Share this page!

Enter URL or ID to Unroll

You can paste full URL like: https://x.com/threadreaderapp/status/1644127596119195649
or just the ID like: 1644127596119195649

How to get URL link on X (Twitter) App

  1. On the Twitter thread, click on or icon on the bottom
  2. Click again on or Share Via icon
  3. Click on Copy Link to Tweet
  4. Paste it above and click "Unroll Thread"!
  5. More info at Twitter Help
Apark2453 Profile picture
Apark2453
@apark2453
Lawyer, member of the Kathgregore, mostly writes articles if I can make a pun out of the title.
Jul 24, 2023 • 23 tweets • 5 min read
A lot of digital ink is going to be spilled on why phony Stark would pay so much money to fire the people who make the site, lose half its value, driving away advertisers, and now doing away with its almost-universally-known branding to replace with a dumb name and dumb logo

1/ So let's put it to bed, because there are really only two answers and it's not some Machiavellian scheme or 9D chess. Let's Occam's Razor these shitty decisions:

1. He didn't want to buy Twitter.

This gets forgotten when people discuss what's happened since the purchase.

2/
Aug 19, 2022 • 26 tweets • 9 min read
You didn't ask for this. You didn't want this.

But please give it up for the long-awaited return of Dispatches from Hell. We return now to the alternative timeline where instead of banning lead-based paint, the government made it part of the food pyramid.

1/ And I want to start with our old friend AnOminous who was sincerely thinking that Funimation rebranding as Crunchyroll is a result of Vic suing them.

2/
Aug 17, 2022 • 47 tweets • 14 min read
The good news: if the diversity jurisdiction and venue stick, it's likely that the TCPA is inapplicable. See Klocke v. Watson, 936 F.3d 240, 245 (5th Cir. 2019).

The bad news: the rest of it. I won't do a super deep dive right now, but I do have some highlights.

1/ This part is just wild. Causation can be a tough needle to thread in a defamation case *anyway*, but in the form of "by doing what they did other people did other things" is just... Honestly, kind of what we'd expect from Klayman.

2/ Image
Aug 16, 2022 • 20 tweets • 4 min read
In thinking about who Yang's pitch is meant to appeal to, I actually have to give credit that there's a certain understanding of his target audience. Because his target audience isn't hardcore policy wonks (funny story about that term if you stick to the end).

1/ And it's not really the normies, who tend to be people with one or two huge anchoring issues which inform their votes. Both of those populations would need to hear some specifics (the latter at minimum would want a sense of what they stand for).

2/
Jul 14, 2022 • 6 tweets • 2 min read
Right-wingers: "We passed a law banning abortion regardless of age unless there's an immediate risk of death or a diagnosed medical condition causing a complication"

Lawyers: "That means a 10-year-old would have to stay pregnant until she's about to die"

1/ Right-wingers: "Nuh-uh, because being pregnant at 10 is risky"

Lawyers: "Statistically, very, but the law says you can't do anything until the abortion is immediately necessary to prevent death, not to prevent an unrealized future risk"

Right-wingers: "No, that'd be bad"

2/
Jul 13, 2022 • 5 tweets • 2 min read
The closest analogy in my mind to explain the "feeling" of being cisgendered is to something like proprioception (among other things, the sense of where your limbs are in relation to your body). If you've never given it conscious thought, it's just... there.

1/ It's why "close your eyes and touch your nose" works. Your mind knows where your fingers are even without seeing them.

Even without knowing the term, the sense works autonomously to keep your body and mind in sync. Being asked what it feels like would seem nonsensical

2/
Sep 22, 2021 • 7 tweets • 2 min read
I do think this is an accurate statement of the intent, but it doesn't make it any less shitty. What they wanted was for the law to exist as a kind of fleet in being, a power which is never "deployed" but the threat of which hampers enemy movement by existing

1/ A fleet in being is especially useful for what is called "sea denial" tactics, tactics which close off movement and attack options for the enemy not by destroying their fleets but by making it too dangerous to attempt.

2/
Sep 21, 2021 • 23 tweets • 7 min read
Notably absent from this is “debunking or refuting their justifications” much less “interrogating whether their rhetoric matches their actions”.

Ryan, buddy, this isn’t a math problem you leave as an exercise for the listener.

1/ So let’s take a listen, dudes are juxtaposing a whole lot of discussion about the violent clashes between Antifa and police (episode 1) with the Joey Gibson hour. The closest they got in the first episode to the ideology of Antifa is “they think they’re fighting fascism”

2/
Sep 21, 2021 • 9 tweets • 2 min read
This is the fucked up part about how pop culture teaches men to pursue women.

In the interest of full disclosure, go back 10-15 years and I’m just as quick to go “hey this was a cute thing that went wrong.”

1/ It takes, primarily, two pernicious forms:

1. Persistence wins.

2. Failure means needing to further prove how much you want her.

I can even detect it in the sad boy music I used to listen to.

2/
Sep 21, 2021 • 5 tweets • 1 min read
The former doesn't really worry me.

"The solution to bad speech is more speech" does not inherently include "therefore I must politely listen to this speech". Especially where, as on a college campus, there is disparity in the *literal platform* given to speakers.

1/ Generally I support FIRE, but the conflation of "would not shout down bullshit" with "support for free speech" with "the ability to think, discuss, and speak freely" is just nonsense.

Freedom to criticize, even loudly, is part of freedom of speech.

2/
Feb 23, 2021 • 83 tweets • 27 min read
Why yes it *is* 60 pages. And it starts as it means to go on:

"We're not challenging the outcome of the presidential election, we're challenging the outcome of the election of the 117th Congress".

My dudes, it's the same election.

Cocaine is a hell of a drug.

1/ I'm going to try to take this seriously-ish, so let's discuss "what it takes to prove a conspiracy" for a quick second. A conspiracy doesn't just mean "did some stuff I don't like" or "acted in ways which support the same outcome and the outcome is bad".

2/ this lawsuit does not depend on any allegations of “electi
Feb 22, 2021 • 4 tweets • 1 min read
“Private” is doing a lot of heavy lifting in this argument.

So perhaps let’s try to bear in mind that while we consider letters (etc.) sent to other people to be personal, by default they are not private.

1/ The distinction between public and private life is not the right to dragoon others into confidentiality just because you’d prefer it.

If @mpark6288 wanted to release nearly every text message I’ve ever sent him, that is *his* right.

2/
Feb 3, 2021 • 14 tweets • 5 min read
Oh goddamn the comments responding to this.

Let's rapid-fire some of these, but to begin with the most basic principle:

A sincerely held belief is protected the same as any other, there is no threshold of legitimacy for either the religion or the tenet.

1/ Yes, it costs more money to abide by constitutional and statutory rights than to disregard them. The fact that the source of his belief comes from Wikipedia rather than the Dead Sea Scrolls is irrelevant.

2/
Feb 1, 2021 • 8 tweets • 3 min read
I'm not wont to defend Bernie. But come the fuck on.

"The crotchety old Jewish guy dressed for the cold because it was January in Washington D.C didn't seem excited enough" is not white privilege.

But let's look at how to construct a (very dumb) narrative.

1/ First: deploy recognition of white supremacy not as a matter of real inquiry (analysis of what white supremacists advocate, align themselves with, or portray themselves as), but as akin to Potter Stewart on pornography: "we know it when we see it"

2/ Image
Feb 1, 2021 • 6 tweets • 2 min read
The one wrinkle to this I'd add is that there's evidence for a third group (separate from "people who follow rules" and "people who don't") who will follow rules conditionally.

Specifically if they don't see that other people *aren't* and getting away with it.

1/ These are called "contingent cooperators", and the fastest way to lose their cooperation (e.g. free-riding in a tax game) is for them to see other people refusing to cooperate.

And that seems to be a spectrum, with different thresholds for cooperation loss.

2/
Dec 8, 2020 • 76 tweets • 26 min read
I *do* want to pick it apart!

And... Wow. This is art.

154 pages.

One entry on the table of contents: "Motion for leave... page 1".

1/ Typically one can sue a group of defendants together whey they acted in concert. It'd be a weird kind of joinder rule to be allowed to file one lawsuit against three different defendants under three different theories of wrongdoing solely because "it's all election stuff".

2/
Dec 8, 2020 • 6 tweets • 2 min read
wsj.com/articles/south…

This is an interesting set of hot takes from the governor overseeing the highest positive testing rate of any state in the country.

I'm sure it won't come as a galloping shock that her "better" numbers are bullshit.

1/ This is already untrue. Cases in the last seven days/100,000 in South Dakota is 98.6. Illinois is 75.6.

If we include data since January 21st, South Dakota's per capita rate is almost twice as high.

But I'm sure we'll stick with "last seven days" throughout, right?

2/
Dec 8, 2020 • 6 tweets • 2 min read
Let's take some time to break this down.

Starting with the weird analogy between "actual distribution of species on the planet" and "representation of groups of people in fictional media."

It's a step or two removed, but it's basically the thermian argument.

1/ It requires viewing a fictional world like a continent: it either does or does not have certain things in it and that's just how it goes. There just don't happen to be kangaroos in Europe, so don't complain.

NB: there are, people pay to see them

2/
Dec 7, 2020 • 20 tweets • 5 min read
All right, R is off work and can confirm all of this. I'll preface by saying: I definitely got heated after someone suggested I get the gun I didn't know they had and shoot myself in the head.

But I'm getting ahead of myself.

1/ First, to set the stage: both R and I were a bit leery of it to begin with. We'd had get-togethers and in all of the recent ones where were a lot of "those goddamned millennials" talk.

2/
Dec 7, 2020 • 37 tweets • 10 min read
Oh my goodness this article is bad. I have the day off so let’s do a good, old fashioned, “how are you this wrong” breakdown. And I want to lead off with the best one.

Keep in mind this is an argument for the US Supreme Court overturning the PA Supreme Court.

1/ The basic argument is this: Latches can’t apply here because the challenge is to whether a statute is constitutional. So the Supreme Court would reverse.

To support this the author cites, poorly, to “Stilp v. Hafer (1998)”.

2/
Dec 7, 2020 • 9 tweets • 2 min read
For those curious about this doctrine. The “Colorado River doctrine” is named for Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States, 424 U.S. 800 (1976).

1/ The actual background is kind of fascinating, and if anyone (particularly east of the Mississippi where you don’t deal with prior appropriation) wants an explanation of “what the hell does ‘owning’ water even mean” I can explain.

2/