waligore.bsky.social
Political theory professor. Interests: Indigenous sovereignty, global justice, Kant & modern political theory, reparations, climate justice. Reposts & links to stories =/= endorsements. Views not employer's. He/him.
224 posts
2,160 followers
3,036 following
Regular Contributor
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
I put this elsewhere, but this may from The Hill (there is not a link). Both The Hill and Jewish Insider failed to mention it.
comment in response to
post
So you agree, though, with Laura, that he wasn't defending the phrase?
comment in response to
post
What's your argument for the "whole phrase" claim? Seem both sides start with interpreting one word. Critics say intifada means anti-Semitic terrorism, and say the whole phrase is a call for global terrorism. Defenders say it means struggle/uprising, so they say it means globalizing struggle.
comment in response to
post
If you are making an empirical claim that he is a bad politician, ithat seems empirically false, whether you support him or not. Look at where he has gotten despite media portrayals.
comment in response to
post
The Hill also doesn't mention it.
comment in response to
post
The publication you quote, the Jewish Insider, has a terrible headine and doesn't tell us that M is right about that Holocaust Museum having that translation until recently. Here is the Forward confirming that (but also criticizing him) Whatever your view, honest journalism would include that.
comment in response to
post
1. There was blogging then, a "proto"social media (and I think better!) social including anti-war blogging. 2. Famously, the keyboard warriors and war bloggers banged the drums for war and today's social media could have made it worse (!) (or no better)
comment in response to
post
"First, you're ramming together justification in public reason and disagreement per se. The former is limited, the latter is not (provided public reasons can be given)." - I may be making a mistake. But I'm not sure what you mean.
comment in response to
post
But if we're tanking about movement in Rawls' thought, so you think it's important he made other such movement such as changing moved 'fact of pluralism' to 'fact of reasonable pluralism?'
comment in response to
post
I intended to write more given a post's limit but didn't get to it
comment in response to
post
that's why I said the word 'first' in 'first' essay on public reason. (No way you could have known that). In 'public reason revisited' he adds the proviso - but as you know that says that religious views 'in due time will need to be presentable in non-religious terms. Is that radical?
comment in response to
post
The word 'reasonable' is key to interpreting PL. That is a claim virtually every scholar on Rawls would agree with. Do you disagree? (The semantics point is odd so I don't understand what you mean)
comment in response to
post
Jeremy Waldron wrote many politicians use their religion to directly justify their poltical views without 'translating it' into public reason (eg Cuomo on death penalty, MLK on natural law, Christians against torture, abortion). Much disagreement from when R wrote wouldn't be admissible by him
comment in response to
post
So maybe you can say there can be great disagreements about what the good life is. But what do you say to critics who say that Rawls had a very narrow idea of what sorts of reasons were valid reasons to bring forth to argue in political justification?
comment in response to
post
Rawls in PL moved away from saying there needed to be a shared comprehensive doctrine of the good. But reasonable doctrines had an overlapping consensus on constitutional essentials etc
comment in response to
post
There could not be radical disagreements about the right. In his first essay on public reason, he said that for coercion to be legitimate, citizens could not present justifications based on their comprehensive doctrines (such as religion) unless they were translated into 'public reason'.
comment in response to
post
Except that it is most definitely not about "radical" disagreement. It is about "reasonable" disagreement, which is very different.
comment in response to
post
The suspect's security firm's webpage shows this picture of the
"Police Type Vehicles" they show they use
comment in response to
post
His firm advertises they drive "police type vehicles"! They are explicitly looking to seem like cops. (Compare: The assassin I believe wore a police uniform and made their vehicle look like a police one)
comment in response to
post
comment in response to
post
comment in response to
post
The webpage where I got this screenshot is still up as I write this www.pguards.net/leadership-t...
comment in response to
post
Their webpage is still up as I write this www.pguards.net/leadership-t...
comment in response to
post
This is the suspect for the political assassination of Minnesota state legislator(s). Security director at "Praetorian Guard Security Services". Has been involved in "security situations" in Africa, West Bank, and Gaza.
comment in response to
post
www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4Qe...