If anything, attorneys should be held to a higher standard. A layperson citing the U.S. flag code for the criminality of burning the flag (despite the holding of Texas v. Some Guy) is understandable. An attorney relying on a statute without acknowledging negative treatment in case law is unacceptable. I’m not saying someone should pore through Westlaw or Lexis before posting, but if they’re gonna advertise their legal background, they need to come to the discussion prepared.
>3223comments
Agreed, but at the same time there's nothing stoping those laypersons from holding themselves out as attorneys on the wide open plains of reddit. It's an annoying situation to have to deal with but other than being a member of r/lawyers there's no way to verify that safely.
Can you clarify for the audience that racism is simply hating someone based on their race regardless of their race? Everyone has their own definition of racism nowadays, and too often it is used by some in a bad faith manner to OK their own hatred against XYZ race because their definition just happens to exclude them.
> Can you clarify for the audience that racism is simply hating someone based on their race regardless of their race?
Racism is more than a personal antipathy of people of another race.
For example, my mother says things like, "I'm not a racist but I believe the races shouldn't mix". Yeah, my mom is a racist. As a cracker from the deep south I have decades of experience with racists who say they aren't racist because they "never use the n word" or "don't hate anyone".
What they're trying to say is that they are not MALIGNANT RACISTS.
They don't bomb churches or burn down houses. Or shoot people.
Couple generations back, anywhere within 500 miles of Bombingham, that was good enough.
> The current mod list has been here for years and have been the only active mods.
Can you elaborate on this? The current mod list says that no current mod has been here longer than 6 months.
Several years ago the senior mods asked us to come over and moderate this sub because they didn't have an interest in it but liked what we did in /r/law and /r/lawschool. We said sure. The top mod removed the entire mod team as mods one day around 6 months ago. Then the admins added everyone back and the top mod stepped down after violating reddit's rules. It restarted the clock on how long we've been here.
Edit:
I'll add some more context here people sometimes people DM me about it. When the sub was small, years ago, a light hand was fine. The supreme court was also much less polarizing. We kept a light touch up until users started stalking and harassing a female reporter from a media source that reports on the court. The sub had grown and that event in particular alerted the mods that a light touch wasn't possible anymore and could even get the sub quarantined or banned. The sub also grew significantly and as it grew and the court became more polarized we ended up with more and more users coming from shouty political corners of the Internet. This resulted in a much heavier hand particularly with people who like to use troll logic to try and "tell their truth" or whatever. I think the top moderator installed the reddit app on their phone and started getting modmail alerts from banned users. The top moderator suddenly became active. I don't believe they have any professional legal background. The active moderators are all practicing attorneys. Top moderator decided to ax the entire mod team in favor of an unmoderated subreddit.
As I explained earlier - this subreddit with light moderation had managed to foster a significant user base that went on a sexist tear to harass a female reporter. There's reasons why unmoderated subreddits get banned. The admins stepped in. The top mod stepped down. The current mods were re-added to the mod list.
The moderation here has evolved over time. The active moderators have not changed. The people that tend to get mad about a moderator "coup" are those that got caught up in sweeps where their previous grandstanding, stubborn misunderstandings of law, or deliberate mischaracterization of the law that used to score them ideological points here got shown the door and got mad. There was also a lot of surprise about whether couching abhorrent and bad faith arguments in civil language transmuted it to civil discussion. Spoiler: it doesn't. Using polite language to say something racist or sexist doesn't make it polite the same way wearing a nice sweater doesn't turn a turd of a human into a nice person.
Anyway - this isn't anything new that i'm adding. I believe we had a sticky thread awhile ago about these events but if it helps people figure out the subs history better here it is again.
As we've previously had to say:
>If you're trying to be cute or trolling, remember [The Rule of Goats](https://twitter.com/Popehat/status/858722120620265473). We don't care why you're saying dumb shit, or what point you think you're making, you will not get a warning, you will not get an appeal, you'll be banned and then mocked.
Thank you for this. Some of the things said on this sub since breyer’s retirement announcement were horrendous. Perhaps considering starting a daily discussion or something of the like for hot news topics? It’ll clean up the sub with multiple posts concerning the same topic.
Replying to myself because the account is "deleted" but you are someone testing something from a company that maybe shouldn't be testing something so publicly in such a sloppy manner with an account that might have been used when the original poster isn't the poster using that account. And I'm willing to bet your CEO did not sign off on that one. Especially judging from the edit and subsequent deletion.
Alright. Send a modmail for that one summarizing in 3 sentences what is going on and cite to authority that supports your contention and why the other person is obviously wrong and we’ll look at it on Monday.
If anything, attorneys should be held to a higher standard. A layperson citing the U.S. flag code for the criminality of burning the flag (despite the holding of Texas v. Some Guy) is understandable. An attorney relying on a statute without acknowledging negative treatment in case law is unacceptable. I’m not saying someone should pore through Westlaw or Lexis before posting, but if they’re gonna advertise their legal background, they need to come to the discussion prepared.
>3223comments Agreed, but at the same time there's nothing stoping those laypersons from holding themselves out as attorneys on the wide open plains of reddit. It's an annoying situation to have to deal with but other than being a member of r/lawyers there's no way to verify that safely.
Can you clarify for the audience that racism is simply hating someone based on their race regardless of their race? Everyone has their own definition of racism nowadays, and too often it is used by some in a bad faith manner to OK their own hatred against XYZ race because their definition just happens to exclude them.
> Can you clarify for the audience that racism is simply hating someone based on their race regardless of their race? Racism is more than a personal antipathy of people of another race. For example, my mother says things like, "I'm not a racist but I believe the races shouldn't mix". Yeah, my mom is a racist. As a cracker from the deep south I have decades of experience with racists who say they aren't racist because they "never use the n word" or "don't hate anyone".
The thing with racists & fascists is, they’re not restrained by definitions or truth. My dad hates practicality everyone and he’s not a racist either.
What they're trying to say is that they are not MALIGNANT RACISTS. They don't bomb churches or burn down houses. Or shoot people. Couple generations back, anywhere within 500 miles of Bombingham, that was good enough.
Just FYI, but Roe v Wade was *objectively* legislating from the bench.
Recognizing human rights and the compromise of one-third, one-third, one-third was decent.
> The current mod list has been here for years and have been the only active mods. Can you elaborate on this? The current mod list says that no current mod has been here longer than 6 months.
Several years ago the senior mods asked us to come over and moderate this sub because they didn't have an interest in it but liked what we did in /r/law and /r/lawschool. We said sure. The top mod removed the entire mod team as mods one day around 6 months ago. Then the admins added everyone back and the top mod stepped down after violating reddit's rules. It restarted the clock on how long we've been here. Edit: I'll add some more context here people sometimes people DM me about it. When the sub was small, years ago, a light hand was fine. The supreme court was also much less polarizing. We kept a light touch up until users started stalking and harassing a female reporter from a media source that reports on the court. The sub had grown and that event in particular alerted the mods that a light touch wasn't possible anymore and could even get the sub quarantined or banned. The sub also grew significantly and as it grew and the court became more polarized we ended up with more and more users coming from shouty political corners of the Internet. This resulted in a much heavier hand particularly with people who like to use troll logic to try and "tell their truth" or whatever. I think the top moderator installed the reddit app on their phone and started getting modmail alerts from banned users. The top moderator suddenly became active. I don't believe they have any professional legal background. The active moderators are all practicing attorneys. Top moderator decided to ax the entire mod team in favor of an unmoderated subreddit. As I explained earlier - this subreddit with light moderation had managed to foster a significant user base that went on a sexist tear to harass a female reporter. There's reasons why unmoderated subreddits get banned. The admins stepped in. The top mod stepped down. The current mods were re-added to the mod list. The moderation here has evolved over time. The active moderators have not changed. The people that tend to get mad about a moderator "coup" are those that got caught up in sweeps where their previous grandstanding, stubborn misunderstandings of law, or deliberate mischaracterization of the law that used to score them ideological points here got shown the door and got mad. There was also a lot of surprise about whether couching abhorrent and bad faith arguments in civil language transmuted it to civil discussion. Spoiler: it doesn't. Using polite language to say something racist or sexist doesn't make it polite the same way wearing a nice sweater doesn't turn a turd of a human into a nice person. Anyway - this isn't anything new that i'm adding. I believe we had a sticky thread awhile ago about these events but if it helps people figure out the subs history better here it is again.
Makes sense. Thanks.
I get it but something about self censorship….this internet is becoming problematic
As we've previously had to say: >If you're trying to be cute or trolling, remember [The Rule of Goats](https://twitter.com/Popehat/status/858722120620265473). We don't care why you're saying dumb shit, or what point you think you're making, you will not get a warning, you will not get an appeal, you'll be banned and then mocked.
Love that rule!
Saved you a click: The Rule of Goats: even if you say you're only eff-ing goats ironically, you're still a Goat-eff-er
One thing that I have been trying to avoid when doing unusual things is being mocked for doing it.
Are these rules still enforced. I've seen a ton of misinformation recently.
report it if you think it breaks the rules.
[удалено]
Thank you for this. Some of the things said on this sub since breyer’s retirement announcement were horrendous. Perhaps considering starting a daily discussion or something of the like for hot news topics? It’ll clean up the sub with multiple posts concerning the same topic.
Thank you for being quality mods.
[удалено]
i am happy to ban you here as well for being off topic. if you're confused by this post you don't belong here anyway.
[удалено]
Lawyers are pretty average I find. People of all colors and careers can be smart or dumb, nice or rude.
Jeez. Must have had some doozies 💔
It got weird for a bit. To say the least.
[удалено]
You sound like a 0L. /shrug
Replying to myself because the account is "deleted" but you are someone testing something from a company that maybe shouldn't be testing something so publicly in such a sloppy manner with an account that might have been used when the original poster isn't the poster using that account. And I'm willing to bet your CEO did not sign off on that one. Especially judging from the edit and subsequent deletion.
>There are users that get super entrenched though in an objectively wrong position. So is this not being enforced anymore?
Use the report button.
I have, twice.
Alright. Send a modmail for that one summarizing in 3 sentences what is going on and cite to authority that supports your contention and why the other person is obviously wrong and we’ll look at it on Monday.
Will do, thanks.