Gdanning
1yr ago
I think you would recognize it as conservative if it was applied to trans issues
I don’t understand. An effective strategy is an effective strategy, regardless of whether the goal is conservative or liberal or something else.
41 percent of democrats (versus 46 against) supported the muslim ban (source).
Except, it wasn't a Muslim ban. It was a ban (actually, a partial ban) on a handful of countries associated with terrorism.
Gdanning
1yr ago
Well, yes, my reply was about Feinstein because that was the only evidence that OP provided for their claim.
Gdanning
1yr ago
I actually don't think I was defending a conservative position at all. I, and I believe OP, was commenting on how to effectively pursue political goals. That has nothing to do with right or left; understanding what motivates your opponents is sound strategy regardless of your political orientation.
Gdanning
1yr ago
Of course it can be both. But where is the actual evidence for the claim that "importance" is a causal factor, especially in general? Because that was the claim: that "it is a matter of routine" for advocates for gun control to have concealed carry licenses.
Gdanning
1yr ago
No one said that has to be the only strategy. There can be short-term and long-term strategies (and if you mean that society should correct its "mistakes" of valuing freedom of religion and freedom from insidious discrimination, that is long-term indeed).
Finally, I don't know what you hope to gain by addressing me as "comrade."
Gdanning
1yr ago
OP did not say that they don't want to be linked to right-wing shibboleths. Rather, OP said that potential allies of the project are not going to "get on board" if it is framed in a way which is offensive to their core beliefs, and is instead framed in a way (helping people escape a place where they are subjected to an oppressive ideology) that is instead consistent with those values.
Your suggested strategy (debating the fairness of "hatred and legal restrictions on Muslims") amounts to a suggestion that the way to achieve the goal is to get people to change their basic principles. That is a fool's game, especially when the principles in question (freedom of religion and nondiscrimination) are very much mainstream.
Gdanning
1yr ago
How does that work? “We can’t accept one true claim before you withdraw another claim that sounds low-status right-wing”?
I understand OP's point to be that legal restrictions on Muslims would be seen as objectionable by those people because they would consider is unjust, not as low status. Opposing invidious discrimination against despised minority groups is, after all, a pretty common sentiment among the people in question.
Gdanning
1yr ago
OP claimed that she was allowed to carry a gun because she was "important", but in fact it is because she faced an unusual threat.
In 1995 a hearing on terrorism after the Oklahoma City bombing, Feinstein recounted how, in the 1970s, she was the target of the New World Liberation Front which first attempted to blow up her home. After the bomb failed to detonate, Feinstein explained, she decided to arm herself.
Gdanning
1yr ago
Even Tennessee v Garner merely establishes the boundaries for a Fourth Amendment violation; the limits for criminal liability, or for ordinary civil liability for assault/battery or wrongful death, can be very different. As of course can department regs, as you mention.
Gdanning
1yr ago
takes shots at carjackers
If the car was unoccupied, it was not a carjacking, which requires the threat or use of force against a person. It was merely an attempted theft or auto burglary.
Gdanning
1yr ago
Muslim immigrants from where? India, home to about ten percent of the world's Muslims? Indonesia? The Balkans? Even Trump's original "Muslim ban" did not apply to 90% of the world's Muslims.
Gdanning
1yr ago
Completely predictable (including that Tilda Swinton was the best thing in it). No particularly interesting characters. And,
Gdanning
1yr ago
Well, voluntary departure is a much smarter move, since it avoids having a removal order issued, But I am sure you have data on how many rejected asylum seekers stay illegally.
Gdanning
1yr ago
Conflating the number of asylum seekers with the number of *refugee resettlements is itself semantically dubious, isn't it? Especially given that most of those asylum applications will be denied
Gdanning
1yr ago
What I don't have is a deep statistical analysis of every possible homicide in the United States, because it's a ridiculous demand -- much of the data just doesn't exist to start with, especially for non-prosecutions by definition! -- and the overwhelming majority of examples would be in such different classes that it would be meaningless.
No one says you have to do a deep statistical analysis of every possible homicide, but how about something more than n=2? The point is that you are very, very sure that there is something anomalous going on, yet you say you have no data. So perhaps you should be less sure.
why the lack of arrest or likely prosecution is reasonable here.
Lack of arrest yet. The victim did not die until 1 am, after the suspect presumably had been allowed to go home. So, should the cops have arrested him at the scene? Well, simple battery is a misdemeanor in California (Penal Code sec 243(a)), and a police officer cannot arrest a suspect for a misdemeanor without an arrest warrant unless the offense is committed in the officer's presence (Penal Code sec 836(a)), so an arrest for simple battery would be unlawful. What about battery that results in great bodily injury (Penal Code sec 243(d))? Well, even that is a "wobbler" -- it can be charged as either a misdemeanor or a felony. Does that permit an arrest without a warrant that did not occur in the officer's presence? Maybe, but what if a court says it doesn't? Then an arrest would be illegal, and any subsequent statement by the suspect would likely be rendered inadmissible. And, here, where we are talking about a suspect who is cooperative, has ties to the area, who is 50 years old, and who presumably has no criminal record -- ie, someone who is neither a flight risk nor a danger to the community -- why risk that?
And, speaking of inadmissible statements, once he is arrested, all sorts of legal protections kick in, including his right to an attorney, his statutory speedy trial rights, and a host of others. In contrast, the benefits of arresting him immediately are, what, exactly? He is going to be released the next day on bail if not on his own recognizance.
Finally, now that he has been released, the police cannot arrest him without first getting an arrest warrant. That means assembling evidence, and it means including material exculpatory evidence known to police in the warrant affidavit. All of that takes time.
That's why, as I noted, I see media reports of suspects being released pending investigation happens all the time.
PS: You seem to have inadvertently linked to the same case twice.
Gdanning
1yr ago
That is not remotely what @token_progressive is doing. Rather, s/he is using evidence from mastectomies for cancer treatment to cast light on the likely outcome of similar surgery performed for gender reassignment purposes.
Gdanning
1yr ago
That might be true in a universe in which humans' happiness is not often a function of the quality and degree of interactions with others, but that is not our universe.
Gdanning
1yr ago
What kind of medical treatment has other people than the patient as targets?
Lots of cosmetic surgery, esp surgery meant to correct various types of disfigurement.
Gdanning
1yr ago
but I can't understand how people can maintain a neutral view on unnecessary surgeries on minors.
The people who advocate for those practices believe that those surgeries very much are necessary. That is not a view that I share, but then I am not transgender and don't have kids who are transgender. So, I might be wrong. I also don't know how much harm is caused by gender reassignment surgery, though I have no doubt that opponents thereof exaggerate the downsides as much as proponents exaggerate the upsides.
Gdanning
1yr ago
Again, you are making a claim about practices, while I am referring to what the law permits. And, you have no data on practices. I see articles every day in which police are investigating whether the suspect committed a crime and, if so, which one.
And, btw, "there is some rational ground for assuming the possibility that an offense has been committed" is not a blank check. Rather, "'the People must make some showing as to the existence of each element of the charged offense.'" People v. Scully (2021) 11 Cal.5th 542, 582. For murder or voluntary manslaughter based on a sudden quarrel, that means evidence that the defendant either intended to kill, or that he intentionally committed an act, the natural consequences of which were dangerous to human life; and he knew the act was dangerous to human life, and he deliberately acted with conscious disregard for human life.
Gdanning
1yr ago
Unfortunately for the Palestinians, conventional militaries able and willing to invade a terrorist state already entrenched in an urban warfare setting don't magically appear from wishing.
I don’t know why you are talking about invasions in response to a post when I explicitly said I was referring to options other than invasion.
There are plenty of regional and international actors who would be happy to see Hamas eliminated. Egypt is an obvious one. Not to mention actors within Palestine. However, due to Netanyahu's choices, there were more on October 8 than now.
Gdanning
1yr ago
I am talking about how probable cause is defined, not about what a prosecutor can convince a grand jury to do. Your complaint about someone being indicted where the evidence shows only that he is possibly guilty doesn't make sense.
Note that the mere fact that a prosecutor secures an indictment does not necessarily mean the case can go to trial, because the defendant in every state I have ever heard of can move to dismiss the indictment on the ground that the evidence presented to the grand jury did not establish probable cause. See, eg, CA Penal Code sec 995; NY Crim Proc sec 210.20. Hence, there is a difference between what a prosecutor can convince a jury to do, and what constitutes probable cause.
I think you are conflating two different meanings of "conservative." One can employ conservative, incremental strategies in pursuit of radical goals.
Edit: And see this poll from around the same time :
And
That is despite 45 pct supporting the specific ban in question.
More options
Context Copy link