If DeSantis wins

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
9,002
795
118
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
It's not 'meaningless' that a change of appearance doesn't necessarily correspond to a change of gender identity or pronoun. That's directly relevant and shows how full of holes your approach is.



There were multiple people, yes. And yet the term 'them' doesn't refer to them. It refers to each. Each indicates individual treatment.

You don't know better than linguistic scholars.



Then usually you can go by contextual cues, or just structure your sentence to be neutral. But even if you make a mistake or misidentify someone, it's not a big deal: just correct yourself if the person points it out. It only becomes a problem when the speaker insists they know the other person's pronoun or identity better than they do themselves.



Actually, issues with misidentified gender are ancient. What you mean is you didn't have to think about it a few years ago.
A change in appearance doesn't mean anything on its own. There's a lot of appearance traits that don't relate to sex. Hence why I asked the question I asked.

I didn't say I did know better and I, in fact, said it could be some kind of grammar technicality that it's considered a singular. However, the "they" in that sentence is also referring to multiple people. "Each orange fell off the counter, they started rolling towards me." The "they" is referring to more than one orange, correct?

What is to correct if you go by sex? It's not about someone's identity, that's the point.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,077
5,815
118
Country
United Kingdom
A change in appearance doesn't mean anything on its own. There's a lot of appearance traits that don't relate to sex. Hence why I asked the question I asked.
Yet you're the one who wants to consider appearance definitive of sex.

I didn't say I did know better and I, in fact, said it could be some kind of grammar technicality that it's considered a singular. However, the "they" in that sentence is also referring to multiple people. "Each orange fell off the counter, they started rolling towards me." The "they" is referring to more than one orange, correct?
That sentence is grammatically incorrect if 'they' refers to multiple oranges.

What is to correct if you go by sex? It's not about someone's identity, that's the point.
You've based your argument here on avoiding any misunderstanding, yet you're expecting everyone to somehow implicitly understand that you're not using pronouns to refer to identity.

Basing them on gender avoids this issue entirely.
 

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
9,002
795
118
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
Yet you're the one who wants to consider appearance definitive of sex.



That sentence is grammatically incorrect if 'they' refers to multiple oranges.



You've based your argument here on avoiding any misunderstanding, yet you're expecting everyone to somehow implicitly understand that you're not using pronouns to refer to identity.

Basing them on gender avoids this issue entirely.
There's many appearance traits that directly relate to sex.

It's the same sentence as the one we are talking about. Like I said, I don't really care whether technically it's singular per grammar rules, I care about what it's actually referring to. And that's also how people write and talk even though it might be technically wrong.

Whether you base it on gender or sex, it's the same fucking issue.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,077
5,815
118
Country
United Kingdom
There's many appearance traits that directly relate to sex.
Uh-huh, none of which are definitive or unchangeable. Absolutely any superficial trait you could use, will also apply to some people of the opposing sex and gender. How many times are we gonna do this?

It's the same sentence as the one we are talking about. Like I said, I don't really care whether technically it's singular per grammar rules, I care about what it's actually referring to. And that's also how people write and talk even though it might be technically wrong.
"I don't care if I'm right or not"? OK.

Whether you base it on gender or sex, it's the same fucking issue.
Nope, because absolutely nobody whose gender identity differs from their sex prefers to go by bio sex. So if you go by gender, you won't be out of step with anyone you're referring to. Going by sex and insisting it overrides gender is the only approach that could end up putting you out of step with the subject.
 

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
9,002
795
118
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
Uh-huh, none of which are definitive or unchangeable. Absolutely any superficial trait you could use, will also apply to some people of the opposing sex and gender. How many times are we gonna do this?



"I don't care if I'm right or not"? OK.



Nope, because absolutely nobody whose gender identity differs from their sex prefers to go by bio sex. So if you go by gender, you won't be out of step with anyone you're referring to. Going by sex and insisting it overrides gender is the only approach that could end up putting you out of step with the subject.
There's plenty of physical characteristic that are directly related to sex, it's an objective fact.

And...? The point is the "they" is referring to multiple people, not a singular person. That is the fact I care about. I don't care if the grammar rules technically state that is a singular use of "they". I'm simply explaining why the writer used "they" in that situation and that's how 99+% of the population would word that sentence as well, they would be using they because it is referring to multiple people.

I didn't say it overrides gender, I said you can't do both at the same time, you have to choose. It's much easier for people to commonly know someone's sex vs their gender. More people use pronouns based on sex than gender. What if someone's gender is opposite their sex and they use pronouns based on sex?
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,077
5,815
118
Country
United Kingdom
There's plenty of physical characteristic that are directly related to sex, it's an objective fact.
None of which are definitive or unchangeable. Any superficial trait you could use, will also apply to some people of the opposing sex and gender. How many times are we gonna do this?

And...? The point is the "they" is referring to multiple people, not a singular person. That is the fact I care about.
And it's not. 'Each' indicates individual members, not the group in aggregate. That's what the word 'each' means.

I didn't say it overrides gender, I said you can't do both at the same time, you have to choose. It's much easier for people to commonly know someone's sex vs their gender. More people use pronouns based on sex than gender. What if someone's gender is opposite their sex and they use pronouns based on sex?
What you mean is its easier for a first-glance judgement /presuming that the person fits a sex-typical appearance/, which many do but many do not.

And by-the-by, if someone's gender is different from their bio sex, 999 times out of 1000 they'll go by gender pronouns.

If you just go by how the person identifies, you'll never run into problems.
 

Asita

Answer Hazy, Ask Again Later
Legacy
Jun 15, 2011
3,198
1,038
118
Country
USA
Gender
Male
I already read the Wilcox v Jeffrey case... Brandenburg v Ohio has nothing do with Trump's insurrection case. And how would 18 U.S. Code § 2383 be the thing that gets Trump convicted of insurrectionism when Trump said in his speech to be peaceful and have your voices heard? Based on your self-proclaimed expert status on this manner, what would you put the chances of Trump actually being lawfully considered an insurrectionist is?
You asked me for a case where "where just saying something (like "hey, Steve you should beat up John") like that resulted in the person just saying something getting in legal trouble. I don't know of such a case that result in someone saying something like that getting in legal trouble." I pointed out that in making such a request you were literally expressing unfamiliarity with the basic concepts of incitement and solicitation. And in direct compliance with that request, I provided you one case whose ruling specified that words of encouragement towards the commission of a crime would be sufficient to convict them under accomplice liability, another which actually modified the concept of incitement and established the "imminent lawless action" test used in contemporary cases. I then further directly cited the statue to Solicitation to Commit a Crime of Violence and the one for Rebellion and Insurrection to illustrate that these are very basic and well understood concepts, and to provide you with the tools to help you understand them yourself. The former statute makes clear that anyone who "solicits, commands, induces, or otherwise endeavors to persuade such other person" to commit a crime is guilty under that statute (exactly what you were asking). The latter statute makes it clear that "whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto" is guilty under that statute, and drew attention to the fact that incitement was once again a listed reason.

Your inability to understand how that is a direct response to your question about how just saying something can get you in legal trouble, or how it can be applied to this case is entirely on you. And as explained previously and at length to you, Trump saying "peaceful" one time in an hour long speech otherwise geared towards riling up his base is not the shield you pretend it is. Because context matters, no matter how religiously you might try to avoid it for the sake of propping up your false equivalence.

Second, "self-proclaimed expert status"? Please. Me saying that you have a less than layman's understanding of the topic - as evidenced by your repeated demonstrated ignorance of even basic principles of the subject of discussion - is not the same as declaring myself an expert. At most, it implies that I know more than you do on the subject, but only in as much as it implies that knowing more than you do isn't difficult. Need I remind you that my position is simply that your argument that there's as much reason to go after the Beastie Boys for their song "Fight For your Right To Party" as to go after Trump for his efforts to illegally overturn the election results that culminated in a violent assault on the Capitol to disrupt an official proceeding with the aim of stopping the transfer of power is simply inane, and that the case against Trump is a lot more solid than you pretend.

I'm sure I have some minor prejudices and all but not like most of these people on this forum that won't go against their tribe no matter what. How many people on this forum couldn't admit Rittenhouse's case was simply and easily self-defense (when there was video of everything)? How many people here said reasons for why he should be guilty that literally didn't matter in such a case? And I'm the one with prejudices? With Trump, I honestly don't care if he's runs or can't run or wins or loses the race nor am I going to vote for him. What I do care about is the precedent of considering him an insurrectionist would do. If his case was just in a vacuum and would have no lasting affects and only affected Trump, then I wouldn't even care to even talk about it.
And once again you demonstrate that you stopped reading halfway through because you convinced yourself that you knew better. Once again:
When I speak about your prejudices, I mean that as a synonym to preconception: a preconceived judgment or opinion formed without sufficient knowledge. You make that mistake constantly, declaring that things do not exist because you are unaware of them (See above. Never mind that these are frequently so easy to find or explain that it's clear that you didn't even bother with so much as a Google search, much less any serious research), and your arguments usually boil down to "it makes sense to me and you can't convince me otherwise, therefore it must be right. End of story".

My argument is not that you're specifically Pro-Trump. My argument is that you reached your conclusion long ago on topics that you continue to demonstrate that you have a less than layman's understanding of, and stubbornly insist that anything disagreeing with your preconceptions must be ludicrous, even as people repeatedly explain to you that you're getting even basic shit egregiously wrong.

I'm not making insinuations about your politics when I say that. I am saying that you're making demonstrably ignorant assumptions and stubbornly holding to them as necessarily true well beyond the point of reason and flat out rejecting any efforts to expand your knowledge because you're so adamant that your preconceptions couldn't be wrong.

2) Any group that thinks they are losing their most important member, will be actively searching for a replacement. It doesn't matter if it's political and this exact Trump situation or if it's a sports team probably losing their best player, both groups will be actively searching for a replacement. The republicans are not, which is quite significant.
Ok, setting aside all the previous reasons given to you about why that doesn't track, and the fact that this it is exactly what I was talking about when I said that your arguments usually boil down to "it makes sense to me and you can't convince me otherwise, therefore it must be right. End of story", you do realize that the people choosing Trump are the Republican voter base, not the politicians you are invoking for their supposed legal expertise (never mind that - once again - those politicians' own careers are dependent on winning the support of those same voters by convincing them that they will fight for those voter's beliefs), do you not? And that said base has been actively cultivated to buy into Trump's stolen election narrative (upwards of 70% at last polling I'm aware of) and that any action against Trump (including by other Republicans) cannot be anything but political persecution as a matter of principle? Never mind that your argument here is a brazen appeal to popularity fallacy, the invocation of which underscores just how bad you are at this.

Once again: Stop trying to bullshit your way through arguments.
 

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
9,002
795
118
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
None of which are definitive or unchangeable. Any superficial trait you could use, will also apply to some people of the opposing sex and gender. How many times are we gonna do this?



And it's not. 'Each' indicates individual members, not the group in aggregate. That's what the word 'each' means.



What you mean is its easier for a first-glance judgement /presuming that the person fits a sex-typical appearance/, which many do but many do not.

And by-the-by, if someone's gender is different from their bio sex, 999 times out of 1000 they'll go by gender pronouns.

If you just go by how the person identifies, you'll never run into problems.
There are some that are unchangeable. Yes, exactly, how many times do we have to go through this?

I know what each means... When you say something like "Each orange rolled off the counter", it's a singular. But then if all those oranges rolled to the same point, you would say "They rolled to XYZ" because they are now grouped together. Regardless if that is grammatically right or wrong, that's how people talk and write.

It's very rare to come across a person that is hard to determine sex. Your method simply requires more steps and creates more confusion. What if you're talking about some celebrity and some person on like a cooking show or what have you, do you need to figure out that person's gender to use pronouns to talk about them with other people? Or if someone is into celebrities and follows them (most people don't at all) and knows their gender is different than sex, people they are talking to about the person will be confused.

You asked me for a case where "where just saying something (like "hey, Steve you should beat up John") like that resulted in the person just saying something getting in legal trouble. I don't know of such a case that result in someone saying something like that getting in legal trouble." I pointed out that in making such a request you were literally expressing unfamiliarity with the basic concepts of incitement and solicitation. And in direct compliance with that request, I provided you one case whose ruling specified that words of encouragement towards the commission of a crime would be sufficient to convict them under accomplice liability, another which actually modified the concept of incitement and established the "imminent lawless action" test used in contemporary cases. I then further directly cited the statue to Solicitation to Commit a Crime of Violence and the one for Rebellion and Insurrection to illustrate that these are very basic and well understood concepts, and to provide you with the tools to help you understand them yourself. The former statute makes clear that anyone who "solicits, commands, induces, or otherwise endeavors to persuade such other person" to commit a crime is guilty under that statute (exactly what you were asking). The latter statute makes it clear that "whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto" is guilty under that statute, and drew attention to the fact that incitement was once again a listed reason.

Your inability to understand how that is a direct response to your question about how just saying something can get you in legal trouble, or how it can be applied to this case is entirely on you. And as explained previously and at length to you, Trump saying "peaceful" one time in an hour long speech otherwise geared towards riling up his base is not the shield you pretend it is. Because context matters, no matter how religiously you might try to avoid it for the sake of propping up your false equivalence.

Second, "self-proclaimed expert status"? Please. Me saying that you have a less than layman's understanding of the topic - as evidenced by your repeated demonstrated ignorance of even basic principles of the subject of discussion - is not the same as declaring myself an expert. At most, it implies that I know more than you do on the subject, but only in as much as it implies that knowing more than you do isn't difficult. Need I remind you that my position is simply that your argument that there's as much reason to go after the Beastie Boys for their song "Fight For your Right To Party" as to go after Trump for his efforts to illegally overturn the election results that culminated in a violent assault on the Capitol to disrupt an official proceeding with the aim of stopping the transfer of power is simply inane, and that the case against Trump is a lot more solid than you pretend.



And once again you demonstrate that you stopped reading halfway through because you convinced yourself that you knew better. Once again:
When I speak about your prejudices, I mean that as a synonym to preconception: a preconceived judgment or opinion formed without sufficient knowledge. You make that mistake constantly, declaring that things do not exist because you are unaware of them (See above. Never mind that these are frequently so easy to find or explain that it's clear that you didn't even bother with so much as a Google search, much less any serious research), and your arguments usually boil down to "it makes sense to me and you can't convince me otherwise, therefore it must be right. End of story".

My argument is not that you're specifically Pro-Trump. My argument is that you reached your conclusion long ago on topics that you continue to demonstrate that you have a less than layman's understanding of, and stubbornly insist that anything disagreeing with your preconceptions must be ludicrous, even as people repeatedly explain to you that you're getting even basic shit egregiously wrong.

I'm not making insinuations about your politics when I say that. I am saying that you're making demonstrably ignorant assumptions and stubbornly holding to them as necessarily true well beyond the point of reason and flat out rejecting any efforts to expand your knowledge because you're so adamant that your preconceptions couldn't be wrong.



Ok, setting aside all the previous reasons given to you about why that doesn't track, and the fact that this it is exactly what I was talking about when I said that your arguments usually boil down to "it makes sense to me and you can't convince me otherwise, therefore it must be right. End of story", you do realize that the people choosing Trump are the Republican voter base, not the politicians you are invoking for their supposed legal expertise (never mind that - once again - those politicians' own careers are dependent on winning the support of those same voters by convincing them that they will fight for those voter's beliefs), do you not? And that said base has been actively cultivated to buy into Trump's stolen election narrative (upwards of 70% at last polling I'm aware of) and that any action against Trump (including by other Republicans) cannot be anything but political persecution as a matter of principle? Never mind that your argument here is a brazen appeal to popularity fallacy, the invocation of which underscores just how bad you are at this.

Once again: Stop trying to bullshit your way through arguments.
I'm aware of getting in legal trouble for saying very specific things. My point was Trump didn't say any of those specific things that's ever been considered incitement. I don't get why you referenced Brandenburg v Ohio because it doesn't have anything to do with getting in legal trouble for saying things because the Ohio law was deemed unconstitutional in that case so the guy, in the end, didn't get in trouble. Nor does that case have anything to do with Trump.

Trump said nothing in the speech that has ever been deemed as inciting violence. Again, what are the chances that you feel Trump gets legally considered an insurrectionist and can't run?

I said that JUST based on Trump's speech there's nothing there. I also said at one point that I'm unsure of all the legal issues associated with Trump actually trying to change the vote way back in 2020 and whether that can come into play or not nor how strong that is for the insurrection case. I've only ever said, again, JUST based on his speech, the case is paper thin. If the other stuff comes into play, then I don't have a very certain opinion on it at all.

The republicans can push another candidate; give them commercials, put them on the news, tell their base it's likely Trump will not be able to run, etc.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,077
5,815
118
Country
United Kingdom
There are some that are unchangeable. Yes, exactly, how many times do we have to go through this?
And none of those that are unchangeable are definitive. There is absolutely nothing that is unchangeable and is also, by appearance, used to consistently judge someone's biological sex. Not a single one.

I know what each means... When you say something like "Each orange rolled off the counter", it's a singular. But then if all those oranges rolled to the same point, you would say "They rolled to XYZ" because they are now grouped together. Regardless if that is grammatically right or wrong, that's how people talk and write.
If by 'they' you switched to talking about a group, then your sentence would be incorrect, because you'd have switched subject mid-sentence without establishing you'd done so. You are now insisting not only that linguistic scholars are all wrong, but that the authors from 1375 must have been writing incorrectly.

It's very rare to come across a person that is hard to determine sex. Your method simply requires more steps and creates more confusion. What if you're talking about some celebrity and some person on like a cooking show or what have you, do you need to figure out that person's gender to use pronouns to talk about them with other people? Or if someone is into celebrities and follows them (most people don't at all) and knows their gender is different than sex, people they are talking to about the person will be confused.
No extra steps necessary. Either infer from contextual clues (and then correct yourself if you've made an error), or speak neutrally. Absolutely no bother at all. Whereas your approach-- which involves contradicting people about their own pronouns-- sets you on a collision course for zero benefit to anyone.
 

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
9,002
795
118
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
And none of those that are unchangeable are definitive. There is absolutely nothing that is unchangeable and is also, by appearance, used to consistently judge someone's biological sex. Not a single one.



If by 'they' you switched to talking about a group, then your sentence would be incorrect, because you'd have switched subject mid-sentence without establishing you'd done so. You are now insisting not only that linguistic scholars are all wrong, but that the authors from 1375 must have been writing incorrectly.



No extra steps necessary. Either infer from contextual clues (and then correct yourself if you've made an error), or speak neutrally. Absolutely no bother at all. Whereas your approach-- which involves contradicting people about their own pronouns-- sets you on a collision course for zero benefit to anyone.
There are.

I simply said that is how people talk and write, and no one would be confused by that either. 100% proper grammar is not a required to write a book or article or whatever.

Do you not understand that either way causes contradictions? The gender way or the sex way runs into literally the same problems. Most people use sex because it's easier, requires less questions, ends up in less confusion. We haven't even gotten to people that use new pronouns and actually say their pronouns change depending on their mood. Your sex doesn't change.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,077
5,815
118
Country
United Kingdom
There are.
You've yet to cite a single one.

I simply said that is how people talk and write, and no one would be confused by that either. 100% proper grammar is not a required to write a book or article or whatever.
So, just assuming the 1375 authors were writing incorrectly, then. Because if they were writing correctly, 'they' would be singular.

Do you not understand that either way causes contradictions? The gender way or the sex way runs into literally the same problems.
It doesn't, though. If you go by someone's self-identified gender, you'll never be contradicting them. If you insist on sex, then you will be.
 

Asita

Answer Hazy, Ask Again Later
Legacy
Jun 15, 2011
3,198
1,038
118
Country
USA
Gender
Male
I'm aware of getting in legal trouble for saying very specific things. My point was Trump didn't say any of those specific things that's ever been considered incitement. I don't get why you referenced Brandenburg v Ohio because it doesn't have anything to do with getting in legal trouble for saying things because the Ohio law was deemed unconstitutional in that case so the guy, in the end, didn't get in trouble. Nor does that case have anything to do with Trump.
First, in all bluntness, I think you're lying when you now say that you're aware of the very thing that you just said you were unaware of just a few posts ago, and are just trying to save face now that it has become impossible for you to brush off just how telling your ignorance was. This is, again, a well recognized pattern with you. Just because people haven't been calling it out before now doesn't mean that it hasn't been obvious for a long time.

Second, your "point" - such as it is - was that Trump's speech was not substantively different from the Beastie Boys song "Right to Party". And, more to the point, that prosecuting Trump for his efforts to illegally overturn the election results that culminated in a violent assault on the Capitol immediately after the speech - a speech that you're dishonestly insisting on treating as the sum total of the case against him - to disrupt an official proceeding with the aim of stopping the transfer of power is necessarily as ridiculous as prosecuting the Beastie Boys because someone cited their 30-year old song as their inspiration for a criminal activity. This aligns with your aforementioned unfamiliarity with the very concepts of incitement and solicitation, as you failed to understand the basic principle of what constitutes a call to action.

Third, this was literally just explained to you. Brandenburg was cited not to show a guilty verdict, but because the ruling established the imminent lawless action test, making it important case law for this topic. Aside from establishing that the underlying principle dates back decades and is anything but obscure, it established a more rigorous standard that is applied today, and one that makes the difference between the case under discussion and a 30 year old Beastie Boys song patently obvious (and the hint is very much in the name of the test).

This is to say that the case against Trump meets the more rigorous standards of the test that was established by that case. He riled up a mob that he allegedly knew had brought weapons (per the testimony of Ex-White House aide Hutchinson, Trump demanded that the rally's security detail get rid of the Magnetometers so the attendees carrying weapons could get into the rally space quicker, on the grounds that - and I quote - "they're not here to hurt me") and which were constructing gallows while chanting that Pence and others refusing to flip the results to Trump deserved to be hung as traitors. These were circumstances that were likely to result in imminent lawless action, and did indeed result in lawless action directed at the target he pointed them at in the immediate aftermath of the rally.

Trump said nothing in the speech that has ever been deemed as inciting violence. Again, what are the chances that you feel Trump gets legally considered an insurrectionist and can't run?
Correction: There's nothing in the speech that you - who have not heard or read the speech, and who is so emotionally invested in disputing the idea of it inciting violence that you have repeatedly declared that Trump saying "peaceful" one time in an hour long speech otherwise devoted to stoking the attendees anger and indignation towards Congress, right before their violent assault on the Capitol means that the case is necessarily ludicrous - recognize as inciting violence. There's a difference, and frankly you've demonstrated repeatedly that you do not have an informed opinion.

Gun to my head though? If we're talking about the case purely on merit, I'd say the facts of the case are pretty damning to Trump. Team Trump had been actively campaigning for months to convince the public that the election results needed to be overturned, and had tried multiple illegal avenues to overturn the results, including trying to get legislators in several states to reject the certification, trying to convince officials in other states to "find" enough votes to flip the results, filing vexatious litigation (often repackaging the same claims) to create an illusion of prevalent voter fraud to undermine confidence in the election results (and as a probably unintended side effect, confidence in the court system for rejecting their claims), and holding fake hearings to provide a pretext his political allies could use to reject the official results, trying to get Pence to play ball with brazenly illegal chicanery to unilaterally (and again, illegally) overturn the results, calling up Congressional Representatives during and after the assault on the Capitol to try and convince them again - now that they were good and scared - to play ball.

That speaks pretty strongly to Mens Rea (as does the Eastman Memo), and the fact of the matter is that not only did lawless action immediately follow the event, a reasonable third party would have understood it to be likely to happen, and rather than trying to cool down the rally, Trump decided to figuratively pour gasoline on it. Never mind that he did so after his alleged demand with the mags, meaning that not only was he aware of the fact that the attendants were armed, he was decidedly unconcerned about it because he was confident that they weren't meant to be used against him. It's like reminding your dinner guests how much they hate each other, putting a loaded gun on the table and turning out the lights, and then pleading that you weren't the one who pulled the trigger when the police come to investigate the subsequent shooting. You might not have pulled the trigger, but you were the one who created the circumstances, primed them to commit the crime, and then presented them with the opportunity to do so, so you share in their culpability for their commission of that crime.

And hell, at the end of the day, the simple question is "Did Trump push illegal efforts to disrupt the transfer of power in pursuit of an extra-legal seizure or retention of power?" And the answer is yes. Many times over, in fact. We've got that with the strategy laid out in the Eastman memos, which are well recognized as practically an instruction manual for a coup d'etat. We've got that with the efforts to dictate that the Justice Department falsely declare that they had had proof of widespread election fraud so that Team Trump could use that as a pretext to invalidate the results. We've got that with their calls to State officials specifically asking them to "find" enough votes to flip the state's results to Trump. We've got it in his repeated petitions that Pence unilaterally act to unilaterally flip the votes, even after Pence told him that was explicitly illegal. We've got it with the fake electors scheme.

We've got that with the violent assault on the Capitol and Trump et al trying to use it to convince Congress to go along with Eastman's strategy. The facts of the case are pretty overwhelming and illustrate a pervasive campaign in pursuit of allowing Trump to illegally retain power that culminated in the assault on the Capitol on January 6, which only happened as a direct result of Trump et al inciting them and pointing them at a Congress and Vice President that they had spent months telling their base were necessarily traitors. If all of this, culminating in a violent assault on the Capitol with the goal of illegally allowing the central figure of these acts to retain power does not collectively qualify as an insurrection and a betrayal of the oath of office, then what does? As established repeatedly in the court documents of their cases, the overwhelming reason for action in the assault on the Capitol was that arrestees were following Trump's orders to keep Congress from certifying Joe Biden as the presidential-election winner. It's literally a case centered on illegal efforts to overthrow the government that culminated in a violent attack on it with the intent of seizing power. The bar that is being cleared is far from a low one. So yes, if we're judging the case purely by merit, Trump would probably be found guilty.

However, I specify "if we're talking about the case purely on merit", because this is exactly the kind of case that the Supreme Court gets very cagey about, even before accounting for the fact that a full third of the Justices are Trump appointees who can be expected to be favorably predisposed to his case simply because it would reflect poorly on their own legitimacy if the man who appointed them was declared an insurrectionist, and the wife of a fourth (Thomas) was so deeply in Trump's camp that she actually helped lead the "Stop the Steal" campaign that culminated in the events of January 6, so he's not going to want to rule it was an insurrection because that would mean that his wife contributed to it. That's 4 of the 9 Justices right there that have conflicts of interest that can reasonably be expected to predispose them to ruling in Trump's favor for the case regardless of its merits out of fear that a guilty verdict would indirectly reflect upon them.

And again, even without that, this kind of case is the type that makes the Supreme Court cagey to begin with, and for this specifically, one the justices are giving every indication that they aren't actually judging the merits of the case but rather have been focusing on the political ramifications of the case irrespective of those merits. They've been openly contemptuous of the very concept, to the point that Kagan out and said that "the question that you have to confront is why a single state should decide who gets to be president of the United States ", which feels like a pretty strong indication that their ruling will likely be decided as a matter of political principle with little to no regard for the evidence for the case, and basically boil down to declaring that the courts shouldn't be allowed to rule that Trump was guilty of insurrection, specifically because such a decision would impact the election. Not to put too fine a point on it, Kagan's stated logic reads as "Not guilty because he's a political frontrunnner" rather than "Not guilty because the evidence didn't show it". Hence the "if we're judging the case purely on merit" qualifier. Statements from the Justices at this time indicate that the merits of the case are going to have very little to do with their decision.


I said that JUST based on Trump's speech there's nothing there. I also said at one point that I'm unsure of all the legal issues associated with Trump actually trying to change the vote way back in 2020 and whether that can come into play or not nor how strong that is for the insurrection case. I've only ever said, again, JUST based on his speech, the case is paper thin. If the other stuff comes into play, then I don't have a very certain opinion on it at all.
And what we've been telling you is that it's not "just based on Trump's speech". For fuck's sake, I've spent several very lengthy posts explaining to you that Trump's speech is not something that occurred in a vacuum and that - to quote - "a reasonable person would interpret Trump's speech at his "Stop the Steal" rally that was explicitly planned and scheduled to immediately precede his base's "Save America" march on the Capitol as a call to action, due to the surrounding circumstances before, during, and after". That "we're having this discussion because it did not happen in isolation." Let's review some of the other quotes, shall we?

"That's the cliffnotes version of the context that leads to the description of this as an insurrection or failed coup, which is a lot stronger of a case than you pretend."
"And once again you completely ignore the surrounding context to make it look as if the problem was the simple use of the word "fight", in and of itself, in isolation. Once again: This did not occur in isolation. What makes it damning is how it fits into the broader pattern, including the attack on the Capitol." "
"Context is vitally important. You cannot just pretend that it doesn't exist"
"reflecting the fact that law is designed to be largely informed by context, to the point that lawyers frequently quip that the answer to any broad legal question is 'it depends'"
And then in the very post you just quoted: "Because context matters, no matter how religiously you might try to avoid it for the sake of propping up your false equivalence"

I've been calling you out for propping up a strawman argument that is, in the end, utterly reliant on cherry picking several times over. It first demands that we excise the events of January 6 from the surrounding context of Trump's attempts to overturn the results of the election (which frequently took the form of soliciting illegal means) rather than as a part of them in order to pretend that the case has to be entirely self-contained within the events of that day. It then demands that we must judge Trump's speech in isolation from the storming of the Capitol (and Team Trump's actions during and after it), insisting not only that we treat the case as wholly reliant on the events of that day, but wholly reliant on Trump's speech itself with no regard for the illegal action it inspired. "Conveniently", this would make the very concept of incitement or solicitation impossible as a matter of definition, as it would demand that any speech inciting or soliciting a crime be judged as if the crime it incited or solicited had never been committed, thereby making solicitation or incitement impossible to ever demonstrate in any case. Hence why I'm so sure that you're lying when you say that you understand the concepts: You still clearly do not understand how they function). And then it demands that we treat the fact that he said "peaceful" one time in an hour long speech as if it were the only thing he said - or at least the only thing that mattered - so that you can then pretend that it's political persecution and necessarily irrational rather than a reaction to extreme events.

You cherry pick the day from the context of Trump's campaign to overturn the election and insist that we pretend that none of the rest of that exists - despite it all being in service of the same goal - as we judge it. You cherry pick his rally speech from the rest of the events of the day, and especially the violent assault on the Capitol to disrupt an official proceeding with the aim of stopping the transfer of power that immediately followed, and insist that in order to judge the speech we must act as though the same assault did not happen. And then you cherry pick a single phrase in an hour long speech and insist that we judge the entire speech by that one phrase. And you do all of that to convince yourself that the only reason we see this case against Trump to be legitimate cannot have anything to do with the merits of the case and instead must be a position we must have taken as a matter of principle out of irrational petty hatred.

Such an argument is not only unconvincing, it's shamelessly childish.
 
Last edited:

Casual Shinji

Should've gone before we left.
Legacy
Jul 18, 2009
19,604
4,410
118
Phoenixmgs hates republicans just as much as democrates though, seriously. 🤡
 

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
9,002
795
118
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
You've yet to cite a single one.



So, just assuming the 1375 authors were writing incorrectly, then. Because if they were writing correctly, 'they' would be singular.



It doesn't, though. If you go by someone's self-identified gender, you'll never be contradicting them. If you insist on sex, then you will be.
I have, skin and hips are 2.

If the author was referring to more than one man, then yes.

And if the person prefers pronouns based on sex...? And you're ignoring the fact that not everyone knows everyone's gender to other people in the conversation will be confused.

First, in all bluntness, I think you're lying when you now say that you're aware of the very thing that you just said you were unaware of just a few posts ago, and are just trying to save face now that it has become impossible for you to brush off just how telling your ignorance was. This is, again, a well recognized pattern with you. Just because people haven't been calling it out before now doesn't mean that it hasn't been obvious for a long time.

Second, your "point" - such as it is - was that Trump's speech was not substantively different from the Beastie Boys song "Right to Party". And, more to the point, that prosecuting Trump for his efforts to illegally overturn the election results that culminated in a violent assault on the Capitol immediately after the speech - a speech that you're dishonestly insisting on treating as the sum total of the case against him - to disrupt an official proceeding with the aim of stopping the transfer of power is necessarily as ridiculous as prosecuting the Beastie Boys because someone cited their 30-year old song as their inspiration for a criminal activity. This aligns with your aforementioned unfamiliarity with the very concepts of incitement and solicitation, as you failed to understand the basic principle of what constitutes a call to action.

Third, this was literally just explained to you. Brandenburg was cited not to show a guilty verdict, but because the ruling established the imminent lawless action test, making it important case law for this topic. Aside from establishing that the underlying principle dates back decades and is anything but obscure, it established a more rigorous standard that is applied today, and one that makes the difference between the case under discussion and a 30 year old Beastie Boys song patently obvious (and the hint is very much in the name of the test).

This is to say that the case against Trump meets the more rigorous standards of the test that was established by that case. He riled up a mob that he allegedly knew had brought weapons (per the testimony of Ex-White House aide Hutchinson, Trump demanded that the rally's security detail get rid of the Magnetometers so the attendees carrying weapons could get into the rally space quicker, on the grounds that - and I quote - "they're not here to hurt me") and which were constructing gallows while chanting that Pence and others refusing to flip the results to Trump deserved to be hung as traitors. These were circumstances that were likely to result in imminent lawless action, and did indeed result in lawless action directed at the target he pointed them at in the immediate aftermath of the rally.



Correction: There's nothing in the speech that you - who have not heard or read the speech, and who is so emotionally invested in disputing the idea of it inciting violence that you have repeatedly declared that Trump saying "peaceful" one time in an hour long speech otherwise devoted to stoking the attendees anger and indignation towards Congress, right before their violent assault on the Capitol means that the case is necessarily ludicrous - recognize as inciting violence. There's a difference, and frankly you've demonstrated repeatedly that you do not have an informed opinion.

Gun to my head though? If we're talking about the case purely on merit, I'd say the facts of the case are pretty damning to Trump. Team Trump had been actively campaigning for months to convince the public that the election results needed to be overturned, and had tried multiple illegal avenues to overturn the results, including trying to get legislators in several states to reject the certification, trying to convince officials in other states to "find" enough votes to flip the results, filing vexatious litigation (often repackaging the same claims) to create an illusion of prevalent voter fraud to undermine confidence in the election results (and as a probably unintended side effect, confidence in the court system for rejecting their claims), and holding fake hearings to provide a pretext his political allies could use to reject the official results, trying to get Pence to play ball with brazenly illegal chicanery to unilaterally (and again, illegally) overturn the results, calling up Congressional Representatives during and after the assault on the Capitol to try and convince them again - now that they were good and scared - to play ball.

That speaks pretty strongly to Mens Rea (as does the Eastman Memo), and the fact of the matter is that not only did lawless action immediately follow the event, a reasonable third party would have understood it to be likely to happen, and rather than trying to cool down the rally, Trump decided to figuratively pour gasoline on it. Never mind that he did so after his alleged demand with the mags, meaning that not only was he aware of the fact that the attendants were armed, he was decidedly unconcerned about it because he was confident that they weren't meant to be used against him. It's like reminding your dinner guests how much they hate each other, putting a loaded gun on the table and turning out the lights, and then pleading that you weren't the one who pulled the trigger when the police come to investigate the subsequent shooting. You might not have pulled the trigger, but you were the one who created the circumstances, primed them to commit the crime, and then presented them with the opportunity to do so, so you share in their culpability for their commission of that crime.

And hell, at the end of the day, the simple question is "Did Trump push illegal efforts to disrupt the transfer of power in pursuit of an extra-legal seizure or retention of power?" And the answer is yes. Many times over, in fact. We've got that with the strategy laid out in the Eastman memos, which are well recognized as practically an instruction manual for a coup d'etat. We've got that with the efforts to dictate that the Justice Department falsely declare that they had had proof of widespread election fraud so that Team Trump could use that as a pretext to invalidate the results. We've got that with their calls to State officials specifically asking them to "find" enough votes to flip the state's results to Trump. We've got it in his repeated petitions that Pence unilaterally act to unilaterally flip the votes, even after Pence told him that was explicitly illegal. We've got it with the fake electors scheme.

We've got that with the violent assault on the Capitol and Trump et al trying to use it to convince Congress to go along with Eastman's strategy. The facts of the case are pretty overwhelming and illustrate a pervasive campaign in pursuit of allowing Trump to illegally retain power that culminated in the assault on the Capitol on January 6, which only happened as a direct result of Trump et al inciting them and pointing them at a Congress and Vice President that they had spent months telling their base were necessarily traitors. If all of this, culminating in a violent assault on the Capitol with the goal of illegally allowing the central figure of these acts to retain power does not collectively qualify as an insurrection and a betrayal of the oath of office, then what does? As established repeatedly in the court documents of their cases, the overwhelming reason for action in the assault on the Capitol was that arrestees were following Trump's orders to keep Congress from certifying Joe Biden as the presidential-election winner. It's literally a case centered on illegal efforts to overthrow the government that culminated in a violent attack on it with the intent of seizing power. The bar that is being cleared is far from a low one. So yes, if we're judging the case purely by merit, Trump would probably be found guilty.

However, I specify "if we're talking about the case purely on merit", because this is exactly the kind of case that the Supreme Court gets very cagey about, even before accounting for the fact that a full third of the Justices are Trump appointees who can be expected to be favorably predisposed to his case simply because it would reflect poorly on their own legitimacy if the man who appointed them was declared an insurrectionist, and the wife of a fourth (Thomas) was so deeply in Trump's camp that she actually helped lead the "Stop the Steal" campaign that culminated in the events of January 6, so he's not going to want to rule it was an insurrection because that would mean that his wife contributed to it. That's 4 of the 9 Justices right there that have conflicts of interest that can reasonably be expected to predispose them to ruling in Trump's favor for the case regardless of its merits out of fear that a guilty verdict would indirectly reflect upon them.

And again, even without that, this kind of case is the type that makes the Supreme Court cagey to begin with, and for this specifically, one the justices are giving every indication that they aren't actually judging the merits of the case but rather have been focusing on the political ramifications of the case irrespective of those merits. They've been openly contemptuous of the very concept, to the point that Kagan out and said that "the question that you have to confront is why a single state should decide who gets to be president of the United States ", which feels like a pretty strong indication that their ruling will likely be decided as a matter of political principle with little to no regard for the evidence for the case, and basically boil down to declaring that the courts shouldn't be allowed to rule that Trump was guilty of insurrection, specifically because such a decision would impact the election. Not to put too fine a point on it, Kagan's stated logic reads as "Not guilty because he's a political frontrunnner" rather than "Not guilty because the evidence didn't show it". Hence the "if we're judging the case purely on merit" qualifier. Statements from the Justices at this time indicate that the merits of the case are going to have very little to do with their decision.




And what we've been telling you is that it's not "just based on Trump's speech". For fuck's sake, I've spent several very lengthy posts explaining to you that Trump's speech is not something that occurred in a vacuum and that - to quote - "a reasonable person would interpret Trump's speech at his "Stop the Steal" rally that was explicitly planned and scheduled to immediately precede his base's "Save America" march on the Capitol as a call to action, due to the surrounding circumstances before, during, and after". That "we're having this discussion because it did not happen in isolation." Let's review some of the other quotes, shall we?

"That's the cliffnotes version of the context that leads to the description of this as an insurrection or failed coup, which is a lot stronger of a case than you pretend."
"And once again you completely ignore the surrounding context to make it look as if the problem was the simple use of the word "fight", in and of itself, in isolation. Once again: This did not occur in isolation. What makes it damning is how it fits into the broader pattern, including the attack on the Capitol." "
"Context is vitally important. You cannot just pretend that it doesn't exist"
"reflecting the fact that law is designed to be largely informed by context, to the point that lawyers frequently quip that the answer to any broad legal question is 'it depends'"
And then in the very post you just quoted: "Because context matters, no matter how religiously you might try to avoid it for the sake of propping up your false equivalence"

I've been calling you out for propping up a strawman argument that is, in the end, utterly reliant on cherry picking several times over. It first demands that we excise the events of January 6 from the surrounding context of Trump's attempts to overturn the results of the election (which frequently took the form of soliciting illegal means) rather than as a part of them in order to pretend that the case has to be entirely self-contained within the events of that day. It then demands that we must judge Trump's speech in isolation from the storming of the Capitol (and Team Trump's actions during and after it), insisting not only that we treat the case as wholly reliant on the events of that day, but wholly reliant on Trump's speech itself with no regard for the illegal action it inspired. "Conveniently", this would make the very concept of incitement or solicitation impossible as a matter of definition, as it would demand that any speech inciting or soliciting a crime be judged as if the crime it incited or solicited had never been committed, thereby making solicitation or incitement impossible to ever demonstrate in any case. Hence why I'm so sure that you're lying when you say that you understand the concepts: You still clearly do not understand how they function). And then it demands that we treat the fact that he said "peaceful" one time in an hour long speech as if it were the only thing he said - or at least the only thing that mattered - so that you can then pretend that it's political persecution and necessarily irrational rather than a reaction to extreme events.

You cherry pick the day from the context of Trump's campaign to overturn the election and insist that we pretend that none of the rest of that exists - despite it all being in service of the same goal - as we judge it. You cherry pick his rally speech from the rest of the events of the day, and especially the violent assault on the Capitol to disrupt an official proceeding with the aim of stopping the transfer of power that immediately followed, and insist that in order to judge the speech we must act as though the same assault did not happen. And then you cherry pick a single phrase in an hour long speech and insist that we judge the entire speech by that one phrase. And you do all of that to convince yourself that the only reason we see this case against Trump to be legitimate cannot have anything to do with the merits of the case and instead must be a position we must have taken as a matter of principle out of irrational petty hatred.

Such an argument is not only unconvincing, it's shamelessly childish.
You think I don't know you can get in trouble from threatening people or defamation or saying "bomb" on an airplane?

You do realize you then have to apply this to EVERYONE right? If you say you can't rile up a crowd if you know there are weapons, then people riling up BLM protesters with speeches will have the same applied to them. You can just easily shut down any protest by having someone purposefully come with a gun and tell the person giving the speech that they have a gun and then the speech wouldn't be able to be made. Pretty dangerous precedent you're wanting to set here that can effectively squash any protest you want. And, this is all because you don't like Trump.

Trump literally gave exact specifics on marching to the capitol peacefully to have your voices heard. Everything about "fighting" and whatnot were generalities, the same a coach of a team would say in half-time locker room speech to fire up the team. Specifics outweigh generalities. If there were specifics about directly being violent that would then make null the peaceful specifics. But that didn't happen.

One state shouldn't have a say in this manner, that is the point. You can't have states, based on federal law, interpreting it differently. Trump should be on all the ballots or none of the ballots, anything else can't happen. If the argument of the case isn't about Trump being an insurrectionist or not, it's on the prosecuting attorneys for presenting the case with an asinine argument that's just a waste of everyone's time. If they are challenging that a state has the right to interpret that amendment how they please, then they are challenging the wrong thing.

The only judge I would say is comprised with be the one with the wife. Why the fuck should a Supreme Court judge care who appointed them? They are on the highest court and appointed for life. They need no favors from Trump or anyone else.

This was like my first reply to you. What I meant by "I haven't seen anything that would make him an insurrectionist" is referring to his Jan 6th speech. Notice how I said I don't know everything he's said and did?
Trump said the following in his January 6th speech:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."

We'll see who's right shortly because the case will be heard in the Supreme Court. I feel the case is paper thin against Trump. I wouldn't be shocked if he is considered an insurrectionist because I don't know everything he said and did, but as far as I've seen, I've haven't seen anything that would make him an insurrectionist.
Then when you say there is more than just the speech, I replied with the following:
From what you said, I'd say there's more a case for insurrection with all the attempts he made to change the vote than what happened on Jan 6th. You actually have to get people (regardless of who) on something actually legit, you can't bend the law because you just don't like someone and they "deserve" it. I think Trump is a horrible person but you can't just force him off the ballot because of that. We will see if Trump actually did anything that merits him being considered an insurrection but just in the view of Jan 6th alone, I'm pretty sure there's nothing you can get him on.
And then I get accused of goal posting and strawmanning and all that shit when I'm the one that stayed on point. I always said the case against Trump is paper thin only in the context of it being reliant on just what happened on January 6th. If it goes beyond that and other things are brought in, I've said several times, that then I don't know.
 

Bedinsis

Elite Member
Legacy
Escapist +
May 29, 2014
1,439
710
118
Country
Sweden
What are the odds that the Supreme Court concludes that the states that took Trump off the ballot had a right to do so, and one or some of the states Trump needs to win follow suit?
Colorado ruling in today: unanimous decision that they could not do that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ag3ma

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
9,002
795
118
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
Colorado ruling in today: unanimous decision that they could not do that.
I get yelled at and called ignorant and not understanding basic legal frameworks when the decision was unanimous. But according to you guys (not you necessarily Bedinsis, I don't think you called me ignorant and whatnot), I don't know what I'm talking about, and SCOTUS will just "make up shit" and Trump will win because the conservative judges will outvote the liberal ones. Yeah, none of that happened.

The court ruled that only Congress, rather than the states, had that power.

That sounds like a certain something that a certain individual said that you all said that didn't know what the fuck they were talking about. And, I'm only gloating because Silvanus, Asita, and Ag3ma constantly talk down to me, treat me like a kid, and act like I don't know anything.
They are taking Trump off the ballot based on a federal law, thus the states don't have power to do that.
You really don't understand your own country's legal framework, do you? Firstly, states have significant freedom to determine their own electoral rules. That too is guaranteed constitutionally. If the Supreme Court were to rule, they could easily rule that states may make their own determinations.

There are rationales available for the justices to do whatever they want. It doesn't depend on actual legal weight. It depends on what they personally want.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,077
5,815
118
Country
United Kingdom
I have, skin and hips are 2.
Neither of which are definitive of biological sex or unchangeable.

If the author was referring to more than one man, then yes.
The author wasn't. As per linguistic scholars.

And if the person prefers pronouns based on sex...?
Zero people, whose sex differs from their gender, prefers to go by bio sex pronouns.
 

Ag3ma

Elite Member
Jan 4, 2023
2,504
2,170
118
Colorado ruling in today: unanimous decision that they could not do that.
That they would not allow Colorado to remove Trump from the ballot was a foregone conclusion long ago.

What's really, really interesting is their argument, because that sets the tone by which anyone may be barred. That it was moved to the federal sphere rather than allowing states to decide is very reasonable and sensible, because states arbitrarily removing candidates is obviously a recipe for chaos.

However, at my first glance, there is a really big statement in there. I would have thought that anyone convicted of insurrection in a court should automatically be disqualified under the Constitution. What I did not expect was that a majority would effectively argue that someone could only be barred from holding office by the federal government actively passing a law to deny them. So someone wants to start an armed rebellion against the USA, loses and is convicted, they can still stand for president just as long as one of the two big parties feels like blocking legislation to do so.

Firstly, this moves this Constitutional bar from any legal sphere to the political, because any vote in a parliament is going to be a political decision. Secondly, we all know how easy it is to block legislation. I am not at all convinced that is the right thing to do.