cinematika.bsky.social
105 posts
16 followers
28 following
Regular Contributor
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
Ipso facto you are not a reasonable person. Checks out!
comment in response to
post
Also, it's a small thing. But my comment contained no "ad hominem" attack.
www.txst.edu/philosophy/r...
comment in response to
post
In the alternative, go ahead and provide a factual basis for your sanctions (or contempt!) argument from the court record, to start. Otherwise, I'm sorry, your argument is literally nothing. Again, facts. Not feelings. Not needless contrarianism.
comment in response to
post
I actually think what got us Trump 2.0 is the notion that people can create person realities and then defend them to the death in the face of all evidence that their reality is wrong. No one is "shouting attacks" at you. You are simply stubbornly dug in.
comment in response to
post
You have an unbelievable ability to stubbornly stick to your own reality in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, I'll give you that.
comment in response to
post
Look I'm not going to browbeat you any further. You don't know what you're talking about. You don't have any idea what a sanction is or when it can be assessed. That's not attacking you. That's just factual. Fwiw I'm pretty sure you're thinking of contempt, which is a different thing.
comment in response to
post
But being mean is not in and of itself sanctionable. So you want him sanctioned, I'm asking on what basis? Back up your arguments now, like you want us all to do.
comment in response to
post
Also oh my God. She did not "put him in time out." Please.
comment in response to
post
Oh really? Which thing did he say, and under which rule of professional conduct? Be specific now. Back up your arguments.
comment in response to
post
You on the other hand continue to repeat that the judge's actions offend your sense of norms, and....that's it. Oh and that you're a real "tell it like it is" person. Very compelling.
comment in response to
post
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.
comment in response to
post
A sanction. And what here is sanctionable? Can you be specific?
comment in response to
post
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.
comment in response to
post
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.
comment in response to
post
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.
comment in response to
post
When every lawyer on bsky says the same thing about this letter, I'm sure it's them that are wrong. And definitely not you.
comment in response to
post
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.
comment in response to
post
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?
comment in response to
post
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.
comment in response to
post
comment in response to
post
I ask this with all sincerity. Do you know what the "bite" part in "sound bite" means? It means a portion of a longer answer. Literally the removal of context, important context! Animus toward historically marginalized groups is a legal trigger for enhanced review. This stuff is REALLY important!
comment in response to
post
What are you even talking about? The "sound bite" is what is in the letter. The argument, as you put it, is in the transcript you have already said you refuse to read?
This judge asked a valid hypothetical in response to a question of whether animus motivated the EO being ruled on.
comment in response to
post
I would think it was obvious it was not serious.
comment in response to
post
No one literally no one is saying the letter is lying. The selective editing is at issue. Be better.
comment in response to
post
Bias against...UVA grads? Good news. Not a protected class.
comment in response to
post
You need to actually read the transcript and not assume that the people who always act in bad faith are acting in good faith.
comment in response to
post
The one where he got to the baseline and poked it around the defender was so nasty. This could be a huge year for him, no doubt!
comment in response to
post
Thoughts on Arriola's defensive effort? He seemed better than advertised to me! (And I've done some of that advertising...)
comment in response to
post
I mean, the feed was nowhere near enough Ps so I get it! But yeah I believe the one replay they showed from the behind field level cam made it pretty clear.
comment in response to
post
It was off target and deflected off a defender into the goal?
comment in response to
post
0? As much of a banger as his "assist" from last year.
comment in response to
post
Also bro, Ferreira has not been good.
comment in response to
post
PDLV has been reeeeeeeal bad
comment in response to
post
This cannot possibly be a real thing a human being said. What is wrong with you?
comment in response to
post
Well done Michael, potentially best use of the meme I've seen
comment in response to
post
What's Canadian for "go f yourself"?
comment in response to
post
"broadly up for grabs?" What are you even talking about. Is the right for women to vote "broadly up for grabs"? That changed once too.
comment in response to
post
Uh huh. Then you have nothing to worry nor anyone to be offended on behalf of.
comment in response to
post
That's a ton of projection there bud. Who did you vote for?
comment in response to
post
Another one for the block list. Man you guys make it easy!