Please do not pile onto Michael, who is lovely. But this raises a point that I think deserves wider discussion: the idea that anger, hatred, jealousy, and the other so-called "darker" emotions are inherently bad ... is wrong. They aren't. They're just more likely to be used wrong
Anger can be righteous, and productive. It can spur us to action, to fight against injustice, to self-sacrifice in the name of a good cause. The problem isn't anger per se, it's inappropriate anger, misdirected anger, uncontrolled anger
Hatred isn't necessarily wrong. You *should* hate Hitler, for example - have a bone deep revulsion for and visceral rejection of people who would murder innocents for personal gain, incite race wars, etc. Your internal response to that *should* be emotional, not just logical
Jealousy can be a very productive emotion. I can look at @popelizbet and @greg_doucette raising scads of money for charity, doing good in the world, and say "wow, I wish I could accomplish what they can". It can push you (me) to be a better person
By the same token, "good" emotions like love, loyalty, devotion ... those can be extremely dangerous and destructive. We're witnessing it in our politics now, in fact
The reason we consider things like anger, jealousy, and hatred to be "bad" is because they are often misdirected (like racial hatred) and because as strong emotions they can overwhelm reason and lead us into bad choices
The reason we think of things like "love" and "joy" as "good" emotions isn't just because they feel good, it's because they are most often associated with doing good. But misdirected love and joy can be just as dangerous, and just as much a source of bad choices, as anger or hate
Bottom line - very few things in life, especially emotional life, are inherently good or inherently bad. It's all about the use we put them to and whether we allow them to overwhelm our reason.
Thanks for coming to my (Maimonidean) TedTalk
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
"Even if you believe, as I do, that Congress ought to remove Trump over his actions last week, can you fault Republicans for not wanting to be a part of this specific process?"
Look, @HaMeturgeman, I get it. But the response, if that's how a particular republican senator feels, is to make a floor speech denouncing what they see as inappropriate politicization and then explaining that they're voting to remove *despite*, not *because* of it ...
Because it's the right thing to do and a necessary response to Trump's impeachable misconduct.
"I can't do the right thing because you didn't do the right thing" is, particularly in the face of this issue, completely indefensible.
People keep saying Clayton Kershaw throws a lot of strikes, but I've watched his games and the pitches they call "strikes" NEVER hit the batter. Nobody discusses this.
Look, I get it. The constitution uses the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" and in the context most people are familiar with the words "crimes" and "misdemeanors" mean "criminal offenses". That's not how it's used here
Easy way to prove that? "Misdemeanors", in the usual legal sense, *are* crimes - just relatively minor ones
Looks like we need to spend some time talking about the Parler lolsuit against Amazon and why it's deader than a Mitch McConnell comedy special. They've brought three claims - antitrust, breach of contract, and tortious interference. None will survive. Here's why
Here's the meat of their intro: Amazon isn't being fair to us. They're holding us to a higher standard than Twitter - they say we allow violent content, but look what Twitter does!
There are a few problems with this approach. First, there's a factual problem: Twitter and Parler take very different approaches to moderation. Hell, *that's Parler's entire pitch.* So "we're the same as Twitter, why are you treating us different" isn't going to fly
Let's talk about this North Dakota attempt to legislate around Section 230 and create a civil right of action for users censored by social media sites. CC @mmasnick
Forget, for a moment, that this law, if it passed would immediately be deemed void as preempted by Section 230 (Federal law is supreme over state law where they conflict, and this would create an express conflict). This bill is a really good example of why this stuff is hard
Here's the key provision of the bill. The various highlighting on these versions shows areas we'll touch on
Folks, one of the basic rules of litigation practice, as a lawyer, is this: You DO NOT speak directly to an opposing party who is represented by counsel, unless SPECIFICALLY authorized to do so by that party's counsel
Yesterday was, very literally, a day that will live in infamy. Our children's children will learn about it in schools - if we're lucky enough to survive long enough as a nation for them to.
It was also totally predictable
You know how I know it was predictable?
I, and many others way wiser than I am, have been predicting it for quite a while. Some of us have faced real consequences for that (looking at you, @MsEntropy - I'd want to break things today, good on you for lauging)
I say all of this as an intro to my broader point: The Senators who, today, are piously wringing their hands and "who-could-have-imagined"-ing about yesterday's events? The ones who went "wait wait wait this is a bridge too far we need to stop this"?