Objectively intelligent.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Flower : All your costumes are just participation in some kind of phoney theater. I'm only telling you this for your own good. It's a freak show.

Sebby : Oh, are you trying to say that your blue jeans weren't theater?

Flower : It's not the same thing.

Sebby : So your professor wore a three-piece suit and blamed you for your jeans. And your jeans were "too much." And he didn't understand that his suit was also a costume. You thought your jeans stood for love, freedom and sexual equality; I at least know that I'm in costume.

No offence, and YMMV, etc., etc., but I prefer the Gillian recaps, iykwimaityd.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I listened to you, I read the book, and I buy systemic racism.

My complaint is with Adder and frivolous people like him who've abused those notions. He's dumb. People like him are dumb. I don't like the well-intentioned dumb any more than I like the nefarious dumb.

How is he dumb? Here, finally, he has explained why he thinks Taibbi's piece was racist:

"[T]he piece and the ideas it expressed were racist, in that it disparaged antiracist ideas and upheld racists ones."

"What he said had the inherent character of reinforcing existing racial hierarchies and dismissing attempts to dismantle them."

This "logic" asserts that anything that disparages antiracist ideas is racist. That necessarily means ALL antiracist ideas are beyond criticism. Obviously, this is moronic, as nothing can be beyond criticism.

Now to his second point, that Taibbi held up racist ideas. He of course does not explain that with specifics. He just declares Taibbi's criticisms as racist using his own subjective view that anything that criticizes antiracist ideas is racist. This takes "putting the rabbit in the hat" to levels I've never seen before.

This kind of thinking is, again, just fucking dumb. I struggle to even call it thinking. DiAngelo herself would likely bristle at the notion that she was beyond criticism.

Adder seems to have a binary view that there is racism and there is antiracism, and that anything that critiques antiracism must be racism. There is no ground in between. That's something one would expect to hear from a person who is mentally challenged.

He'll of course walk it back here by saying he was only talking about Taibbi, and now that he's pressed, he'll cherry pick some of what Taibbi said and j'accuse!-- he'll declare it racism. But that'll be bullshit. His history of overuse of the pejorative here renders his silliness - a silliness shared with loads of less than rigorous thinkers like him - bare:

He believes that what is said in favor of dismantling racism is beyond criticism and what criticizes it may automatically be dismissed as racism.

TL;DR: The Ends Justify the Means.

He said it. And it's pretty fucking dumb.

White dude goes out of his way to write a specious takedown of a book even you think is enlightening on race and you want a detailed explanation of how that's a racist thing to do?

It's beyond evident that you enjoy bloviating at length about literally nothing, but you really shouldn't expect others to join you.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

No offence, and YMMV, etc., etc., but I prefer the Gillian recaps, iykwimaityd.

do you know the movie?

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

do you know the movie?

There’s a Gilligan movie??!!?!??

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

White dude goes out of his way to write a specious takedown of a book even you think is enlightening on race and you want a detailed explanation of how that's a racist thing to do?

It's beyond evident that you enjoy bloviating at length about literally nothing, but you really shouldn't expect others to join you.

I think Ty might've more eloquently described your view. Do you think that anything which is not helpful to (or critical of) the cause of antiracism is racist? I suspect you do, though you'll deny it like crazy because when I write it so plainly, you can't help but realize how flawed such thinking is.

This is a very strange form of thinking I've seen emerge in the past 20 or so years. I think it started in politics, with Bush, or maybe Clinton. It neared peak during Obama's term, and has now gone off the charts in the Age of Trump.

It goes like this:

1. I think this president is awful;
2. I am committed to or desirous of his removal;
3. I am against those who like him;
4. But I am also against those who are not universally critical of him at all times;
5. I am against those who criticize the actions or positions of those who are against this president;
6. The only thing one may say about this president is that which is negative or damages him;
7. There can be nothing said about him which in any way is positive, even if I agree with one of his policies;
8. There can be nothing critical ever said about the efforts of those of us vehemently committed to his removal;
9. Even if we are wrong, or our thinking on an issue is poor, if our flawed policy or our action would help to damage or remove the president, it is okay, and if you say anything against it, you are the enemy

This can be applied to any number of things beyond the presidency, of course. It's a scorched earth way of thinking that sees only ends and feels justified in doing so.

Stridency replacing sanity.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

There’s a Gilligan movie??!!?!??

I meant the movie where the quote is from? And yes there are several Gilligan movies. In one they get off the Island but find the rat race is too much, and they ALL move back to the Island. Which, given that 4 of them are in their sexual prime, it seems a bit of a stretch?

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

I meant the movie where the quote is from? And yes there are several Gilligan movies. In one they get off the Island but find the rat race is too much, and they ALL move back to the Island. Which, given that 4 of them are in their sexual prime, it seems a bit of a stretch?

I’m not sure how I didn’t know that. And yes, I do know Liquid Sky but I don’t think I have seen it since the 80s. Um, I mean, I wasn’t even born when Liquid Sky came out!

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

I’m not sure how I didn’t know that. And yes, I do know Liquid Sky but I don’t think I have seen it since the 80s. Um, I mean, I wasn’t even born when Liquid Sky came out!

My parents watched it the night they conceived me, but they didn't let me see it until I was 15, in 2000.

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I don't know how you do it. When I was in that world, because I had a commercial lit background, they had me defend cases over disputes with other counsel (referral fees, splits, etc.). The shit cats in that sector will do to one another is fucking unreal. "Pay me?" is met with "Make me." "But we have an agreement!" is met with "Fucking prove it."

While at AIG, I was consulted when two plaintiff PI lawyers were arguing over their fee split of a policy limit settlement. They were both so irrational and argumentative, we filed an interpleader action. I hadn't even thought of the word "interpleader" since my civil procedure class. But I did get to hand deliver a $1 million check to the clerk of the court. And it cost them my attorney's fees, costs, and paying interest to the court.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

While at AIG, I was consulted when two plaintiff PI lawyers were arguing over their fee split of a policy limit settlement. They were both so irrational and argumentative, we filed an interpleader action. I hadn't even thought of the word "interpleader" since my civil procedure class. But I did get to hand deliver a $1 million check to the clerk of the court. And it cost them my attorney's fees, costs, and paying interest to the court.

If I'd been hired by AIG, I'd have written the two parties, told them I am delivering a check for $500,000, and taking the side of whichever agrees. Then cash that difference. Harvard/Yale Law> Cal law, no offense.

[Icky Thump]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

If I'd been hired by AIG, I'd have written the two parties, told them I am delivering a check for $500,000, and taking the side of whichever agrees. Then cash that difference. Harvard/Yale Law> Cal law, no offense.

Spoken like someone who only pretends that he went to Harvard on the internet, no offense. Smart money saves writings and records conversations.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

While at AIG, I was consulted when two plaintiff PI lawyers were arguing over their fee split of a policy limit settlement. They were both so irrational and argumentative, we filed an interpleader action. I hadn't even thought of the word "interpleader" since my civil procedure class. But I did get to hand deliver a $1 million check to the clerk of the court. And it cost them my attorney's fees, costs, and paying interest to the court.

Two cases I'll never take again:

1. Boundary or mineral rights disputes (it is impossible to settle cases involving dirt);
2. Fee split cases.

I was involved in two large fee cases where there were ethical charges raised (allegations money was plowed into operations where it should have remained in escrow). One judge made me bring accounting records to court. Thankfully, he made certain to read into the record that I was in no way at fault and just the lowly associate tasked with trying the case. The other case disgusted me enough that I told management I refused to continue to handle it.

The PI industry is like the entertainment industry. Can't trust a motherfucker, and everybody has alligator arms when it comes to paying out what they legitimately owe.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Icky Thump

Spoken like someone who only pretends that he went to Harvard on the internet, no offense. Smart money saves writings and records conversations.

Smart money puts nothing in writing but that which entirely serves his interests.

The national yearly fees for the minutes billed for each time a lawyer has to tell a middle manager not to use email, or even text? Maybe $5,000,000?

"Use the fucking phone."

(In this state, recording calls w/o permission is a felony.)

[Icky Thump]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

(In this state, recording calls w/o permission is a felony.)

In my state it is Exhibit 1.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Icky Thump

In my state it is Exhibit 1.

Most people think its totally legal everywhere. I've had clients tell me they recorded a call w/o permission. I've had to say, "Stop telling me that now. Stop."