Prediction: The #SCOTUS ruling in #Bostock will become the central case in law school classes teaching the meaning of "but-for" causation. The entire decision comes down to applying but-for causation analysis! /1
'In the language of law, this means that Title VII’s “because of ” test incorporates the “‘simple’” and “traditional” standard of but-for causation. Nassar, 570 U. S., at 346, 360. That form of causation is established whenever a particular outcome...' /1
'...would not have happened “but for” the purported cause. See Gross, 557 U. S., at 176. In other words, a but-for test directs us to change one thing at a time and see if the outcome changes. If it does, we have found a but-for cause.

This can be a sweeping standard. ...' /2
'...Often, events have multiple but-for causes. So, for example, if a car accident occurred both because the defendant ran a red light and because the plaintiff failed to signal his turn at the intersection, we might call each a but-for cause of the collision. ...' /3
'...When it comes to Title VII, the adoption of the traditional but-for causation standard means a defendant cannot avoid liability just by citing some other factor that contributed to its challenged employment decision. ...' /4
'...So long as the plaintiff ’s sex was one but-for cause of that decision, that is enough to trigger the law. ' /END

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Contingently Ironist

Contingently Ironist Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @ironick

Jun 22
I came across a wonderful book, "The Moral Psychology of Hope", which is somewhat misnamed in that it is also about the philosophy of Hope. I'm stunned how relatively neglected the concept of hope has been in philosophy (and apparently also in psychology). I have the feeling that
this is due to it being relegated to theology.

I found in it an essay touching on some of the themes I'm addressing in creating my "radically new kind of hope": "Pessimism and the Possibility of Hope". What the author labels "pessimism" isn't what I would call "pessimism". There
isn't a good word for it AFAIK: neither the belief that things are getting ever better nor the belief that they're getting ever worse. Neutralism? She makes the case that one can be hopeful despite not believing that things are getting ever better. I am attempting
Read 4 tweets
Jun 20
@carl_b_sachs I think interpreting Wallace's "centrifugal governor" metaphor (CGM) as a model for natural selection generally is a misreading of the full passage in context. He's applying the CGM to a very specific phenomenon-a supposed balance between highly vs deficiently developed
@carl_b_sachs organs-not NS generally.

I googled ["a deficiency in one set of organs always being compensated by an increased development of some others"] and there is virtually no discussion of this 'balance of organ development' hypothesis (BoODH) by Wallace. I think the CGM has been
@carl_b_sachs largely ignored because the BoODH simply not true.

Virtually all of those who reference the CGM part of the passage OMIT the BoODH part. They (including Bateson and CH Smith) misread Wallace as claiming the CGM as applying generally to NS instead of specifically to the
Read 5 tweets
Jun 17
Bingo! I'm hard at work developing a pragmatism that can be awe inspiring. It's very hard to make a LACK of foundation & direction inspiring! I recently realized that the key is to forge a radically new kind of hope, which redefines & clarifies the muddy concept of

Michael Oakeshott's description of political activity is a perfect description of pragmatism:
'[Humanity sails] a boundless and bottomless sea: there is neither harbour for shelter nor floor for anchorage, neither starting-place nor appointed destination.'

What kind
of hope does such a journey inspire? What does meliorism mean in such a context?
Read 4 tweets
Apr 6
@YakSaHealth @cancelself What's odd is that you bring up an example of a kind of person (psychopath) that simply LACKS a constraint/attachment, when my entire thread of commentary on @cancelself's tweet has been arguing against the goal of eliminating/lacking constraints/attachments, eg desires, and in
@YakSaHealth @cancelself favor of having the right attitude towards them.

So yes, apparently you're not following my reasoning here.
@YakSaHealth @cancelself Enlightenment is like bravery.

One isn't brave because one lacks fear. One is brave because one has the right attitude towards fear.

One isn't enlightened because one lacks attachments. One is enlightened because one has the right attitude towards attachments.
Read 4 tweets
Jan 14
@FHaruspex @Jeffrey_Howard_ @joseph_morris @teddyburkhardt @SeanCr8on @bodhidave3 Fruitionism (F) has a LOT to say about values such as good and bad. I hinted at some of it with "generate novel..axiological values" and "'telos pluralism'...shall always be 'tragic'", but it's hard to describe every detail of a philosophy in a set of tweets.🙂

So to describe a
@FHaruspex @Jeffrey_Howard_ @joseph_morris @teddyburkhardt @SeanCr8on @bodhidave3 bit more, F, like Pragmatism, claims value pluralism, not value monism, so there is no concept of "the good", only a plurality of frameworks of good. F generalizes this to claim "axiological pluralism": there is a plurality of value frameworks (aesthetic,
@FHaruspex @Jeffrey_Howard_ @joseph_morris @teddyburkhardt @SeanCr8on @bodhidave3 moral, etc). Furthermore, this pluralism is perpetually "tragic" in the sense of generating conflicts that cause deep suffering.

So F unabashedly embraces relativism (which BTW Rorty did not fully embrace until his mature philosophy). For example, increasing fruitfulness of
Read 10 tweets
Jan 13
Here is the Brandom/Rorty discussion I said I'd share. It clearly shows that Rorty valorizes novelty (ends) over reducing suffering (means). I tweeted about it a while back, so here is an unroll of the thread:…
And here is more of the passage:
"In such passages as this, Brandom leaves himself open to the same accusations of pseudo-
aristocratic condescension & ivory-tower aestheticism as are frequently leveled at me.
I think that it is worth subjecting oneself to such accusations to insist on this point."

So do I.
@pdfmakerapp grab this
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!


0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy


3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!