There are people who I trust to have a good-faith disagreement with me on some matters. But if I have a viral tweet with 500+ retweets on it and some jerk jumps in with OH YEAH HAVE YOU CONSIDERED, I’m blocking.
Because (a) yes I considered, and (b) this is someone I have no history with, who doesn’t know me, doesn’t know what I know, and yes, I’m going to assume the person isn’t trying to engage in good faith.
It was incredibly close, and I don’t know if the GOP candidate has conceded, but my fingers are crossed that nothing goes haywire from here.
This is one of two super-close races that are projected as Dem wins in the Colorado House, and...if those races both are actual Dem wins, Colorado’s House of Representatives will be officially majority female!
....how does Bernie think that this result shows people are *uncomfortable* voting for Black people when Stacey Abrams drew record turnout and is/was *thisclose* in a state where people said it wasn’t possible?
Why is he not saying, “being able to battle this well in deep red states shows that people are ENERGIZED and EXCITED about voting for Black people?
Why are there no hot takes about how maybe if Beto O’Rourke had been a black man?
The reviews for That Book are like, “so all she does is get harassed constantly, that’s her personality, getting harassed” and women, we all know this is ridiculous because we can be harassed and also still be snarky and have interests like Apple Products and figure skating.
But um, also, women, you can SEE how ridiculous this is here, right?
So...like, when I say that I hate seeing books about marginalized people that are All Entirely About Them Getting Dumped On For Their Race, this is kinda what I mean.
“Write a whole person” is advice that is both necessary and wildly ineffective, but...step one, is understanding what it means to not be writing a whole person.
One way is to define someone by a marginalization, and then to define the marginalization as the abuse it draws.
There are always a million “most important” things that need to be done, but the “most important” thing that I think we need to push for between now and 2020 is state voting reform.
Voting needs to be safe, swift, simple, and secure. There are already states that are doing all of these things relatively well.
Your state legislator may well be willing to listen. Write/call/talk to them in person about securing the right to vote.
Some states are going to be a long haul. Others may be a simpler. But the more we can eliminate ridiculous tales of three-hour waits, the more we make those states that engage in them look like what they are: outliers who are trying to use procedural rules to rig elections.
When I was a kid my dad never let us trick-or-treat because trick-or-treating was “institutionalized begging.”
Imagine, if you will, a tiny Kindergarten Courtney explaining to her smol friends that she can’t trick-or-treat with them because it’s institutionalized begging.
So now I feel like it’s MY JOB to make sure that EVERY PERSON who comes to my door and wants candy, gets candy NO MATTER WHAT, because who knows if this is the only time they get to slip parental control and get out.
Also, I see a lot of people saying that if SOC had married Rehnquist, she wouldn’t have been a Supreme Court Justice and let’s be clear here—if he had married a woman who also cared about her own career, he might not have been a Supreme Cour Justice, either.
People often talk about women of a certain era not working, and the truth is that—even aside from the things that we don’t call “work” because women did them, women have been providing assistance to husbands in their jobs for ever.
If you think that no woman ever helped her judge husband draft an opinion, or write a research paper, or...maybe even wrote his PhD for him?
Okay, true to a point...but she was only *offered* a job as a legal secretary. She didn’t take it. She actually found work by telling the San Mateo county attorney that if he let her work for free, he would realize that he could hire her.
The Second Amendment is not unlimited... The sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” ...That limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.”
—Scalia, known liberal
People who think that originalism is an “I win the game” button are gonna get really fussed when they realize we *have* a second amendment opinion that is controlling precedent written from an originalist perspective by Antonin Scalia and it doesn’t support their argument.
I especially like that this guy seems to imagine I don’t know what originalism is, or how it works, when he’s the dumbass who referred to “original intent.”
Scalia would have smacked him upside the head for that one.