Certainly makes one wonder how her lectures on the 14th Amendment sound. There’s a danger brewing in the need to defend all speech as acceptable. No, we shouldn’t jail those whose speech offends us, but we can certainly refuse to continue allowing them to enjoy a privileged platform from which to spout their corrosive nonsense. One of th…
Certainly makes one wonder how her lectures on the 14th Amendment sound. There’s a danger brewing in the need to defend all speech as acceptable. No, we shouldn’t jail those whose speech offends us, but we can certainly refuse to continue allowing them to enjoy a privileged platform from which to spout their corrosive nonsense. One of the inalienable rights is my right to turn my back when your speech becomes offensive, even if just to protect my nose from being punched.
Wax is not a constitutional law expert. Her area of specialization is social welfare law and policy, and the relationship of the family, the workplace, and labor markets (got that from Wikipedia). Penn's law school is big and prestigious; it's highly unlikely Wax lectures on the 14th Amendment.
Well, thank goodness for small favors, yet as a Neurologist and a lawyer (got that from Wikipedia), she should know better -- I mean, does she suggest that the neurological system is different for Blacks and Asians and therefore only whites should enjoy the benefits of neurological treatments? And just because it's unlikely for her to lecture on the 14th amendment, per se, it doesn't mean it's impossible for her to distort the implications of the amendment. Given her proclivities, she might even disagree with the passage of the amendment since all "originalists" hold some disfavor toward any amendment beyond the 10th. In some ways, it's even worse that she holds up her prejudiced ideas on the social applications of the law.
You're making up things, Grumpy. I don't see a point in arguing hypothetical positions that I expect Wax has never taken just because you infer them on the basis of a limited sample.
Law school students aren't first graders, and at a school like Penn I'm sure Wax is challenged constantly.
I wish that were enough. IF we could sell it back to ourselves --we might be able to turn back from the disaster we're rushing toward. I'm afraid our entertaining-ourselves-to-death culture has sold us on the idea that if we're not posturing in someone's face all the time we're missing out on a orgasm or something. Then of course if they aren't in our face in return we feel ignored, which is the same as being disrespected, so we need to get back in their face... and each confrontation is performed on a platform helpfully provided by entrepreneurs of anger and bitterness who rake in huge pecuniary rewards for facilitating our bad conduct.
Turning your back civilly is a pretty courteous thing to do.
Certainly makes one wonder how her lectures on the 14th Amendment sound. There’s a danger brewing in the need to defend all speech as acceptable. No, we shouldn’t jail those whose speech offends us, but we can certainly refuse to continue allowing them to enjoy a privileged platform from which to spout their corrosive nonsense. One of the inalienable rights is my right to turn my back when your speech becomes offensive, even if just to protect my nose from being punched.
Wax is not a constitutional law expert. Her area of specialization is social welfare law and policy, and the relationship of the family, the workplace, and labor markets (got that from Wikipedia). Penn's law school is big and prestigious; it's highly unlikely Wax lectures on the 14th Amendment.
Well, thank goodness for small favors, yet as a Neurologist and a lawyer (got that from Wikipedia), she should know better -- I mean, does she suggest that the neurological system is different for Blacks and Asians and therefore only whites should enjoy the benefits of neurological treatments? And just because it's unlikely for her to lecture on the 14th amendment, per se, it doesn't mean it's impossible for her to distort the implications of the amendment. Given her proclivities, she might even disagree with the passage of the amendment since all "originalists" hold some disfavor toward any amendment beyond the 10th. In some ways, it's even worse that she holds up her prejudiced ideas on the social applications of the law.
You're making up things, Grumpy. I don't see a point in arguing hypothetical positions that I expect Wax has never taken just because you infer them on the basis of a limited sample.
Law school students aren't first graders, and at a school like Penn I'm sure Wax is challenged constantly.
I wish that were enough. IF we could sell it back to ourselves --we might be able to turn back from the disaster we're rushing toward. I'm afraid our entertaining-ourselves-to-death culture has sold us on the idea that if we're not posturing in someone's face all the time we're missing out on a orgasm or something. Then of course if they aren't in our face in return we feel ignored, which is the same as being disrespected, so we need to get back in their face... and each confrontation is performed on a platform helpfully provided by entrepreneurs of anger and bitterness who rake in huge pecuniary rewards for facilitating our bad conduct.
Turning your back civilly is a pretty courteous thing to do.