#implied scalia

[violetfairydust]

Countdown to Halloween

#2

I hope you have a better mischief night than Scott here

-

Allison had unlocked the classroom door and took the key from the knob. She walked into the room a few feet and stopped short. The tables were now on the outer edges of the room with the ugly gray carpet that was standard in every classroom in the middle. The bookshelves were under the windows and the calendar was next to her own desk across the room from the birthday chart. Allison dropped her keys.

“What the fuck?” she mumbled. Louder she said, “What the hell happened to my classroom?”

One of the nearby teachers hurried in. She blinked at the arrangement.

“That’s quite the setup you got there.”

“I didn’t do this.”

The other teacher looked at her with narrowed eyes. “So someone broke into your classroom and rearranged everything?”

Allison was fuming. “I spent eight hours setting up this classroom the way I wanted it to be. And now... It’s a donut.”

“What?”

It dawned on Allison what happened. She dropped her voice and leaned into her coworker. “I think I know who did it. If Principal Amy asks, I’m defending myself from an intruder.” She dashed out of the room and ran down the hall.

The teacher hurried after her. After several turns around corners and in a more private section of the school—between the music portable and the gym—Allison was sitting on Scott. He was on his stomach with Allison’s chest pressed against his back and her forearm against his neck. She also twisted his other arm behind him and it was pinned between his lower back and her stomach.

“At least Lydia didn’t attack me.” He struggled under her weight. “Also how did you run and catch up to me with a broken leg?”

She kicked him with the boot in the hip and he cried out in pain. “Do you work alone?”

Scott didn’t answer.

“How many partners do you have?”

“Just Malia.”

Allison kicked him again.

“Stiles went to mess with Theo. He’s not here. Please... I’ll tell you what you want to know, just don’t feed me the chili.”

[elumish]

I said I was done talking about this for the moment, but it turns out I have one more thing to say (I am happy to have more conversations about this, but probably not right now):

Here's what I mean when I talk about harm and about doing what you can to avoid harm in your writing.

I believe (and I think basically everyone believes) that there are some narratives and viewpoints that are harmful. We don't all agree on what those are, but I think virtually everyone has some set of things that they think are harmful viewpoints. These viewpoints and narratives lead to actions. These narratives and viewpoints are supported and reinforced by stories, among many other things.

For a fairly neutral example, there's a narrative that Paris is a romantic city. This is supported/reinforced by books/movies/TV shows/etc. showing Paris as a place to travel to with or find a romantic partner. As such, many people travel to Paris with a spouse to have a romantic getaway.

For a less neutral example, there is a narrative that torture is a successful way to get vital and accurate information from suspects, and that the ends of torture (that vital and accurate information) justify the means. This is supported/reinforced by books/movies/TV shows/etc., which has had real-world impacts. In 2007, Scalia cited 24 in his defense of torture (for example).

Obviously you can debate all day long to what degree impacts are based on viewer/readership, the method of publishing, etc. but the fact of the matter is that fiction does influence how people think about things.

So back to the idea of harm. Harm through writing, to me, is about what narratives or viewpoints your writing is supporting, reinforcing, or perpetuating and how it is doing so.

If you write a gay or trans character who is a pedophile, there's a good chance that your story is going to reinforce the narrative that gay or trans people are pedophiles. Can you write a story involving a gay or trans pedophile that doesn't perpetuate that narrative? Probably! But you have to know what you're writing and what you are or could be implying and then actively work to mitigate that risk.

If you write a story with a police protagonist, there's a good chance that you might reinforce some pro-police narratives, just by virtue of writing them as the protagonist. Can you avoid those narratives? Sure! But again, you have to know what you're saying and then do the work.

There are places that this obviously gets a lot more complicated, and there are places where the medium or genre that you are writing in make a huge difference in how the same thing is framed. For example, framing unethical (e.g., nonconsensual) implementations of BDSM as erotic in a romance novel is, in my opinion, different than it is in a story that is just intended as erotica. They have different genre expectations and norms, and so the implications are different.

And this is all where your own understanding of the narratives and of your own morals and ethics and standards are key. You are the writer! It is ultimately up to you to figure out and decide what you think is harmful and how to address that.

But doing all of that means knowing what you're writing, and it means putting thought into what is harmful.

[batboyblog]

do you think scotus judge should impreaced if scandal involed their family member?

depends what it is, who it is, and if they were involved.

I get that this is about Ginni Thomas. I think its very unethical for the spouse of a Justice to work in politics, which is what Ginni does, blanket doesn't matter what politics, its improper, idk what scope such a rule should have, I mean is it wrong for Justice Antonin Scalia's adult son Eugene to get a job as a lawyer in the Bush administration working in the Department of Labor at the same time his dad was on the court? maybe but also should people not have jobs because their family member is a justice?

any ways I'm saying there should be an ethics code that excludes someone like Ginni Thomas from doing the work Ginni does

past that problem its clear Ginni Thomas was a part of the whole "stop the steal" thing, she clearly pushed White House Chief of Staff to take actions and reached out to state level Republicans in at least two states pushing them to ignore the result and send illegal electors for Trump to DC

because she's a private citizen this stuff might be free speech, but a lot of this kind of thing has seen other people in other states charged with crimes so maybe she's lucky she was pushing Arizona and Wisconsin and not say Georgia and Michigan.

any ways I do think that particular problem deserves a special council to investigate everything she did, and 1. did she use her husband's name or imply his involvement to put pressure on people? did people think Ginni Thomas was speaking for Justice Clarence Thomas? 2. what did Clarence know, and when did he know it? and what did he do? did he know there was an illegal effort to overturn the election and if so did he... do anything? to stop it? the answers to those questions are if he should be impeached or not, if it can be proved he really did have NO idea (some people have weird marriages) then no.

of course this is an fantasy and no one will ever look very seriously into her role much less his.

Paranoid Democrat that I am I sometimes wonder if Trump's vision board for January 6th and after didn't include being sworn in illegally by Thomas, we'll likely never know if that was talked about in the Trump WH in the days leading up to Jan 6.

[frothlad]

If we define a right-left axis where -10 is agreement with the right-wing christofascists, and 10 is agreement with the left-wing anti-imperial communists, then this is my assessment of the justices on the Supreme Court:

Samuel "Not Scalia" Alito: -9.5. In full agreement with right-wing media and their talking point du jour; never met a fundamentalist/evangelical Christian cause he didn't sign on to, happy to draw a line around a favored class while denying it to others outside the group. Ready to blow up precedent he doesn't agree with, but doesn't write in advance of that to lay the groundwork. Not a -10 only because he isn't actually Alex Jones.

Clarence "SO UNIQUE YOU GUYS" Thomas: -9. Long out on his own limb, he's been joined by others and is less unique. Has a specific and extremely retrogressive view of originalism, which shockingly happens to align with Republican Party policy goals. Consistently and regularly designates precedents he'd like to blow up.

Neil "Not Merrick Garland" Gorsuch: -8. While a core member of the precedent-destroying anarchy wing, with the concurrences to prove it, actually has a few principles and sticks to them in their narrow domain, moving him away from the right-hand pole at least a point. Nonetheless, a faithful vote for Republican Party policy priorities.

Brett "Beer Me" Kavanaugh: -7. Relatively the dumbest among his colleagues, and either insecure about it, or unearned-white-man-confident about it (which are indistinguishable), he can be led. Where he is usually led is where the Republican Party wants him to be; he is a doctrinaire Republican. Does not appear to have much independent thought, which is why he only targets precedent when everyone else is.

In the swing position, Chief Justice John "Umpire" Roberts: -5. Roberts' position lurched hard right by at least two points this term, as he abandoned his previous institutionalist perspective of being the guardian of the Court's integrity. Formerly a classical conservative in favor of conservative policies that minimize change. Impossible to reconcile the Roberts who upheld the ACA with the Roberts who immunized President Trump; maybe he's had a health scare and is thinking about retirement?

Amy "Ofmitch" Coney Barrett: -4. Professorial -- with all the arrogance and intelligence that implies -- Barrett has deeply held intellectual convictions that are clearly conservative, religious, and business-oriented. Her depth of knowledge of precedent means that she has little patience with the anarchic justices who'd give it no deference at all, but that doesn't stop her from joining in overturning precedents that have long been targets of conservative vitriol.

Ketanji Brown Jackson: 2. KBJ has been surprising this term, taking a stance against the Apprendi line of cases and siding with the Feds in a drug mule case, which drags her score a couple of points to the right. She has been separately vocal about deferring to Congress in a number of cases where the Court has been arrogating power to itself, which is bless-her-heart delightful. Otherwise, a reliable and strong voice for left-wing principles.

[Elena]*"The Explainer" Kagan: 4. Wildly intelligent and a teacher at heart, Kagan is a doctrinaire government Democrat; she'd be further left but for a distinctive tendency to favor the government. In no position to overturn precedent, she'd nonetheless be reluctant to do so, preferring to work within the system than to overturn it.

Sonia "The Best Justice" Sotomayor: 6.5 and moving left. The thing that characterizes the Court's left wing is that none of them are all that left. This is because of the relative position of the parties: Whereas Republicans readily embrace their right wing policies, Democrats prefer centrism and rarely accept true left-wing politicians into power (AOC is about an 8.5, for example). Anyway, Sotomayor is keenly aware of the power the Court can wield to bring justice to the weak, and is ever more pissed off that the Court is using its power to do exactly the opposite. She wouldn't overturn Youngstown; she's no socialist. But she would keep a wall between the government and religion, between government and free expression. That that makes her left-wing is something of a tragedy.

*Edited to correct name; the late SF author Janet Kagan is not a Supreme Court justice.

[aspiringbelle]

Not long ago, some right-leaning people did a study of college Twitter feeds to "document" colleges' promotion of social justice. Unlike some, they allowed people to access their data set. One professor did. The data included numerous references to cited phrases which were not in the context implied by the survey authors. "Justice" included numerous references to Criminal Justice programs, as well as references to RBG and Scalia. "Equity" included quite a few references to private equity. "Race" included lots of references to NASCAR, track and field, and road races. As for "Ally"...it referenced a lot of students with that name or nickname...

how are we supposed to interpret this. what does it mean. who is the target audience

[doyelikehaggis]

i see you also like scydia so hi hello !

they deserved to be endgame i hope we get some good moments in the movie

still not over the iconic "because of scott" line honestly thank you Derek i love you for saying this. (Derek Hale for Scydia president ahah)

Hey! Hello! I am always so happy to meet another scydia lover because they do not get nearly enough attention, even platonically, but especially romantically.

They absolutely do deserve to be endgame. Not gonna lie, I totally forgot for a minute there that the movie is actually going to be a Real Genuine Thing, but now I'm semi-excited again for some new interactions between Scott and Lydia! Hopefully, it's not too heavy on implied St*dia and/or Scalia.

Oh god, yeah, that line was beautiful and one of the things that fueled my love for them. The fact that someone kind of on the outside, so to speak, such as Derek could recognize the incredibly strong bond between Scott and Lydia rather than just pinning Lydia's role in the pack on her "feelings" for Stiles made me so happy. He is absolutely the Scydia president and we love him for that.

[pamphletstoinspire]

The Father We Need Fr. Paul D. Scalia

SUNDAY, DECEMBER 27, 2020

Most of us know today’s Gospel scene (Lk 2:22-40) as the Fourth Joyful Mystery: The Presentation in the Temple. But it is also one of the Seven Sorrows and Seven Joys of Saint Joseph. His heart is filled with sorrow at Simeon’s prophecy that the Christ Child “is appointed for the fall and rising of many in Israel, and for a sign that is opposed.” At the same time, Joseph rejoices to hear his Son proclaimed as the Lord’s “salvation” and “a light for revelation to the Gentiles, and for glory to…Israel.”

Now, we should all sorrow and rejoice when meditating on this scene. But Joseph experiences this sorrow and joy in a unique manner: as the father of Jesus. Indeed, his experience of this event flows from and points to the reality of his fatherhood.

We often use various qualifiers for Joseph’s fatherhood. Although accurate to an extent, they can also give the impression that his fatherhood was a fiction or make-believe. The term “Earthly Father” suggests a father/son relationship limited to this world. “Foster Father” or “Adoptive Father” both imply that at some point our Lord became Joseph’s son. In fact, Joseph and Mary were legally married at the time of Christ’s conception. So, at no point in our Lord’s life was He not the Son of Joseph.

The Gospels don’t use any qualifiers. Today’s passage refers to Joseph and Mary straightforwardly as Jesus’ “father and mother.” Later, at the finding in the Temple, our Lady herself says, “Behold, your father and I have been looking for you anxiously.” (Lk 2:48) Twice John refers to our Lord simply as “the Son of Joseph.” (Jn 1:45; 6:42) The only qualification in the Gospels is parenthetical: Luke’s mention of Jesus as “the son (as was supposed) of Joseph.” (Lk 3:23) Since this comes immediately after our Lord’s Baptism, it is clearly meant to distinguish Christ’s Father revealed at the Jordan from His father known in Nazareth.

It is fatherhood that Pope Francis emphasizes in Patris Corde, his letter announcing the Year of Saint Joseph (December 8, 2020 through December 8, 2021). And with good reason. As many have observed, the crisis of fatherhood is at the source of our Church’s and our nation’s woes. At the core of the Church’s scandals is the betrayal of spiritual fathers. Our nation’s upheaval is the inevitable result of decades of absent fathers. Mary Eberstadt has called it “the fury of the fatherless.”

Joseph’s fatherhood is a necessary medicine for these ills. But first, we have to get it right. Our failure to appreciate Joseph’s fatherhood lies in our misunderstanding of fatherhood itself. We confine fatherhood to its physical, earthly dimensions; it is the biological siring of a child or perhaps the equipping of the child for success in this world. In fact, the greater part of fatherhood is not begetting a child or training him for worldly success. No, it is the imparting of wisdom, patrimony, and identity.

Precisely because he is not Jesus’ biological father, Joseph calls our attention to the deeper, more important dimension of fatherhood. He did not generate our Lord, nor does he have any worldly means to bestow upon Him. But as the husband of Mary, Joseph is in fact Jesus’ legal father – a designation with much greater meaning in ancient Israel than in our culture. It was Joseph’s duty to raise his Son in the traditions and faith of Israel, to pass on to Him the practices and wisdom of God’s people. Insofar as “Jesus advanced [in] wisdom and age and favor before God and man” (Lk 2:52), it fell to Joseph to teach Him how to pray, to bring Him to the synagogue, and to familiarize Him with scripture.

“We have heard with our ears, O God, our fathers have told us, what deeds thou didst perform in their days, in the days of old.” (Ps 44:1) It is wonderful to consider Joseph teaching this verse to our Lord, introducing Him to the patrimony of Israel, to what “our fathers have told us.” Those fathers had bestowed an identity on their children, had brought them to know who they were – and were not – in the world and in history. The fidelity of those fathers meant that the Israelites knew themselves as God’s people.

This is precisely what fathers in our culture have failed to do. They might give their children some material wealth and advice on how to get ahead in the world – or at least how to be comfortable. But for decades fathers have failed to give their children their proper identity. They have failed to pass on the patrimony of the West, of our nation, and most of all of Christianity.

This is in large part because those fathers had themselves impiously rejected what came before them. Impiety is sterile. Since the past meant nothing to them; so now they have nothing for the future. Worse still, being orphaned from the past makes one vulnerable in the present. So, what we see in “wokeism” is an orphaned generation, cut off from its patrimony of wisdom and culture, and thus prey to whatever new theories come along.

We have seen the same phenomenon in the Church. Impious priests, for whom the past was meaningless, failed to hand on to generations of Catholics their rightful inheritance of the Church’s teachings and liturgy. So much of our current sickness comes from this disconnect, this forgetfulness of who we are – and who we are not – in the world and in history.

Time to “go to Joseph.” (Gen 41:55) From him, the father of Jesus, we learn the true meaning of fatherhood and the incomparable worth of a man who faithfully fulfills that mission.

[hollywoodbabylondean]

oh TIME TO TALK ABOUT THE POLITICAL IMPLICATIONS OF LATE SEASONS SUPERNATURAL

We know from the existence of President Rooney (term 2012-2016) that Obama (mentioned in season 3) is a one term president. Obama to some extent ran on closing guantanamo bay in his first election. godstiel happened in season 7 (2011) so I think that at that point, the Christian ultraright splintered off from the mainstream republican party and the fractioned parties ultimately made the democratic party obsolete

In addition to this, the leviathans via Dick Roman are absolutely funneling money into these alternative parties due to the conservative focus on free markets and looser standards on health and employment safety

In season 7, Charlie is going to reproductive rights benefits and is donating money to what would otherwise be large charities which wouldn't need the money and would therefore be better spent on smaller organizations

Also, in later seasons, people are not nearly as open as even nowadays in our universe about being gay, which shows that the 2014 popular shift in opinion towards gay rights proceeding the 2015 Obergefell v Hodges decision never happened

So essentially, Rooney (which sounds a lot like Romney huh) won the presidency in 2012 with the traditional republican party and then in 2016, with 5 years to develop, the ultra right faction led by Donald Trump won the presidency after Rooney's mental breakdown following the disappearance of his mistress weeks before the election

ANYWAY all of that is to say that because of godstiel closing gitmo never became a priority in mainstream American politics and the us government, taking a turn for the more authoritarian, felt emboldened to build a black site for domestic holdings of certain threats (implying that certain sections of the 8th amendment were voided by whoever replaced Scalia)

[batmansymbol]

why the mcconnell rule is invented, illogical, and inconsistent

this post has no action items. i am truly just ranting at this point, i just need to get this all down.

these days i feel like my head is spinning with misinformation. i haven’t seen a single well-cited post or article outlining every problem i have with the so-called “rules” mcconnell has invented. what i have seen are hosts of people defending him online based on scraps of unconnected, irrelevant information. even the people who have an issue with mcconnell’s actions rarely address every part of the problem.

so i’m just going to write the post myself, to feel sane again. i’m going to go through every reason that McConnell denying the Garland appointment, but pushing forward with a Trump appointment, is nakedly hypocritical and logistically contorted.

it freaks me out to see the Republican base accepting, for instance, this arbitrary idea that the Senate and presidency being of different parties should make any difference for a SCOTUS appointment—because if McConnell & co. can convince voters of this invented “rule,” what part of our (deeply flawed, but largely democratic) institutions will be next to fall at a moment’s convenience?

anyway. let’s go

The facts: after Antonin Scalia’s death in February 2016, Barack Obama nominated a replacement to the Supreme Court, Merrick Garland. He made the nomination in March of the same year, but Mitch McConnell and his Republican cosigners, acting in a Republican-led Senate, blockaded the nomination and refused to hold a vote, saying that “the American people should have a voice” and later referring to Obama as a “lame duck” at that point in his presidency.

McConnell’s original reasoning for the blockade cited what he named the “Biden Rule,” referring to a suggestion Biden had made during George H.W. Bush’s presidency in 1992 to delay a SCOTUS nomination until after the election. (Biden’s suggestion was hypothetical; there was no vacancy in 1992.)

Flash forward four years. After Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death on Sept. 18th, 2020, McConnell immediately stated that a Trump nominee would, unlike Garland, receive a Senate confirmation vote. In this statement, though, he declared new reasoning for the Garland blockade. He claimed that the blockade had been based in political precedent rather than on the "Biden Rule.” McConnell’s supposed precedent was that “since the 1880s, no Senate has confirmed an opposite-party president’s Supreme Court nominee in a presidential election year.”

In other words, his claim evolved in 2020 into the idea that a Senate of one party and a President of another represents a divided American opinion. Based on that premise, a Republican-led Senate confirming a Trump nominee while blockading an Obama appointee is, apparently, consistent.

So let’s start with that idea, McConnell premise #1: “The American people’s will is unclear when the Senate and President are of different parties.”

Yes, you could make this claim. But if the American people’s “unclear will” is really the point, then the Senate should blockade any presidential nominations by an opposite-party president at any point, not just in the year leading up to an election.

The Senate has never behaved this way—19 justices of the 114 in our country’s history were nominated and confirmed by different parties—so this can’t be the point.

Then how about McConnell talking point 2, a direct quote from his statement? “Since the 1880s,�� he claims, “no Senate has confirmed an opposite-party president’s Supreme Court nominee in a presidential election year.”

This is plainly false. We non-politicians might even call it a “lie.” We only need to look back to 1988, when, on February 3rd of an election year, a Democratic-controlled Senate confirmed Republican Ronald Reagan’s nominee Anthony Kennedy by unanimous vote. McConnell blatantly ignoring this fact in his statement is particularly brazen.

“Yes, but Anthony Kennedy was nominated before an election year! He was nominated in 1987, only confirmed in 1988!”

OK. Let’s give McConnell the benefit of the doubt and say that he mistyped. Let’s assume he meant to say, “Since the 1880s, no President has successfully nominated a Supreme Court justice in an election year.”

McConnell is clearly namedropping the 1880s to make the practice seem shockingly out of date. Don’t buy it. SCOTUS appointments are lifelong, which means replacements are infrequent by nature. While 12,348 people have served in U.S. Congress over the course of our history, only 114 justices have served on the Supreme Court, ever. And of those 114, only 64 of those justices were confirmed after the 1880s.

Out of 64 people in 130 years, is it a real shock that none of their confirmations met the narrow criteria of McConnell’s rule? Let’s look at it mathematically. Criterion 1: their nomination would have had to arise in an election year, one of 32 such years since 1890. Criterion 2: the confirmation would have to happen under divided government (when the Senate and Presidency are led by different parties), one of 36 such years since 1890.

I’ve cross-referenced the years. There are only 13 years since 1890 that meet both of these criteria.

And then there’s Criterion 3: the vacancy would almost certainly have to be a death rather than a retirement, because Supreme Court justices often tactically retire when someone they trust to replace them is the President. I’m not at all surprised that, of the 13 election years since 1890 when the country had a divided government, there were no voluntary retirements or sudden deaths among a court of 9.

My point here is this: McConnell is implying that an opposite-party confirmation hasn’t taken place since the 1880s because it’s an out-of-date practice, a matter of principle, and a matter of representing what US citizens really want. In actuality, an opposite-party confirmation hasn’t taken place since the 1880s because of sheer statistical unlikeliness.

In saying that an opposite-party confirmation hasn’t taken place since the 1880s, McConnell also implies that parties have often obstructed each other’s nominees. In actuality, only 3 SCOTUS nominees have been voted down by opposite-party Senates since 1890: Haynsworth (Nixon nominee), Carswell (Nixon nominee), and Bork (Reagan nominee). None of these votes occurred during an election year, and crucially, Nixon and Reagan still wound up filling those vacancies with different candidates.

In essence, it’s all a totally arbitrary bit of framing. McConnell might as well say something like, “No Senate with primarily brown hair has confirmed a nominee whose birthday falls in April since the 1870s!” It’s the exact same process: picking random categories in order to winnow down the numbers, in order to make something seem more archaic and unlikely than it is.

We should also consider the fact that something “not happening since the 1880s” is hilarious as reasoning. Since when are the 1880s and before not considered as valid precedent? Does the entire Republican party not, right now, constantly refer to the second amendment, ratified 1791, as something that must be obsessively adhered to, letter for letter?

But all this is just about the reasoning McConnell gave this year. So let’s go back to his 2016 talking points, justifying their initial blockade of Garland, which Republicans everywhere are recycling faithfully. I see this one a lot:

“Blockading nominees in an election year was Biden’s tactic first! It was the Democrats’ idea!”

This is incorrect for two reasons. Firstly, there was no vacancy in 1992. Biden was speaking in hypotheticals and, unlike McConnell, had no actual power to control what would happen if a vacancy had arisen.

Secondly, Biden’s suggestion was that, should a vacancy arise, the nomination and confirmation process should take place after the election (still allowing Bush time to nominate and confirm before the inauguration), so that the process wouldn’t be tainted by campaigning and politicking.

Biden suggesting to George H.W. Bush that he should wait to name his hypothetical nominee until Nov. 4th of that year is not, in any way, the same thing as McConnell & co. refusing to vote on actual nominee Merrick Garland’s appointment for a ten-month period, destroying Garland’s nomination.

And then there’s this: “This wouldn’t have happened if Harry Reid, a Democrat, hadn’t removed the judicial appointment filibuster in 2013!”

Technically true. Harry Reid removed the appointment filibuster, dropping the number of necessary confirmation votes from 60 to 51. In my opinion, it’s true that Reid shouldn’t have changed this precedent. But it’s also true that Republican obstruction has made operating a functional government impossible since Obama’s election. Reid had few other options with a Republican Congress obsessed with stymying Barack Obama’s appointments.

This one just rubs me the wrong way: “Obama was a lame duck!”

The phrase “lame duck period” refers to the period between an election and the new president’s inauguration. In 2016, this was the time between Nov. 9th and January 20th.

Obama nominated Garland eight months before the lame duck period, in March. As little as I have faith in McConnell’s moral center, I would at least expect him to know the difference between the words “March” and “December.”

Barack Obama had nearly 1/4 of his second term left when Scalia died. The expansion of the term “lame duck” to include an entire year of the presidency is fundamentally ridiculous. You may as well call his entire second term a lame duck term, but maybe I shouldn’t type that, because they might get ideas.

And lastly, my least favorite of the McConnell talking points: “Dems would do the same thing and 1) blockade a Republican equivalent of Garland or 2) fill RBG’s seat!”

Well, a couple problems with this. Firstly, no, we haven’t ever done anything like the Garland blockade, so you can’t use this logic. In the 20th century alone, Democratic Senates voted to confirm twelve nominees by Republican presidents to the Supreme Court. A Dem Senate has never refused to consider a nominee by a sitting President, no matter the party.

Secondly, yeah, of course Dems would fill RBG’s seat if we were in power at this very instant. That wouldn’t be a hypocritical action, because we didn’t blockade Garland. The point isn’t that Presidents should be less and less frequently able to nominate justices. The point is that in 2016, McConnell changed the playbook by demanding that “the American people” get to decide—and now that he’s been asked to apply the same rules to his own team, he’s scrambling to create loopholes so that he can pack the court further.

This is the most infuriating to me because it’s truly invented. “Dems would do the same thing” - based on what? What are you even talking about? Every time a Dem Senate voted no on a Republican appointee, it was eventually followed by that same Dem Senate confirming another appointee by that same Republican. Conservatives are truly bending themselves into knots trying to feel victimized by the left wing. I don’t think I’d mind so much if they didn’t also insist on calling us precious little snowflakes with victim complexes.

The fact is this. Mitch McConnell invented a new SCOTUS appointment rule in 2016, loosely based on something Joe Biden floated but never did. He got away with it because our systems, left and right, are showing how poorly they’re equipped to handle people who are obsessed with gaining and keeping power. And now, in 2020, in order to justify going back on his own rule, McConnell added new stipulations about party and precedent that don’t hold up under even the scrutiny that I, someone with no legal or political expertise, can apply to the situation.

Mitch McConnell and his ilk are a moral black hole: spineless, shameless, power-hungry. The effects of McConnelism are obvious. Once Trump’s nominee goes through, five of the justices on the Supreme Court will be conservatives nominated by Republican presidents who lost the popular vote. In fact, Republicans have only won the popular vote once in the last 28 years. This is the current state of representative democracy in the US.

[serinemolecule]

I suspect “sexual preference” has the same problems as “queer”, where it’s okay for LGBT people to describe themselves and each other that way, but outsiders using it are not exactly using it praisingly.

This is probably a generalized problem, where if someone perceives you as threatening to their rights or something, your word choice will be subject to a lot more scrutiny, even if you’re just talking exactly like they are.

Like, compare “I think gays deserve rights” and “I think gays don’t deserve rights”. That second one, it sure seems kinda sus that it says “gays” and not “gay people”, doesn’t it? And you didn’t even think twice about the first one, right?

Or even just “I think gays deserve rights” from Sotomayor, versus “I think gays deserve rights” from Scalia (for non-Americans: Sotomayor voted for marriage equality, and Scalia against). If Scalia said that, I’d definitely wonder what he’s implying by not saying “gay people”, in a way that I wouldn’t wonder about Sotomayor.

I’m not going to take a position on whether or not it’s bad that this sort of thing happens (I guess I’d lean towards “bad” but I’m not sure it’s fixable). But it probably explains why there was so much of an uproar over Barrett saying “sexual preference” when LGBT people say it all the time and no one cares.

[isthatbloodonhisshirt]

(1) My problem w trying to plot a post-canon fic where I want to do my best to portray all the characters in a well rounded & 3D way while respecting canon is that I just can’t get a lock on a Scalia dynamic! I’m already breaking up Stydia, I want to respect the canon but it’s SO HARD when they’ve given me NOTHING! A major part of the idea is a big schism b/w Scott & Stiles, & as it is I’m having trouble coming up with ANY scenario for Malia & Scott interacting that isn’t just them breaking up!

(2) no matter how much i try, as soon as the shouting & arguing starts Malia in my head basically just keeps getting annoyed w all the bullshit, announcing she cares more about Stiles than Scott (in a platonic way) then dumping Scott & walking out. Which is bad for my story bc I need people sticking around Scott & not just all of them rallying around Stiles! But bc of bad writing or w/e I don’t see/think Malia genuinely cares about Scott more than she does Stiles, even if it’s not romantically

Hopefully I’m reading this ask correctly (it’s been a long day, I am so tired, someone save me |D) but I think you’re saying that the idea/fic you’re writing involves a huge schism between Stiles and Scott right? My first read-through of the ask made me think you meant in canon but reading it again I think you’re saying it’s in your fic and that’s what you’re trying to figure out with the Scalia. 

I understand what you mean about having trouble with trying to keep canon-compliant but struggling with the relationship aspect, but the best thing you can do then is to make sure that you have enough background and building of your own of the Scalia pairing for it to actually work where Malia will stick with Scott. If it’s post-canon, depending on how much time has passed (like, a year? Two? Ten?) you can build up and imply how long they’ve been together and talk about things they’ve overcome together. If it’s meant to be like, immediately after the show ended, you can still work at building the relationship as things that happened that we didn’t see (like, imply conversations and outings that happened during the show’s main run but that weren’t being focussed on?) 

And I mean, while there may not be much canonically to keep Malia with Scott (as far as I’ve been told), you can also try and remember/focus on all the things that Stiles and Malia went through together. Like, Stiles knew her name was Malia Hale and he didn’t tell her, and while we know why he kept it from her, it still really hurt her when she found out and basically ended their relationship (if memory serves, it’s been a while |D). 

So while yes, there’s a lot of history between them and she probably values her friendship with Stiles a lot, if you build on the Scalia in your fic to help it work, and remember/focus on the Stiles/Malia issues, it might help you tip the balance enough that your idea will work....? Maybe? >.>

Idk if that’s helpful, but I hope it was <3

[fierceawakening]

“Narcissistic personality disorder is described in this book by Craig Malkin (“Pathological Narcissism and Politics: A Lethal Mix”). Trump finds himself to be uniquely superior (“Only I can fix it”), and appears to believe that he knows more than everyone about everything, despite his lack of experience, study, intellectual curiosity, or normal attention span. Since he took office, an amusing video montage has made its way through social media in which, in the course of three minutes, Trump brags about being the world’s greatest expert in twenty different subject areas. “No one knows more about [fill in the blank] than me,” he repeats over and over.”

....

“In his piece in this book, Lance Dodes describes antisocial personality disorder, or”Sociopathy.” Antisocials lie, exploit, and violate the rights of others, and they have neither remorse nor empathy for those they harm.

While we will not give a final diagnosis here, the fact-checking website PolitiFact estimated that 76 percent of Trump’s statements were false or mostly false (Holan and Qui 2015), and Politico estimated that Trump told a lie every three minutes and fifteen seconds (Cheney et al. 2016).

We have ample evidence of Trump’s pervasive pattern of exploiting and violating the rights of others. According to New York State attorney general Eric Schneiderman, Trump University was a “straight up fraud … a fraud from beginning to end” (Gass 2016). Also, dozens of lawsuits attest to Trump’s pattern and practice of not paying his contractors.

Finally, there is Trump’s pattern of serial sexual assault, which he bragged about on tape even before a dozen women came forward, whom he then called liars. Trump is allergic to apology and appears to feel no remorse of any kind. It is as if being Trump means never having to say you’re sorry. When political consultant Frank Luntz asked Trump if he had ever asked God for forgiveness, Trump said, “I’m not sure I have … I don’t think so” (Scott 2015). His unrepentance notwithstanding, he also boasted that he had “a great relationship with God.”

And empathy? Even Trump’s former mentor, the notorious Roy Cohn, lawyer for gangsters and Joseph McCarthy, said that when it came to his feelings for his fellow human beings, Trump “pisses ice water” (Lange 2016).”

....

“Paranoia is not a diagnosis but, rather, a trait that we see in some conditions. When Donald Trump was asked to document his false claim that “thousands and thousands” of New Jersey Muslims openly celebrated the attacks of 9/11, he cited a link to Infowars, the website of radio talk show host Alex Jones. Jones, nicknamed “the king of conspiracies,” believes that the American government was behind the September 11 attacks, that FEMA is setting up concentration camps, and that the Sandy Hook school shooting was a hoax. Yet, according to Trump, Jones is one of the few media personalities he trusts. “Your reputation is amazing,” Trump told Jones when he appeared as a guest on Jones’s show on December 2, 2015. Trump vowed that if he were elected president, “you will find out who really knocked down the World Trade Center.”

In the same week, both the New York Times (Haberman 2016) and the Washington Post (Washington Post Editorial Board 2016) ran front-page stories on Trump as a conspiracy theorist. Before the election, Right Wing Watch (Tashman 2016) accumulated a list of fifty-eight conspiracies that Trump had proclaimed or implied were true. Of course, that list has grown since then. Many are truly bizarre. For example, not only is Obama a Muslim born in Kenya but, according to Trump, he had a Hawaiian government bureaucrat murdered to cover up the truth about his birth certificate (“How amazing, the state health director who verified copies of Obama’s birth certificate died in a plane crash today. All others lived,” Trump said); Antonin Scalia was murdered (“[T]hey say they found a pillow on his face, which is a pretty unusual place to find a pillow”); later, fake news websites sponsored by the Russians laid this “murder” at Hillary’s feet; and Ted Cruz’s father aided the Kennedy assassination, the mother of all conspiracy theories (“What was he doing with Lee Harvey Oswald shortly before the death? Before the shooting? It’s horrible”).

And still the world was shocked when Trump accused Barack Obama of illegally wiretapping Trump Tower. Why were we surprised?”

....

“Because he is a sadist, the malignant narcissist will take a bully’s glee in persecuting, terrorizing, and even exterminating his “enemies” and scapegoats. When a protester was escorted out of a Trump rally, Trump famously said, “I’d like to punch him in the face,” in a tone that suggested it would genuinely bring him great pleasure. Narcissists often hurt others in the pursuit of their selfish interests:

A notable difference between normal narcissistic personality disorder and malignant narcissism is the feature of sadism, or the gratuitous enjoyment of the pain of others. A narcissist will deliberately damage other people in pursuit of their own selfish desires, but may regret and will in some circumstances show remorse for doing so, while a malignant narcissist will harm others and enjoy doing so, showing little empathy or regret for the damage they have caused.”

[mustafa-el-fats]

Skip to content

Log In

Self Development

Relationship

Mental Health

Interesting

Quotes

Readers Blog

Coronavirus

Search

Ancient Wisdom Revealed: 5 Hidden Magical Knowledge That Can Transform Your Life

We are usually amazed when we discover hidden knowledge related to mysticism, magic, and witchcraft. Not only does this ancient knowledge enlighten us but it can also help us understand the very essence of our being. However, most of the times valuable magical information and insight are hidden right before our very eyes. We simply need to know where to look.

“Secrets have a way of making themselves felt, even before you know there’s a secret.” – Jean Ferris

It’s true that this is World which has never actually cut off from the Old Ways. In fact, so many things we still do, reflect on the Old Religion and our Witchy Ways. Therefore, we decided to publish an article, on all weird things that actually got Pagan Origin or even Witchy! This is going to be really really fun!

Magical Knowledge Hidden in Plain Sight

“It is hidden but always present.” – Laozi

The list is endless. We could keep going on and on about it but we chose 5 facts which make more sense to almost anyone.

1. Why do we Wink to signal about secret knowledge?

A Winker actually signals the Winkee that they share or s/he is about to share some secret knowledge. It’s not obvious why or what it is, but this is a sign to immediately question reality. This is an awakening call. If you really think about it, it’s already pretty weird.

Wink & the one eye of Odin

Odin is the mighty and wise father of Norse Religion. God of Wisdom, Healing and Victory he is beloved in all germanic traditions. He is famous for his thirst for Wisdom and magical knowledge. According to one story, Odin was traveling again in his quest to expand his awareness. One day he ventured to Mimir’s Well, located beneath the world tree Yggdrasil. The Guardian spirit of this well, whose wisdom and magical knowledge for the Realms was unprecedented, greeted Odin. Odin asked for some water.

I know where Othin’s eye is hidden, Deep in the wide-famed well of Mimir; Mead from the pledge of Othin each morn Does Mimir drink: would you know yet more?

I know where Othin’s eye is hidden, Deep in the wide-famed well of Mimir; Mead from the pledge of Othin each morn Does Mimir drink: would you know yet more?

The mystical creature knew exactly what Odin was asking and he tried to make it as hard as possible. Thus he demanded his eye. Odin was asking for true and absolute wisdom and the price seemed fair for the Guardian. However, Odin gave it instantly and the Guardian gave the God of Wisdom what he was asking.

Hidden Magical Knowledge of Wink

In many ancient depictions, and due to the fact that Odin has one eye, he seems like he’s winking. This is where the ‘wink’ came from. As Odin lost his eye for hidden truth, we reenact his divine sacrifice by winking, to signal someone for secret knowledge.

“The only secrets are the secrets that keep themselves.” – George Bernard Shaw

2. Why do we give the ‘middle finger’ to insult someone?

Greeks understood the power of sex & sexuality, thus sexuality was part of each God’s powers. Thus, the ‘Phallus’ aka the erect penis, was a symbol of great potential, a power which could fight every demon, reverse bad luck to golden opportunities and create a new and successful beginning in everyone’s life.

Middle finger represents a phallus – a magical symbol

Indeed, the middle finger represents an erect penis. The middle finger also is known as “digitus impudicus” or “the impudent finger”. Saint Isidore of Seville explains in his Etymologies that the third finger is called impudent because it often expresses vexation, insult. But why?

“A graceful taunt is worth a thousand insults.” – Louis Nizer

This rude gesture actually dates back to ancient Greece. This was a sacred and magical gesture ��� something like a Mudra. Greeks used it to instantly counter any negative activity and dark arts that targeted them. Just like the statues of Phallus in crossroads and anywhere, they did it to repel dark magic.

Therefore, by ‘giving the middle finger and insulting’ the receiver we actually attempt to bind his/her power against us.

3. Why are Days Seven?

Have you wondered? Why aren’t the days of week 5 or 10 or 12? Why 7? Is there special power in it? Well YES!

Seven are the Days, Seven are the ‘Planets’ of ancient Witches

In the ancient World, astrologers and mages worked with the energy of the ‘7 Planets’. These 7 celestial bodies – which are not all planets – embody the diverse magical forces and energies from which everything is born into creation. Each ‘planet’ has a distinct vibration that can be directed and channeled in every magical work.

Each of the seven Days of the Week represents each of the ‘Planet’ of Astrologers and Witches which of course correspond to one God.

Monday is the Moon’s Day, day of Artemis / Diana – Goddess of the Moon

Tuesday is Tyr’s / Ares / Mars’s Day – God of War

Wednesday is Woden’s / Hermes’s / Mercury’s Day – God of Communication and Knowledge

Thursday is Thor’s / Zeus’s / Jupiter’s Day – all God of Lightning although Zeus is also King of Gods

Friday is Freya’s / Aphrodite’s / Venus’s Day – Goddess of Beauty and Love

Saturday is Saturn’s / Krono’s Day – old God of Time

Sunday is Sun’s / Apollo’s Day – God of the Sun

4. Why do we make Tattoos?

A tattoo is an ancient form of art appearing in different ancient cultures throughout history. Our modern word ‘tattoo’ comes from the Tahitian word tatau which means “to mark something”. Does this remind you of something? Maybe the Witch Marks?

“Tattoos are like stories — they’re symbolic of the important moments in your life.” – Pamela Anderson

Tattoos are in fact Witch Marks

Tattoos are similar to the Marks of the Witches. It’s a sacrifice we make to our bodies in order to connect deeper with what the symbol we chose represents. An eternal mark on our mortal bodies which can also pass through our incarnations. So please, before you decide which tattoo to do on your body, choose wisely the meaning and symbolism!

5. Why do we wear our wedding ring on our ‘ring finger’?

Haven’t you always wondered? Why do we choose to put our Wedding Rings on the ‘Ring Finger’? Well, as you can understand, the name of the finger itself actually implies its participation in Wedding Rituals.

Why a Golden Ring on Ring Finger?

This part of Wedding Rituals actually dates back in ancient years. First of all, the Ring symbolizes the Wholeness and Unity. It’s the perfect shape of Alchemists and it’s linked with Ouroboros – the symbol of eternity.

Now, why on Ring Finger? This finger is associated with the Sun and Apollo, the god of all blessings. When we ‘activate’ this finger we actually activate the power of the Sun and Apollo in us. As every ‘Planet’ is associated with one Metal, the Sun and Apollo are associated with Gold. Thus, to properly activate the Ring Finger we need to wear a Golden Ring on it. Check more on how to wear Rings to pursue your purposes here!

Therefore, in Wedding Rings, we conjure the blessings of Apollo and the Sun, the bring timeless happiness.

“Secrets are made to be found out with time.” – Charles Sanford

Esoteric wisdom can help you transform your life and the lives of your loved ones. Once you know how to access and decode such ancient knowledge, you can get a better understanding of different religions, practices and spiritual self. Now that you have gained some valuable insight, use this hidden ancient magical wisdom to build a happier and more purposeful life.

Post originally published on Magical Recipes Online

You may also like:

Common Angel Signs and Symbols and What they mean

The Origin Of Dreams And How They Affect Our Lives

5 Lucky Symbols To Transform Your Life

Choose an Alchemical Symbol – Find Out what Your Spirit Thirsts for

Choose A Mandala And Discover Your Hidden Magical Power

5 Hidden Magical Knowledge That Can Transform Your Life

Share on

About The Author

Magical Recipes Online

Magical Recipes Online consists of a core team of 4 people who have dedicated their lives to bring Magic to a wider audience, to teach and to be taught, to help everyone in our World tap to the Great Source of All Things and bring happiness and love into their lives. We are everyday ordinary people who have lead extraordinary lives. We have heard our call to Magic from a young age but followed different directions.

Show Comments

How to Decode Emotions In Text Messages: 6 Effective Ways To Get Started

“How do you decode emotions in text messages?”

Text messages can often be very confusing. It can be especially challenging to understand emotions when we communicate through text messages. With the lack of facial expressions and body language, we can often misinterpret the intended message and tone resulting in disastrous misunderstandings. So how can we read emotions in texts? Let’s find out.

“What is a moderate interpretation of the text? Halfway between what it really means and what you’d like it to mean?” – Antonin Scalia

It’s easy when people say they are angry or sad or excited, or if they tack an emoji to the end of a text. But when they don’t? Given that even face-to-face communication can be confusing, it should not surprise us that truncated, dashed-off text messages can result in disastrous misunderstandings.

In the age of technology, we not only need to decode in-person interactions, but we also need to decode textual transmissions.

How do we know what a person is feeling when we can’t see their faces or body language?

Here are six tips to help you better decode emotions in text messages, or at least prevent yourself from jumping to conclusions based on scant evidence.

1. Assume good intentions

In general, text messages are short. We have very little information to work with. A smiley face or series of exclamation points can help assure us that the text is meant to express positive emotion, but texts do not always include these extra emotion indicators. Our friends’ busy schedules lead to abrupt messages, and our partner’s playful sarcasm isn’t always read as playful.

Keep in mind that texts are a difficult medium for communicating emotion. We have no facial expressions or tone of voice, or conversation to give us more information. If the text doesn’t say, “I’m angry,” then don’t assume that the texter is angry. We are better off reading texts with the assumption that the texter has good intentions. Otherwise, we may end up in lots of unnecessary arguments.

“Texting is a fundamentally sneaky form of communication, which we should despise, but it is such a boon we don’t care. We are all sneaks now.” – Lynne Truss

2. Cultivate awareness of unconscious biases

In my research, I have had to train numerous teams of emotion coders. But even trained coders who meet weekly to discuss discrepancies don’t agree on which emotion (or how much emotion) is being expressed. People just do not see emotions in the same way. We have unconscious biases that lead us to draw different conclusions based on the same information.

For example, every time I lead a coding team I am reminded that males and females often differ in how they interpret others’ emotions. If Bob writes: “My wife missed our 10-year anniversary,” men may think Bob is angry, while women may think Bob is sad.

I don’t presume to know exactly why this is, but I can say confidently that our emotion-detection skills are affected by characteristics about us. When it comes to detecting emotion in texts, try to remember that our unconscious biases affect our interpretations. The emotions we detect may be reflective of things about us just as much as they are reflective of the information in the text.

3. Explore the emotional undertones of the words themselves

The words people use often have emotional undertones. Think about some common words—words like love, hate, wonderful, hard, work, explore, or kitten.

If a text reads, “I love this wonderful kitten,” we can easily conclude that it is expressing positive emotions. If a text reads, “I hate this hard work,” that seems pretty negative. But, if a text reads, “This wonderful kitten is hard work,” what emotion do we think is being expressed?

One approach to detecting emotions when they appear to be mixed is to use the “bag-of-words” method. This just means that we look at each word separately. How positive are the words “kitten” and “wonderful”? And how negative are the words “hard” and “work”? By looking at how positive and negative each word is, we may be able to figure out the predominant emotion the texter is trying to express. Give this bag-of-words method a try when you are having a hard time figuring out the emotion in a text.

Share on

Pages: 1 2 3

Post navigation

5 Things That True Leaders Should NEVER Do

Ancient Wisdom Revealed: 5 Hidden Magical Knowledge That Can Transform Your Life

About The Author

Dr. Tchiki Davis

Tchiki Davis, Ph.D., is a consultant, writer, and expert on well-being technology. She has helped build happiness products, programs, and services that have reached more than a million people worldwide. To learn more about how Tchiki can help you grow your happiness & well-being, visit berkeleywellbeing.com

1 thought on “How to Decode Emotions In Text Messages: 6 Effective Ways To Get Started”

Show Comments

-Adverts-

Partnered with World Mental Healthcare Association

About

Privacy Policy

Terms & Conditions

DMCA

Data Access Request

Talk Back

Scroll to Top

[randomactsofpigeon]

@cryptognomicon You might enjoy this...

Apparently, Alito wrote his own dissent, which is not only well over a hundred pages with numerous dictionary definitions of sex, but includes a section where he essentially implies Gorsuch is a traitor to Scalia’s memory.  Also a section where he compares the court to a pirate ship.

I haven’t read the whole thing but the excerpts are pretty hilarious. (Or would be, if, y��know, this wingnut caricature wasn’t sitting on the supreme court.)

[mrsballlegs]

I love how Amy Barrett is like despite the fact that I love Scalia and I was specifically vetted by conservative organizations to give them results they want and also I am a fundamentalist, actually I have no opinions on anything ever. And the republicans are like despite having specifically vetted this person to give us results we want, we would like to imply that she actually supports abortion and gay marriage and the ACA. 🤷‍♀️🤷‍♀️🤷‍♀️

[scottrecs]

Rec: And I’ll follow you forever

and i'll follow you forever (1550 words) by buckymyson Rating: Teen And Up Audiences Warnings: No Archive Warnings Apply Relationships: Scott McCall/Malia Tate, Minor or Background Relationship(s) Characters: Scott McCall (Teen Wolf), Malia Tate, Derek Hale Additional Tags: Future Fic, Canon Compliant, For the most part, Fluff, Marriage Proposal, Weddings, general scalia cuteness basically, some implied smut i guess, Don't copy to another site Summary:In which Malia finally gets her trip to Paris, Scott is in love, and everyone lives happily ever after.

Or: Scott McCall is a total sap and knows it.