Categories Society
The more thinking I do the less serious - and more ludicrous - the entire thing looks. And the more obvious it becomes that this is the proposal of deeply unwell individuals who are not thinking clearly.
Can you game out where it would go it theoretically Trump did enact some EO demanding the impounding of voting machines? As that\u2019s clearly the game. Like he signs it, then what? Do marshals listen or refuse? Do states sue and get an emergency injunction and that\u2019s the end?
— Bryan Duva (@duva60) December 21, 2020
On the legal side, I read through the list of emergency powers - the whole list - that was assembled by the Brennan Center. Nothing on that list fits. Nothing comes even
It seems extraordinarily unlikely that any executive order along the lines of what has been discussed would be legal. In this case, it can be taken as a given that one or more targeted jurisdictions would dash right off to the courthouse.
Standing would not, it should go without saying, be likely to be an issue. I doubt redressability would either. I think it's very likely that restraining orders and injunctions would be swiftly issued.
That's the legal side, to the extent it's possible to speculate on that at all at this point. Basically, there's no readily apparent legal basis for such a thing, so it probably wouldn't be legal.
That's the easy part. Now for the nuttier side - the logistics.
*Black-owned homes devalued 23%
*Black-owned property taxes 13% higher
*Bank fees 2x higher for black customers
*Black-owned biz closed at twice the rate in pandemic
*Black people w/ NO criminal record earn $10k less than white people w/ criminal record
Sources on all that
1. Homes devalued https://t.co/PChbtDLtDF
2. Property taxes https://t.co/N6ELUlaZsR
3. Bank fees https://t.co/SzLqWQ7IG3
4. Small business closures https://t.co/8OWj0G2f9Z
5. Pay/criminal record comparison
*Black college grads have 50% less wealth than white high school dropouts
*Top 10 most-audited counties are 79% people of color
*Black-white homeowner gap is bigger now than 120 years ago
*Electoral college gives white people 16% more voting power than Black people
Sources on that:
1. College/high school dropout wealth gap: https://t.co/jSPDQhOFSm
2. Most audited counties: https://t.co/IhEliUPPSD
3. Homeownership gap https://t.co/cJl9G2Roan
4. Electoral college
*All Black Americans combined have half the wealth of richest 400 ppl
*White ppl get inheritance at 3x the rate of Black ppl
*Black college grads have $25k more in student debt than white grads
*Black families have $166k less wealth than white families, more than pre-Civil Rights
The equal opportunities section in your job application asks for the 'gender' of the applicant with options:
Female (including trans female)
Male (including trans male)
Non-binary
Other.
1/12
'Gender' is not a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010 and is not defined in the Act.
https://t.co/qisFhCiV1u
2/12
Sex is the protected characteristic and the only two possible options for sex are 'Female' and 'Male' as defined in the Act and consistent with biology, but you don't ask for that. 'Other' is not a valid option.
https://t.co/CEJ0gkr6nF
'Gender' is not a synonym for sex.
3/12
'trans female', 'trans male' and 'Non-binary' are also not valid options are not used or defined in the Act.
4/12
You then ask "Is your gender the same as the gender you were assigned at birth?"
'Gender' at birth is a meaningless concept and 'gender' is not 'assigned' at birth: sex is observed and recorded and is immutable.
5/12
The Diversity details section of your job application has what appears to be a partial list of the protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010. However, it has 'gender' but not sex.
1/10
'Gender' is not a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010 and is not defined in the Act.
Sex is the protected characteristic under the Act, but that is not on your list.
https://t.co/qisFhCiV1u
2/10
You then ask for the 'gender' of the applicant with options:
Female
Male.
3/10
'Gender' is not a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010 and is not defined in the Act.
https://t.co/qisFhCiV1u
4/10
Sex is the protected characteristic and the only two possible options for sex are 'Female' and 'Male' as defined in the Act and consistent with biology, but you don't ask for that.
https://t.co/CEJ0gkr6nF
'Gender' is not a synonym for sex.
5/10
Just finished an extremely helpful and fun workshop on theorising organised by @aruggeri_eu (who never stops working for his students)! Was great catching up virtually w/ @natrupesinghe @EvgenijaKroeker @CeciliaCorsini Mikael & Ellen!
— Giuseppe Spatafora (@gspataf95) January 29, 2021
“By theorizing I mean the process that comes before a theory is presented in its final form” Swedberg 2016, 7
“Although everyone is for "more theory," most of us have rather little understanding of how to get "more theory”.”
Dina A. Zinnes, 1980, 315
How do we shape, draft and calibrate our theory? It is assumed we learn about theorizing via emulation, comparison and practice. Theorizing is a process and we should not confound it with the outcome(a theory). There are pre-theoretical steps/tips that can facilitate the process.
Caveats: this is my way to help theorising. These suggestions are just a theorizing “banister”, nothing more. You will have to climb the stairs for your theory.
What we're aiming at: a theory is a tentative conjecture about the cause of some phenomenon of interest. Logical statement based on assumptions that explain a causal mechanism from which we can derive observable hypotheses and therefore expectations.
(A thread for whoever feels like reading)
Neighborhood gents, what\u2019s something you\u2019ve learned about feminism (or gained a better understanding of) that you think other men should know?
— feminist next door (@emrazz) February 19, 2021
Note - the quoted is a friendly/good faith replier. https://t.co/048kuxxX6q
I have observed feminists on Twitter advocating for rape victims to be heard, rapists to be held accountable, for people to address the misogyny that is deeply rooted in our culture, and for women to be treated with respect.
To me, very easy things to get behind.
And the amount of pushback they receive for those very basic requests is appalling. I see men trip over themselves to defend rape and rapists and misogyny every chance they get. Some accounts are completely dedicated to harassing women on this site. It’s unhealthy.
Furthermore, I have observed how dedicated these misogynists are by how they treat other men that do not immediately side with them. There is an entire lexicon they have created for men who do not openly treat women with disrespect.
Ex: simp, cuck, white knight, beta
All examples of terms they use to demean a man who respects women.
To paraphrase what a wise man on this app said:
Some men hate women so much, they hate men who don’t hate women
The EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES MONITORING FORM in your job application correctly has sex in a list of protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010
However...
https://t.co/rZk1bAiooU
1/11
However, you then ask for the 'gender' of the applicant with options:
Female
Male.
2/11
'Gender' is not a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010 and is not defined in the Act.
https://t.co/qisFhCiV1u
3/11
Sex is the protected characteristic and the only two possible options for sex are 'Female' and 'Male' as defined in the Act and consistent with biology.
https://t.co/CEJ0gkr6nF
'Gender' is not a synonym for sex.
4/11
Asking about a personal characteristic such as 'gender' that is not a protected characteristic under the Act, may be in breach of the GDPR by processing personal - and potentially Special Category - data without a lawful basis.
5/11
I wrote about how Mike Lee is right about "democracy" https://t.co/1dKUae4TUe
— David Harsanyi (@davidharsanyi) October 9, 2020
The disturbing flip side of thinking democracy is a magic talisman against tyranny is the belief that democracy sanctifies power - the essence of majoritarianism. "They can't be dictators if we can vote them out of office!" is one of the most dangerous ideas in the world.
The restraints placed on power are MORE important than the process of choosing who gets to wield it. You would be more free under a tightly restrained hereditary monarch than in a "democracy" with totalitarian centralized power.
The human race learned, fairly recently, that elected government is the approach most likely to maximize liberty and human rights, but where on Earth did we get the notion that it's perfect and sufficient all by itself? The world is full of tyrannies that hold elections.
"Democracy" would be the worst of all worlds - tyranny by mob rule, with the oppressors claiming their every fancy was fully and completely sanctified because they won a vote, and why should we let a stubborn minority thwart The Will of the People?