There is a fundamental conflict between "I want to make life difficult for people who I don't agree with" and "I want to be able to think/act as I wish."

Too few people are willing to recognize that the conflict exists at ALL, much less to prefer option #2.
Everyone always says the same shit.

--"Of course we don't want judgment for thoughts, but this particular one is an exception."

--As is "entirely clear," my position is correct.

--"There's an emergency!"
--People who fail to prioritize and act on my pet position are maliciously in opposition!

--It's about "safety!" (or the alternate term-of-the-moment)

--"There is no middle ground here!"

This is all bullshit.

And it almost always relies on an EXCEPTION to a principle.
Don't let people skip straight to "we can fire someone for being a right/left voter."

First, make them defend "anyone can be fired if their boss doesn't like their voting habits."
Don't allow "my boss' beliefs make me feel unsafe, and I'll report to HR," before debating "anyone whose boss makes them nervous can get the boss fired by casting that nervousness as safety."
Hopefully that will make folks realize: We are all better off, generally speaking, if we leave more people alone. Because then WE ALSO get to be left alone.

• • •

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

Keep Current with Lawyer Dog

Lawyer Dog 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 @a_lawyer_dog

14 Sep
Mass. Housing Court pretrial today. Mandatory attendance.

D did not appear.

Judge denied default; dismissal of D counterclaim; a switch to bench trial; & refused to set a prompt "last chance" hearing.

Readers, this is not neutral justice.

The Mass Housing Court openly prides itself on "keeping tenants in homes." This is how they do it.

When landlords miss dates (even pro se LLs), cases are dismissed.

But when defendants do the same, the court does nothing and gives them extra privileges.
Mass can write new laws that favor tenants. It can even write new court rules which treat the parties differently!

But this is wrong.

When a court selectively enforces/ignores its own rules for one side only, it stains the court process AND the court.
Read 14 tweets
13 Sep
@RoKhanna has an excellent bill proposal. Here's the text, which (as usual) is surprisingly hard to find in the news articles. PDF:…
These changes are good. The US would be much better w/ rotating USSC terms, than with the current setup. 2-yr appointments, 18 year terms, is wise.

Constitution makes some of this tricky, though not his fault.
For example, can't really fire EXISTING judges, so would be more than 9 unless & until the existing ones retire. Probably no way around that; so be it.

The 120-day "advise and consent" is also an excellent proposal as it forces an up/down vote. May not pass Ctl. muster tho.
Read 6 tweets
13 Sep
My kid will finish TWO years of college calculus, all before graduating high school--all through public schools (no tutoring/special classes); he's not alone.

In some US public high schools, a majority of the kids who graduate can hardly multiply.

How can this be our country?
I moved to my town because I researched the school system first. That's what my mom did, too.

How can we possibly deny parents the equivalent opportunity to help THEIR kids? It's unethical! And it's unethical to tie it to income:
"Moving to a neighborhood w/ good schools" takes a lot of money and know-how. Only a few folks can do it; I was lucky.

"Registering for a public charter school" does not take money. It is available to the poor and uneducated alike.
Read 16 tweets
13 Sep
This is a hard balance.

Broad-based government mandates are almost always inferior to individual, expert, solutions which consider specific individual facts.

But the government is often better, on average, than an uninformed/uneducated solution. Especially for public health.
Yes: Many people who have advanced scientific training can make individual weighted decisions which are better than those made by government.

But how to screen for those who are ACTUALLY competent to override gov't policy, versus those who just THINK/CLAIM they're competent?
"Thinkers:" Many folks honestly but FALSELY believe that they are competent & informed w/r/t health medicine etc.

"Claimers:" Many others KNOW they aren't competent but they don't care. They say "fuck the gov't" and claim competence anyway.
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

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

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!