6 ms·
> Are younger lawyers less likely to take cases of clients they deem detestable If only that. The younger lawyers would attack (sometimes physically, like with
by smsm42 5y ago
> Are younger lawyers less likely to take cases of clients they deem detestable
If only that. The younger lawyers would attack (sometimes physically, like with Molotov cocktails, as in the case of Urooj Rahman and Colinford Mattis) those they find detestable, and anybody in the law profession that dares to provide them with any service. Which once was considered a basic human right, but not anymore - now, if you defend the deplorables, you become unperson yourself.
- alecb 5y agoNeither Rahman and Mattis worked for the ACLU and are having the book thrown at them (potentially 50+ years) for burning an empty NYPD van. The rest of your comment is trite Taibbi-parroting about cancel culture.
- splitstud 5y agoSo if you even make an argument that sounds like one an unperson made, you are also an unperson?
- phs318u 5y agosmsm made a point that implied some facts. alecb rebutted those facts, added one of his own and made a critique on the rest of smsm's comment. Nowhere is that making smsm an "unperson". People are free to make a point. And others are free to critique that point. No one has the right to consequence/criticism-free speech.
- smsm42 5y agoThere's a huge difference between "consequence of your speech is that you may be criticized and maybe shown you're wrong" and "consequence of your speech is that you will be fired from your job, physically attacked, denied access to business and services, and people who dare to support you will be attacked in a similar fashion". Pretending to not understand the difference and calling both "consequences" is plain disingenuous - and steps right into what Smirnov's original joke was about. Yes, speech has consequences in both free countries and totalitarian ones. In the former, it's debate, in the latter it's jail and execution. Thankfully, the woke is not yet in the latter position, but they long left the former one and are inch by inch moving to the totalitarian side. And no, none of the facts I stated were "rebutted". One incorrect comment was made about Rahman and Mattis, clearly quoting old (and also incorrect) press articles, which totally missed the point (I never claimed they work for ACLU), and I was then hilariously called "parroting Taibbi". That's not rebuttal.
- phs318u 5y ago> And no, none of the facts I stated were "rebutted". One incorrect comment was made about Rahman and Mattis, clearly quoting old (and also incorrect) press articles, which totally missed the point (I never claimed they work for ACLU), and I was then hilariously called "parroting Taibbi". That's not rebuttal. A. I made no assertions as to who's statements were correct. Incorrect statements get made on the internet all the time. Incorrectness is clearly not a pre-requisite for making a comment or this discussion would be moot. B. "That's not a rebuttal". Perhaps. But neither is it firing you from your job, physically attacking you, denying you access to business and services, and attacking those who support you. Your qualifying alecb's response as equivalent as cancellation and making you an "unperson" was clearly over the top.
- smsm42 5y ago> Your qualifying alecb's response as equivalent as cancellation I am sorry, what? I never qualified that response as cancellation, you must be confused here. When I talked about cancel culture, I did not mean any of the discussion here - which is completely ok, and even the comments that I completely disagree with, are part of proper and normal discussion that I have no issue about at all. I will of course argue against ones that are wrong - but that's completely not what I meant by cancel culture, and I never said otherwise.
- Ar-Curunir 5y agoBoohoo muh NYPD police can Tell me, when is property destruction justified, and when is it not? The USA was founded on the basis of property destruction; was that unjustified? When do you go from “freedom fighter” to terrorist?
- smsm42 5y agoLet me make it easy for you: if you throw a firebomb at the cop car, it's not justified.
- CamperBob2 5y agoWould that have been equally true in late-1930s Germany (or Russia, for that matter)?
- smsm42 5y agoCall me from late 1930s Germany and we'll discuss it.
- dredmorbius 5y agoTake it as presumed that a questioner has a direct link to the side of the state or the opposition, or both, of 1930s Germany, and answer the question rather than dodge it.
- GoblinSlayer 5y agoIt's not 1930s Germany, throwing a firebomb at the cop car out of hysteria is not justified.
- dredmorbius 5y agoIt somewhat weakens an absolute assertion "X is not justified" when a response 1) lists numerous current or recent instances in which X is argued as justified by a substantial groiup, and the further response 2) boils down to "now is not one of those times in which X is justified". A chief weapon of both tyrant and bully is to deny their victims and targets the right to self-defence.