I was in a New England courtroom, a bail hearing for a teenage Somali burglar. The judge needed his father to agree to some terms on curfew, reporting, etc.
Not only did the Somali father not speak English, he didn’t speak *Somali.* The lawyer said he spoke tribal dialect. 🧵1/7
The court didn’t have a Somali translator on-hand, but could call an over-the-phone translation service for courts. They did so, but the Somali translator (who herself had a very thick accent and poor English grammar) said she couldn’t really understand the tribal dialect. 2/7
No one at the service spoke the dialect. The son spoke both Somali and dialect, but obviously couldn’t be trusted to explain the terms of his own bail fairly. The court was at a total impasse. The father didn’t understand anything that was going on. Idk how he even got there. 3/7
At this point I thought “ok, the sane thing to do would be to send the teen back to jail until this could worked out.” But you already know that didn’t happen.
The judge, exasperated, just told the Somali translator to do her best. 4/7
The Somali translator protested, saying that she couldn’t affirm that the father understood what she was saying or vice versa. And that was also clear to everyone watching, the father was obviously clueless. But the judge just barreled ahead, reciting what he had to recite. 5/7
Despite the father never showing any signs of understanding things like “Your son must be home by 8:00 PM” and “If your son is missing for more than one hour you must call the police,” the court approved the (low) bail and released the kid into his custody. 6/7
I’ve seen other instances like this. But this one really impressed itself upon me. A judge and his whole courtroom just pantomimed that someone with no possible chance of understanding had meaningfully agreed to terms. I was utterly outraged, and still am. 7/7
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
This study obviously captures something true — that liberal-minded people have broader moral concerns than conservatives — but I have serious doubts about the reliability of this particular study, and the visualization is just criminal.
First, why is this even a two-dimensional, circular chart? Seems manifestly unfit for purpose. And even if we do keep the circle scheme…
A more accurate image would be a widening circle’s embrace, not a heatmap of where the edges are. But that would get fewer right-wing clicks.
It’s not just YA. Adults are watching kid’s cartoons, reading kid’s books, going on kid’s vacations, dressing like kids, talking like kids, thinking like kids.
Men love to call out infantile women, and women do the same to manchildren, but it’s both.
Mass arrested development.
I’m not even sure what exactly to blame. Lack of social pressure to grow up is the biggest culprit, but that’s sort of passing the buck (“why is there no pressure?”)
Some say it’s that adults aren’t having their own children, but idk, childless adults weren’t like this before.
My crank theory is that it’s unfamiliarity with death. Longer lifespans, medicalization of end-of-life and disposal of remains, social atomization, irreligion, etc keep death (and thus, I think, proper aging) far from the mind
But even this doesn’t really satisfy me as an answer
The inscription on this 17th-century sword reads: "When I raise this sword, so I wish that this poor sinner will receive eternal life."
It displays a better understanding of Christian forgiveness than most people now.
I see lefty Christians often say that since we must love and forgive those who do wrong, we must also withhold the state’s enforcement. This is wrong.
But just as ridiculous, and even more common, are rightists soaked with bloodlust and cruelty, relishing in hatred. Also wrong!
A genuinely Christian cause in the realm of criminal justice would be prison reform. Not to diminish the number of persons imprisoned, if anything we imprison too few.
But our prisons *are* a disgrace, and a stain on all our claims to greatness.
What anarchists *really* want: To be the underbelly of a functional society
They dont want power, or to rule; they *dont want to win.* They want to be a barely-tolerated minority of 𝒸𝑜𝑜𝓁 guys, while 1950s USA actually does all the work, gives them welfare & plays straightman
This is why any criticism of anarchists revolving around their "plans for the future" or how they "would actually govern society" bounces right off
They don't want to govern, they have no plans. If you gave them power for free theyd refuse it. (Makes sense.) So don't even bother
There is nothing more beautiful to an anarchist than a failed revolution.
Death on the barricades, hurling a molotov under the black flag, the object of anarchist desire. They want to be cut down by fascists while they set tyrannical institutions ablaze. Victory would be a shame