For fuck's sake, stop this nonsense. Are there white PDs with a savior complex? I'm sure there are; in any group of people that's a given. But not everything everyone does is about race just because everything you do is.
I don't *need* to make my every interaction about race because I'm not oppressed along that axis. But I also don't need to make it about antisemitism, or argue that any gentile doing things that help Jews is doing it to feel better about themselves or whatever psychodrama
And before you go there, yes, Jews were absolutely systematically and thoroughly oppressed through the ages, and I'm not even talking about the literal genocide in living fucking memory.
And I get it. If you're Black, race can obviously define who you are, and what your options are, in ways that it simply doesn't for most white people, so of course you're going to see everything everyone does through that lens; it's been a valid lens for your own experience
But that's not how most white people interact with their own whiteness, even if we're beneficiaries of systemic and unearned advantages. We're not generally walking around hypervigilant about it and in a miasma of guilt. We take it for granted. So that's just not our calculus
You know which white people spend their time thinking about their own whiteness in every interaction? Racists. Nazis. Klansmen.
You don't want more white people going down that road.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Apparently dead set on proving the aphorism that a lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client, Sidney Powell and Howard Klownhandler decided that they themselves would handle the appeal from the sanctions they got slapped with in Michigan and ... ho boy, it's a lot
There is & can be no meaningful "philosophical" commitment to free speech distinct from the legal notion of free speech as "freedom from government consequence". (You can argue about what the appropriate limits of that freedom should be, that's not what I'm talking about)
Why do I say there can't be any such philosophical commitment distinct from the legal? Because once you're talking about non-governmental consequences, you're focused on *competing* speech and associations - any private boycott or deplatforming is just private also-free speech
I don't have any moral obligation to actively or tacitly support speech with which I disagree. Of course, we need a modus vivendi to deal with both the mutually-assured-destruction version of "boycott anything I disagree with" and the actual harm of epistemic closure; life in a
Oh, hey, #LitigationDisasterTourists, a Plaintiff that accused YouTube of violating their First Amendment rights just had their case yeeted for all of the reasons that Trump, Berenson, and everyone else suing Twitter for banning them will.
This particular plaintiff is a different band of merry plague enthusiasts than the RFK Jr. led (and Orwellian-named) Children's Health Defense: Del Bigtree's Informed Consent Action Network.
Oh, and claims against FB too.
BTW, I'd say that as a policy, "we're going to remove anything you post if it contradicts what the government says on the topic" is a TERRIBLE policy (yes, even on health info); have a standard other than "what's the government say", guys! But they get to have terrible policy
Every so often, I get people asking me why I do my litigation disaster tours. And the truth is, the *reason* I do them is it's important for people to understand what the law is and how it can impact them.
But I *can* do them because they're also business development
I've gotten terrific clients - yes, including @legalminimum - who found me because they saw threads like these and went "huh ... this guy probably has the skills to do a damn good job in the courtroom"
So ... if you're an in-house counsel reading and enjoying these threads, please feel free to see if you've got a small matter to give us a test run on.
So, today's episode of litigation nutbaggery is brought to you by "Children's Health Defense" - the RFK Jr. group who brought you such antivax hits as "VAXXED (2016)" and "VAXXED II (2019)". These aren't just covid vaccine mandate fighters. They are general purpose antivaxxers
But CHD isn't the only plaintiff here, and the caption tells the story - they wanted to be in the Western District of Texas, so they found a local plaintiff or two to anchor the case there
When we last left our pillow friend (apologies, #WoT fans, I had to), he was being sued for defamation by Dominion and appealing the District Court's denial of his motion to dismiss that lawsuit
A motion to dismiss, as most of you know, is basically a defendant saying to the Court "look, judge, even if I did everything their complaint plausibly says I did they wouldn't win their case, so just dismiss it now"
Until that got dealt with, he didn't have to file an answer
Under the Federal Rules, which govern Dominion's lawsuits because they're in federal court, parties can't start taking discovery until they've had what's known as a Rule 26(f) conference to discuss a joint discovery plan.