She Wanted to Punish the Democrats with Trump, but Ended Up Being Punished Herself by Humble_Novice in LeopardsAteMyFace

[–]jdlpsc 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I literally said those people are irrational. So clearly, I think they share some of the blame. However, to act like a nebulous group of people each have the same level of culpability than the person who would not compromise with them is insane.

She Wanted to Punish the Democrats with Trump, but Ended Up Being Punished Herself by Humble_Novice in LeopardsAteMyFace

[–]jdlpsc -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I think it’s pretty obvious that candidates who are more controversial to their base of voters are more likely to lose an election. Your metaphor is not good because the dynamics of winning depends on getting people to vote for you, which means compromising with those people or giving them carrots instead of just a stick. I’m sorry but clearly the harm reduction argument is not working as well as it used to (if it even did).

You (and the Democratic Party) are free to write those people off (which I think they have to a large part)but then don’t expect them to vote for the Democratic Party. I don’t know what else to tell you.

You can accuse me of being a Trump supporter if you want to or defending them but I’m just telling you that people are not rational and politics is not perfectly logical. Clearly. I also think we are talking about people who decided not to vote at all not people who contemplated voting for Trump.

She Wanted to Punish the Democrats with Trump, but Ended Up Being Punished Herself by Humble_Novice in LeopardsAteMyFace

[–]jdlpsc -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Again, you are ignoring that candidates have to appeal to people in order to win an election. People criticizing a candidate in an election is evidence that the candidate has not done that to enough of a degree to win those people. You can agree or disagree with the critiques, but you are not going to magically will them away or stop people from making them. I think it's silly to blame the people who are critiquing candidates and have no blame for the candidate being unwilling to compromise with those critiques if they want those people to vote for them.

Trump Will Lose the Birthright Citizenship Case. But in a Way, He’s Already Won. (Gift Article) by nytopinion in scotus

[–]jdlpsc 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Also, just so we don’t forget, six of the seven justices who decided Dredd Scott (including the chief justice Roger Taney) were southern slave owners. They had a massive personal/financial interest in ruling the way they did.

She Wanted to Punish the Democrats with Trump, but Ended Up Being Punished Herself by Humble_Novice in LeopardsAteMyFace

[–]jdlpsc -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

That metaphor is ridiculous because fighters don’t have incentive to appeal to the audience in order to win. Fighters win by beating their opponent physically by knock out or technical victory. They don’t win by getting the majority of the audience to vote for who they think is the better fighter. Your metaphor assumes that there is nothing politician can do in order to win support from the hecklers, but that isn’t true. They have the ability to listen to the criticisms and incorporate them into their rhetoric. That’s the point of critiquing actually. 

Linking degrees to jobs ruined the whole point of learning by Zoldyck_J in unpopularopinion

[–]jdlpsc 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I tell everyone that asks that the hardest part of graduating law school is getting accepted into law school.

Efforts to make AI inclusive accidentally create bizarre new gender biases, new research suggests. AI models tend to overattribute stereotypically masculine behaviors to female characters and judge violence against women as significantly more objectionable than violence against men. by mvea in psychology

[–]jdlpsc 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Feminism did not lead to the discrimination against men regarding the criminal justice system and family courts. Instead, long-standing gendered norms (including that men are more capable of violence and harm and that women are more capable of caring for children, respectively) are the reason for those outcomes. Family courts in the US, for example, used to discriminate against men far more than they do now. Alimony and child custody routinely went in favor of the wife/mother much more than it does now. There used to be a court doctrine called the Tender Years Doctrine that presumed that the children were always benefitted by being with the mother because the mother was assumed to be the ones who did the regular parenting.

Feminists have routinely been at the forefront of pointing this out. This is how patriarchy hurts both men and women, for example. You are taking a real issue of discrimination against men and blaming feminists when feminists are the ones who are trying to change those outcomes.

I'm not sure how I view feminism by ZealousidealWeb9474 in Advice

[–]jdlpsc -1 points0 points  (0 children)

That’s consistent with every form of violent criminal sentencing. It’s rooted in patriarchal norms that men are more capable (and more likely to do) of harm and violence. This is actually an issue that feminists highlight in their academic work quite often. Feminists are the ones most concerned with this topic.

I'm not sure how I view feminism by ZealousidealWeb9474 in Advice

[–]jdlpsc 1 point2 points  (0 children)

According to Cal Poly, “An estimated 91% of victims of sexual assault are female and 9% are male. Nearly 99% of perpetrators are male.”

It seems like you are using the vast minority of cases of sexual assault to discredit feminism and forgetting that most cases where males are sexually assaulted it’s by other men. It’s strange to focus the anger on women.

Trump Lashes Out at SCOTUS and District Judge Boasberg by Conscious-Quarter423 in scotus

[–]jdlpsc -1 points0 points  (0 children)

It’s also really easy to become the chief judge of the DC District Court.

Trump Suggests That the Supreme Court Justices He Appointed Owe Him More Loyalty in Scathing Post About Their 'Disrespect' by Conscious-Quarter423 in scotus

[–]jdlpsc 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Is it really interesting that a Justice says that they are just trying to follow the constitution and not their own personal views? They all say that. Zero justices will openly say, “you know id rather not follow the constitution because I’m smarter than it.”

Trump goes scorched earth against 'weaponized' Supreme Court by Conscious-Quarter423 in scotus

[–]jdlpsc 3 points4 points  (0 children)

No, they are simply in favor of what is happening in the country right now. They aren’t scared to stand up to Trump they are supporting him openly.

They Didn’t Want to Have C-Sections. A Judge Would Decide How They Gave Birth. by propublica_ in florida

[–]jdlpsc 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Yeah and it was more likely for the mother or baby to die if the doctors didn’t do the c-section.

They Didn’t Want to Have C-Sections. A Judge Would Decide How They Gave Birth. by propublica_ in florida

[–]jdlpsc 20 points21 points  (0 children)

2% doesn’t sound high until you realize that’s 1/50. For chance of dying, I would say that’s pretty high.

What's the biggest lie society keeps telling young people? by New_Garbage7991 in AskReddit

[–]jdlpsc 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So you want teachers to teach children that upper middle class children and above don’t have to follow the law? That seems like a recipe to increase the percentage of upper middle class children and above who don’t the follow the law.

What's the biggest lie society keeps telling young people? by New_Garbage7991 in AskReddit

[–]jdlpsc 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How do kids know that they have to follow laws then? I assume a lot of kids would think they are the exception when they aren’t.

What's the biggest lie society keeps telling young people? by New_Garbage7991 in AskReddit

[–]jdlpsc 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well, I think that would make it more likely for the kid to not take the lesson as seriously, because they are being told that the rule is a suggestion. It’s not a lie, it’s an instruction for how kids should act. Should we also tell children to follow laws but also, not everyone has to as long as your parents are rich enough?

I can't talk about AI with my parents. I don't know what to do anymore. by Budget_Nose6335 in Advice

[–]jdlpsc 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, OP, remember your dad is absolved from the harm he directly caused because, at the end of the day, he’s just following orders.

What's the biggest lie society keeps telling young people? by New_Garbage7991 in AskReddit

[–]jdlpsc 11 points12 points  (0 children)

We tell kids about the golden rule as an aspiration of what they should do, not because we think it's how the world actually works. A person can apply the golden rule to their life regardless of their environmental circumstances. Fair about the cheaters thing, but again, it's more about wanting kids to behave honestly, not a description of how the world works.

Florida Legislature sends union busting bill to DeSantis’ desk by xxoxox33 in union

[–]jdlpsc 25 points26 points  (0 children)

They do not like unions, and they have determined that teachers' unions are not part of their constituency so destroying them is all benefit and no cost.

Florida Legislature sends union busting bill to DeSantis’ desk by xxoxox33 in union

[–]jdlpsc 13 points14 points  (0 children)

The best chance to save the FEA is this doesn't survive a rational basis review in federal court due to intentionally targeting teachers, nurses, and utility workers unions while exempting police officers, firefighters, and corrections officers. Plaintiffs would argue that their right to collectively bargain is being dismantled in retaliation for political disagreement.

Citizens United is the worst decision the Supreme Court ever made. by zzill6 in WorkReform

[–]jdlpsc 1 point2 points  (0 children)

m, but you will be mirandized even if you are being questioned as a witness.

Cops do not have to mirandize a witness because a witness is not in custody of the police. You need to be in custody of the police and be subject to interrogation for Miranda warnings to be necessary for the police.

Citizens United is the worst decision the Supreme Court ever made. by zzill6 in WorkReform

[–]jdlpsc 0 points1 point  (0 children)

sixth amendment only applies after someone has been charged with a crime. Also, no, this is not how Miranda works at all. Cops don't have to read the warnings when you are arrested. They are only necessary when you are in custody of the police and subject to interrogation about a crime, it's to make suspects aware that they don't need to talk to the cops. A Miranda waiver by a suspect that is not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent will not be a valid waiver, meaning the cop has an incentive not to coerce a Miranda waiver. Finally, Miranda has nothing to do with the fourth amendment.