There is SO MUCH wisdom and fire in @LeahLitman @ProfMMurray and @kateashaw1's new law review article, but this passage in particular really spoke to me (and identifies a problem I am trying to be conscious of): repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewconten… 
On the rule, created and enforced by heterosexual white men on this website *every damn day,* that your legal opinion is invalid if it arises from strongly held principles: repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewconten…
This is crucial. When <certain male commentators> want to police criticism of the judiciary, they often accuse critics of failing to understand some arcane aspect of the law—framing them as overly emotional amateurs who can't roll with the big boys. repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewconten…
Yes. The baseline assumption is that white men form opinions using cold hard logic—and everyone else is driven by irrational emotions or other biases. And most white men don't even see that this assumption exists, or comprehend how they benefit from it.
https://twitter.com/flounder_MA/status/1407421705212026882
When you comment on legal news, the people who invade your mentions with pedantic pseudo-corrections and whataboutism are all white men. They have internalized their inherent authority to police others' alleged biases because they, and they alone, are the true neutral observers.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
