Sure, I want those things too. And a pony. My gripe is that these concerns are too often used disingenuously in public free speech discourse -- like saying "why can't you just REASON with Milo Yiannopoulos?" A lot of modern right-side discourse is characterized by a Trumpian model of elbow-throwing. I don't think you can fault anyone for…
Sure, I want those things too. And a pony. My gripe is that these concerns are too often used disingenuously in public free speech discourse -- like saying "why can't you just REASON with Milo Yiannopoulos?" A lot of modern right-side discourse is characterized by a Trumpian model of elbow-throwing. I don't think you can fault anyone for responding the same way. And let's face it -- FedSoc did not invite Judge Duncan hoping he would be calm, reasonable, and polite, treating his cultural opponents as honorable people with a different view.
I share your contempt for the John Eastman wing of the Federalist Society, but I don't know enough about the Stanford chapter to be confident in assigning them motives. That said, if their intentions are what you say, I consider that contemptible, and also irrelevant to the superiority of responses with formidable substance, whatever their tone. And sure, "why can't you just REASON with Milo Yiannopoulos?" misunderstands what Yiannopoulos is doing, but one absolutely can reason with the opinions of a federal judge, regardless of how elbow-throwing he is in his comportment. Are the Stanford Law students learning how to reason with such a judge? Not via protesting this event. But they could have if they'd done it differently. And that alternative reality isn't some fantastical utopian vision. Law students manage to do it all the time. Why, it's as within reach as... a pony! https://www.equinenow.com/ponycalifornia.htm
A couple of years ago, the student officers of the Stanford chapter tried to (and temporarily succeeded) in getting a student barred from graduation because he chose to excercise his free speech rights in a manner to which they did not approve. All three of them, despite their lack of respect for free speech, went on to prestigious clerkships with conservative federal judges.
You'll have to forgive me for questioning their dedication to free speech as anything but a vehicle for owning the libs.
I don't fault you for questioning their dedication to free speech at all. I do question the relevance of their internal thoughts and feelings to the questions addressed in my comments.
Inviting Duncan as an exercise in learning about what sort of petulant troll can become a federal judge might be worthwhile, but I don't think that's a fair inference of the intent here. Besides, plenty of professors are pretty good at giving life experience on how to grin and bear it with power-tripping jerks.
Engaging with illiberal ideas on an intellectual level and learning the counter-arguments and rhetorical tactics is absolutely an important future-lawyer skill. Having a good devil's advocate (even a sincere one) in that sense is not the same thing as practicing the people skills of staying professional when the judge very much isn't and there's nothing you can do about it.
Uh... dude... it's the Federalist Society. If you are commenting on American politics in 2023, you should know that they're a bunch of insane right-wing fascists who have been incredibly successful in their goals. This is not rocket science, it is not news, they've been really loud and public about what they're doing for quite some time now.
Sure, I want those things too. And a pony. My gripe is that these concerns are too often used disingenuously in public free speech discourse -- like saying "why can't you just REASON with Milo Yiannopoulos?" A lot of modern right-side discourse is characterized by a Trumpian model of elbow-throwing. I don't think you can fault anyone for responding the same way. And let's face it -- FedSoc did not invite Judge Duncan hoping he would be calm, reasonable, and polite, treating his cultural opponents as honorable people with a different view.
I share your contempt for the John Eastman wing of the Federalist Society, but I don't know enough about the Stanford chapter to be confident in assigning them motives. That said, if their intentions are what you say, I consider that contemptible, and also irrelevant to the superiority of responses with formidable substance, whatever their tone. And sure, "why can't you just REASON with Milo Yiannopoulos?" misunderstands what Yiannopoulos is doing, but one absolutely can reason with the opinions of a federal judge, regardless of how elbow-throwing he is in his comportment. Are the Stanford Law students learning how to reason with such a judge? Not via protesting this event. But they could have if they'd done it differently. And that alternative reality isn't some fantastical utopian vision. Law students manage to do it all the time. Why, it's as within reach as... a pony! https://www.equinenow.com/ponycalifornia.htm
A couple of years ago, the student officers of the Stanford chapter tried to (and temporarily succeeded) in getting a student barred from graduation because he chose to excercise his free speech rights in a manner to which they did not approve. All three of them, despite their lack of respect for free speech, went on to prestigious clerkships with conservative federal judges.
You'll have to forgive me for questioning their dedication to free speech as anything but a vehicle for owning the libs.
I don't fault you for questioning their dedication to free speech at all. I do question the relevance of their internal thoughts and feelings to the questions addressed in my comments.
Beat me to it, but here's a link: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/06/federalist-society-stanford.html
Inviting Duncan as an exercise in learning about what sort of petulant troll can become a federal judge might be worthwhile, but I don't think that's a fair inference of the intent here. Besides, plenty of professors are pretty good at giving life experience on how to grin and bear it with power-tripping jerks.
Engaging with illiberal ideas on an intellectual level and learning the counter-arguments and rhetorical tactics is absolutely an important future-lawyer skill. Having a good devil's advocate (even a sincere one) in that sense is not the same thing as practicing the people skills of staying professional when the judge very much isn't and there's nothing you can do about it.
Uh... dude... it's the Federalist Society. If you are commenting on American politics in 2023, you should know that they're a bunch of insane right-wing fascists who have been incredibly successful in their goals. This is not rocket science, it is not news, they've been really loud and public about what they're doing for quite some time now.
Oh my God, they've gotten to him!
Quick, man the guns! If Ken White has been taken, none are safe from the pony menace!
Wait you want a pony? Who are you and what have you done with Popehat?
Everyone gets a pony.
Vermin Supreme's campaign promise.
Excellent idea. You'll learn responsibility and empathy,
and when the guy you don't like comes to town to
give a speech you won't like, you have nonlethal
projectiles with which to redirect hir attention.