:
True. But I think it's worth acknowledging a group that is rarely mentioned: lurkers. I think it's a safe bet that the set of people reading any given thread is much larger than the set of people commenting in that thread. And a given comment might have no value or meaning to the person it's nominally addressing, while nevertheless having value for one or more lurkers.
For this reason a thread that consists of Person A and Person B seemingly talking past each other is not necessarily valueless.
==============
carl:
Anonymous writing has a long and honorable history. Presumably you've heard of the Federalist Papers. The EFF also has an excellent article explaining that "anonymous communications have an important place in our political and social discourse."
I think you're missing my point. I think it's indeed true that "whites would be better" in an environment where they are the minority. And there would be nothing wrong with pointing that out, and it would not be racist to point that out, because it's not a statement about special characteristics that are associated with the white race. It's a statement about special characteristics that are associated with the experience of living as a minority.
But I don't have to (show "the non-existence of other arguments that could be made the opposite way"). I have presented the following premise: living as a minority can make me a better judge (and this happens to be the premise SS presented). I don't have to prove that this premise is correct. I only have to show that it's not racist (because SS is not being accused of making an incorrect claim; rather, she's being accused of making a racist claim). And I have.
Aside from that, I do think the premise is correct. You have claimed the existence of "other arguments that could be made the opposite way." I don't claim the non-existence of those arguments. I just claim that they're inferior to the argument I presented.
Unfortunately, I've added so many topics to my personal list of things I don't want to wade into, I rarely want to discuss anything here anymore.
I don't need to imagine any "parallel universe implied by" Judge Sotomayor's statement. I am perfectly capable of looking at our own universe, to Jim Crow, to see that an affection for an identity tinged rule of law can have horrendous results. Therefore, it is in the best interests of all concerned to decry such sentiments from whatever quarter they arise and strive to empower jurists, unlike Judge Sotomayor, whose intellect is not unduly influenced by their ethnicity or gender identity.
I really don't like threaded comments. Megan McArdle's website has them, for those who want a sample. What I like about the comments section here is that it's like a conversation at a dinner party, i.e., it meanders, occasionally drifts to a totally different topic, etc. Threaded comments produce a disjointed effect. Quite honestly, I would add to the (self-enforced) rules for commenters, if you want to respond to comment number 15 and there have been 135 comments since, don't. Just let it go, as you would at a dinner party. Your pearls of wisdom on Youngstown Sheet and Tube, or Trig Palin, or whatever, will keep for some other conversation.
It was my recollection that one had to give a legitimate email in order to register to comment at this site. Maybe I am misremembering. So I had assumed that the Conspirators could discover my identity, if they were interested, and have always posted on that basis. However, it's one thing to have a group of respectable law professors know my name and email address; it would be a little different to have all the spammers of the world know my email address, and to have every potential client reading my political opinions. (Not that there's something wrong with my political opinions, but I welcome paying clients who have opposite ones.)
A good friend of mine is fond of the metaphor, "Excuse my eye in your elbow." The point is, eyes and elbows aren't the same. Neither are majorities who abuse their power with group identity, and minorities who react to that abuse with group identity.
Now, I understand that truth is in the eye of the beholder oft times. But not always. Saying that the Republican party is a criminal mafia is over the top, and clearly not true. So what should be the appropriate response? Saying that gays only want to destroy marriage is clearly over the top and not true either.
I understand the anger, but I try (perhaps not always succeeding) to not totally demonize those who disagree with me. On the other hand, there really are racists and bigots out there who assume the absolute worst of their opponents, and they should be exposed, I believe.
I guess it's the nature of blogs, and we should get used to it. And I like Loki's suggestions. Any more?
In my opinion, the comment policy facilitates the most effective ways of dealing with that sort. If I expose the flaws in a bigoted argument, the conclusions about the arguer should speak for themselves. If I add my opinions about the person, I've then opened my own character for consideration, and that only muddies the water I worked so hard to clear.
In fact, the most obnoxious commenters are so effective at debasing themselves, the best response is usually none at all. I'm rarely disciplined enough to pass up that kind of bait, but that doesn't mean I think I accomplish anything by taking it.
"I understand the anger, but I try (perhaps not always succeeding) to not totally demonize those who disagree with me."
Man all of these mea culpas and on this thread, geez you would think it was Sunday or something. Hey isn't there an internet rule where by post X, Mr A is calling Mr. Y a Nazi? Come guys and gals get with it!!! We can't have all this nice-nice and love and stuff.
"desid, thank you for mentioning me along with a bunch of people who are a lot smarter than I am."
You're very welcome. However, the Rt. Hon. Gentleman has much about which to be modest without inventing modesties that are diametrically opposed to the facts at hand, and, though the Rt. Hon. Gentleman - not to put too fine a point on it - scares the living shit out of me, I cannot with honesty deny the value of the service he renders to these discussions.
Also, apologies for omitting pluribus and loki13 from my list. Even Welker and Justin have shown some unexpected promise of late. OK's longing for a roster of libertarian and/or conservative commenters of similar depth and caliber is palpable, but that's a subject for another thread.
As for Loki's suggestions, I would add but one:
That commenters be encouraged to read this, particularly his warning against faction, and to comment in that spirit, leaving party, if not ideology, aside, at least temporarily, and if only as a sort of vacation from our raging, but cold, civil war.
Yeah, but you can comment as a guest, as well, and I don't know if the difference is visible on the site between a guest and a registered commenter.
As for the rather sensible statement that commenters be required to offer an academic, employer or governmental address.... well, it disturbs me that I can offer none of those, since I am self-employed. Although an irregular commenter, I would miss the opportunity to offer my occasional detail to the usually civil and almost always interesting discussions here.
Bob
To adopt your "dinner party" metaphor, I would argue that threaded comments enhance the ability to conduct a coherent conversation. As others have mentioned, it can be very difficult to follow discussion when you're obliged to scroll past, e.g., many consecutive posts by the same commenter that say the exact same thing in response to comments made dozens, scores, or hundreds of comments before. Threaded comments enable people to see the shape of "the conversation" and navigate effectively.
That's pretty rich. I'm supposed to deliver evidence of the absence of evidence to substantiate the anti-science meme? Nice try turning the tables, but its those delivering the anti-science rhetoric who have an unmet burden of proof.
Or if you're going to insult somebody, at least try to do it with style:
;-)
Which is why you're so lucky Sotomayor is the nominee.
I am in the midst of reviewing every single race-related case on which she sat on the Second Circuit.
There are roughly 100. They cover the gamut from employment discrimination to racial bias in jury selection. I decided that I would stop and write an interim report once I got through her 50 most recent race-related cases other than Ricci because the numbers are sufficiently striking and decisive. Here is what I found.
In those 50 cases, the panel accepted the claim of race discrimination only three times. In all three cases, the panel was unanimous; in all three, it included a Republican appointee. In roughly 45, the claim was rejected. (Two were procedural dispositions.)
On the other hand, she twice was on panels reversing district court decisions agreeing with race-related claims - i.e., reversing a finding of impermissible race-based decisions. Both were criminal cases involving jury selection.
In the 50 cases, the panel was unanimous in every one. There was a Republican appointee in 38, and these panels were all obviously unanimous as well. Thus, in the roughly 45 panel opinions rejecting claims of discrimination, Judge Sotomayor never dissented.
It seems to me that these numbers decisively disprove the claim that she decides cases with any sort of racial bias.
I'm sorry, my life, experienced through the deterministic prism of my ethnicity and gender identity have bestowed upon me a richness, a wisdom if you will, which enables me to reach a better decision regarding the applicability of your friend's analogy, and its general banality, than you have.
C. Gittings:
The reality here is that the Republican Party is a criminal organization which has spent the last eight years subverting the Constitution and laws of the United States for criminal purposes that border on treason.
C. Gittings' original comment has been deleted?
What a shame.
That kind of invective ought to be allowed, if for no other reason than to illustrate the kind of whacked out thinking that has been around for generations.
Check this out:
http://www.wral.com/golo/blogpost/5066834/
[(Shown Side) Through this inscription I wish to enter my dying protest against what is called the Democratic Party. I have watched it closely since the days of Jackson and know that all the misfortunes of our nation has come to it through this so-called party, therefore beware of this party of treason.]
It seems to me that one of the problems of the current political discourse is that phenomenon which George Orwell in 1984 referred to as "duckspeak".
What does "duckspeak" mean? It means precisely what we now call "talking points" or the "echo chamber": when a speaker repeats official positions approvingly, without engaging his individual judgment. It is also similar also to "political correctness" in the sense of a speaker parroting the proper views in order to reassure the listener that the speaker is On Our Side.
(When a speaker uses talking points, it is the points that are talking, not the speaker. He is not saying anything new or insightful; he is merely reprising and offering his support for an official position. As Orwell says of the duckspeaker, it is his larynx that is speaking, not his brain.)
The curious thing about "duckspeak" is, in the words of one of Orwell's characters, "It is one of those interesting words that have two contradictory meanings. Applied to an opponent, it is abuse: applied to someone you agree with, it is praise." The Party loves those who are willing to set their own judgment aside in favor of duckspeaking the talking points of the day, but it righteously detests those who duckspeak against it.
(In a society unconstrained by law or empathy, one response to duckspeak might be to simply excise the unnecessary forebrain matter of the duckspeaker, to return that tissue to the earth to nourish the crops. Fortunately in our society we recognize that the duckspeaker may recover from his ailment and regain the use of his mental functions -- see, e.g., Colin Powell.)
I don't know if there are other versions, the Atlantic's is terrible in that if you come back a few hours later it's hard to see which comments are new without going down the whole list again. Being able to read by thread or by time would be ideal.
I don't have much to add to what others have said in this thread except that hotbutton issues are called that for a reason. People REALLY CARE about abortion, torture / detention policy, Supreme Court appointments. And when people are passionate about things, they make very tough, personal, sometimes overly personal arguments.
"Agreed: We have some simply terrific commenters, and the ones you mention are among the best."
By the (admittedly idiosyncratic, but the one which matters most to this commenter) criterion of willingness to engage in original thought, it is the Conspirators themselves who outshine the commenters, and indeed any alternatives of which I am aware on the internets.
It is for this reason that I pray that you and your fellow Conspirators continue to opine on matters outside the narrow ambit of the law alone.
"Society cannot exist without law and order, and cannot advance except through vigorous innovators."
- Bertrand Russell
Then by all means I defer.
What does your deterministic prism tell you about false moral equivalence?
Demand that Obama nominate Sarah Palin for Souter's seat, and accuse him of ideological bias if he doesn't?
PALIN: All of them.
Bush Aides Criticize
Democrats for Stalling
on Stimulus Package
but why the fcck delete one only. splash them all to complete the disassociation, asswipes.
i want you cccksuckers marginalized. quid pro quo you know.
You must find a lot of affirmation on the internet, I suspect.
fuck you and fuck tenure. i only hung around here for a couple of days to assess the deranging power of zealotry. you are a disease.
i prefer to step into shit through the proxy sites.
die soon, you dissipate animals.
Is Jocks v Tarvernier on your list to review? From my perspective this is a pretty defend the status quo decision (which I haven't read but relied on a summary)
Finally, are you cheating by reading her actual opinions rather than relying on speeches or interviews? No one else seems to be doing what your doing- or maybe they are all quiet waiting to strike "gold".
Professor Kerr - shut 'er down... please?
No, I'm cheating by reading Tom Goldstein reading her actual opinions -- see the link.
Secade: i only hung around here for a couple of days to assess the deranging power of zealotry.
Assess, exemplify, whatever -- mission accomplished.
you are a disease.
A snarky one, I hope!
The United States v Falso (CA2; 2008) opinion by Judge Sotomayor does bother me a little bit.
Why?
Orin S. Kerr's scholarship has involved applying the Fourth amendment to computers and networks.
The two dissents in Falso indicate that it's well within bounds to criticize Judge Sotomayor's entire opinion. Alternatively, the majority support for both parts I and II could indicate that she got it right.
Yet it looks like Professor Kerr's focus lies elsewhere.
Of course, Professor Kerr has the freedom to blog about wherever he likes. If he doesn't want to blog about Falso, then all we can say is that opinion doesn't seem to be something he thinks is worth looking at. And we can notice what he does focus on.
Let the guy have his fun -- in all likelihood, he doesn't have many friends that he can talk to about this anyway.
If you have a problem with judges "influenced by their ethnicity" then you're a little late, because Alito (link, link) is already on the Court.
So I think you mean "from whatever quarter they arise," except if the "quarter" is Republican.
You also might be interested in hearing some comments Justice O'Connor made regarding the matter of a Justice being "influenced by [his] ethnicity."
Or comments Scalia made about the Court being "influenced by … ethnicity."
=================
leo:
Which reminds me of this: I'm very upset about the damage you did to my fist when you struck it with your nose.
=================
federal:
That's true, from the perspective of a reader who is reviewing a dead thread. But when the thread is active, I think threaded comments make the thread harder to manage. Either as a reader or a participant.
=================
paul:
Evidence supporting "the anti-science rhetoric" is not hard to find (link, link).
So your claim that there is an "absence of evidence" is yet another unsupported assertion that seems contrary to evidence.
One more thing about this. I wonder if you think it's possible that when "Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination" that they might have been "unduly influenced by their ethnicity or gender identity."
Certainly it's possible. Would those cases be among their finest hour in your view, or their most shameful? I'd say shameful, and I'd rather not rectify injustice through a mindless reactionary approach.
Cheers,
That's your version. I'm sure the police report indicated the cop only used the minimum force necessary to subdue your eye.
Obviously the latter, but that's not the point. The point is that we make a big fuss about someone like SS allegedly being "influenced by their ethnicity or gender identity" while acting as if white males somehow inhabit a superior plane where they automatically transcend the problem of being "influenced by their ethnicity or gender identity."
And a perfect illustration is you, in this thread, pointing to an alleged problem with SS while ignoring Alito's very similar statement.
Unbelievable. Truth is stranger etc.
I think you're forgetting to mention that it was Halloween, and you were wearing a head-to-toe costume made from barbed wire and broken glass. That explains it.
==================
leo:
For some reason that reminds me of Marty Feldman.
"I wonder if anyone under 40 would know who that is."
I am and do, but just barely, in both cases.
If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.
Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.
We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.
And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.