I mean they're dunking on it because it's facially wrong enough that you can enforce a boundary against so-woke-you-went-round-the-bend without scoring one for the Jameses Lindsay.
I think it is good to safeguard against Bad Wokism, and by and large the dunking has stayed well on the side of "this is a factually silly claim" as opposed to "words can't infantalize women" which arguably is a victory of Good Wokism.
I would also like to note this has all the hallmarks of the things that are supposed to be scary about the reign of the wokies: a seemingly arbitrary change in the rules that deems your past conduct unacceptable without regard for your intent. And the end result is conversation.
And fore most people that should be your threat model of Bad Wokism: annoying conversations, possibly a thread or even a whole damn mandatory seminar.
Worse things definitely happen and they should be addressed as they do.
* for most people. This isn't golf.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I'm not sure this works. Letting people live places is certainly best, but I'm not sure that personally approving every neighbor is required if the free rider problem is solved.
Which is to say the problem isn't just zoning for single family housing, the problem is that people aren't paying enough for the privilege of zoning for single family housing.
I'm too tired to explain this properly but the idea here is that neighboring property owners have legitimate interests in the neighborss but not one that should be enforced with a costless veto.
Right. I think the right policy balance is for teachers to get vaccinated and back into schools and it annoys me insofar as unions are resisting that, but they're not wrong to advocate for their membership. It's their job, actually!
I'll save my outrage for when they're protecting bad teachers or interfering with improvements in educational policy, this is a genuine pie splitting situation between parents/kids and school employees, it's fine for everyone to fight hard for their side.
I think this was the problem people had with the Yoder test, yes. Government officials and lawmakers would be expected to be careful about their policy making and then a judge could say they weren't good enough based not totally clear criteria.
Of course just because you take away discretion from a judge doesn't mean you don't have government agents using their discretion all the time anyway, which is why Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. Hialeah came about.
Up the number and automatically stay any deportation proceedings against unauthorized immigrants suing for wage theft and this might begin to make sense.
We should call them unauthorized immigrants because that's what they are: they have not been authorized. They could be overstays, they could have crossed illegally, they could have a right to non-refoulment under US law, we won't know until someone tries to deport them.
Personally I don't think we should have any interior enforcement but if we're gonna let's not just hand criminals and/or companies an easily exploitable class.
Oh wow, I rarely disagree with him this much but this is wrong. Spread comes from controversy. Insofar as there is an unambiguous moral claim (racists are bad), it is based on an underlying ambiguity (is this statement racist) that gets buried as the event gains momentum.
Part of the problem here is pinning down who counts as "the group". You can very quickly get a small mass of people On Here who have come to a local consensus version of reality that is at odds with the reality the rest of us share