Right but that's the thing. You are reading her UVA comment incorrectly because you lack context. You believe that it was targeting the lawyer arbitrarily in some weird...power game? I have no idea what you think.
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
When in actuality she was responding to the govt argument that a class of people can be declared dishonest and lacking integrity because of an arbitrary characteristic (ie, being trans OR graduating from UVA). Neither of those categories have anything to do with a person's integrity. Right?
You also do not understand that there are actual legal arguments being made here, because again, you read the sound bite and the characterization of a demonstrable idiot (Mizelle) and you've decided to uncritically agree.
Nope - it's because since I've been here, I've seen the "chill" effect for daring to disagree. Just like Muskallini does. I don't care. I'm going to point out when I think people are wrong and I'm going to advocate for my position that this has to be treated with the utmost care.
See my other reply. This could have been elicited without asking about Jesus or playing a game that we did in grade school to see how bad it felt to be excluded. Did she need to ask him how it made him feel? We're in Federal Court for Shit's Sake.
No - I completely understand why she did it. I think it was a stupid, puerile, performative stunt that makes US look bad. Keep making them say, "I don't have an answer for that," but not because she's asking him stupid questions. It's not too much to ask - there is too much at stake here.
You clearly don't because you believe it to be "puerile and performative".
What example would have made your snowflake heart feel better? Shoe color? You're just mad she applied to a lawyer in the court room? Boy would you be shocked by what happens when lawyers says stupid things in courtrooms.
I would have preferred that she not play games and instead stick to the legal questions at hand.
And here, just as on the other app, people simply attack when they run out of things to defend their position. I'm here to point that out, too. We need a renaissance of critical thinking here.
But she didn't run out of things to defend her position. A lawyer made an extremely stupid and inflammatory remark in her court room. She made a very relevant and pointed response to that lawyer. You don't like the response, fine. But it wasn't irrelevant, off topic, and certainly showed no bias.
Nor has anyone here run dry on defense. I would personally prefer if a lawyer makes an unconstitutional and dehumanizing argument in federal court, they get embarrassed for doing that. Because it's the morally correct response.
I most certainly did not run out of defenses. I both attacked your position, attacked your unwillingness to read anything beyond the nonsense letter as unreasonable, attacked your pearl clutching, and ALSO provided extensive justification for my position.
If a lawyer makes an inflammatory remark, sanction him. I guarantee that will go a much longer way towards keeping order in her court and keeping our cases as solid as they can be than invoking Jesus and sending him to timeout.
Comments
What example would have made your snowflake heart feel better? Shoe color? You're just mad she applied to a lawyer in the court room? Boy would you be shocked by what happens when lawyers says stupid things in courtrooms.
And here, just as on the other app, people simply attack when they run out of things to defend their position. I'm here to point that out, too. We need a renaissance of critical thinking here.