7 days 30 days All time Recent Popular
Some public accountability over an argument that probably doesn’t matter but should exist publicly. To understand this feud you need to know a few things. This is my memory which isn’t perfect but is the context of what happened with me and @pinwheelempire (thread)


1. I was blocked by @pinwheelempire around 3 years ago. Something that actually really hurt as a life long Blazers fan. I thought it was because I tweeted stupid stuff about Stotts as a passionate fan during that playoffs that I don’t currently believe.

2. At some point I asked why and was informed by multiple people that the account was ran by a cop and that many media members disliked him. This was told to me many times by many people. I then believed that my race, and my public protesting of police was why I was blocked.

3. I do not work with police in any capacity because of personal trauma and historical oppression. I believe people should know when they are interacting with police. I also was/am salty about the block as a life long fan. I am still blocked.

4. Periodically I would tweet reminders that the account was ran by a cop, which I believed. Although part of my incentive was that I was hurt by the block as a fan. Recently I tweeted such a reminder which I believed especially pertinent given the current uprising.
I've made some allusions to how embarrassingly smug and lazy Kyle "I went to Yale" Smith's series is. We're two (short) posts in and it's still difficult to find substantive criticisms underneath an onslaught of purple prose and obvious contempt for community colleges.


The main allegations of his post are that Dr. Biden isn't a great writer and that she didn't do what Smith considers an adequate amount of work to justify her degree. It isn't shocking that he'd avoid substantive critique, as he lacks the expertise to make it.

In the paragraph below 👇, Smith takes Biden's citation pattern – for a potted, perfunctory history of community colleges (which isn't intended to be anything else) – as evidence that she couldn't be bothered to do the reading.


Did he bother to look at the books? At least check their tables of contents? One can find some basic information online. Cohen & Brawer (2003) appears to be a standard textbook on community colleges (cited 5400+ times). The page ranges reflect... relevant parts of the text.


I couldn't find a TOC with pagination for Witt et al., but here's a summary of the contents 👇. Again, given the substance the page ranges aren't terribly surprising, especially since she cites a different source for her *two sentences* on the pre-crash 1920s.
1. Predictably, and I say this to no denigration of PC Young’s experience, your article is written to inflame. It could have appeared in DailyMail.
You seek only to outrage; not to inform. While I cannot hope to do so with @barristersecret’s finesse I will attempt to add balance.


2. The law requires the sentencing judge to adhere to the Sentencing Guidelines. This is an exercise in balancing a multitude of relevant factors.
Immediately, therefore, this means that your claim the offender escaped custody “thanks to glowing character references” is false.

3. The exercise begins, therefore, with the Guideline for the offence that has resulted in a conviction. If that offence is not serious enough for the facts then that is the fault of the CPS, not the judge, who cannot sentence more severely than for what is before him/her.

4. Offences have a max. sentence in law, and the Guidelines indicate a starting point, and range. While it is the law that judges must have regard to the Guidelines, they may go outside of the range (at either end) where circumstances so justify, but if they do they must say why.

5. PC Young’s attacker was convicted of ABH. For that offence, there are 9 stages to the sentencing process, beginning, as always, with determining the offence category which is a combination of offender culpability, and the harm caused.