Well sure, but the dictionary sense of “woke” is not at all how it’s been used in The Discourse for a while now, which is one reason why I hate the term

No

It did come up. Early and often during the “peak woke” (still hate that term) era, conservatives warned about social norms that encouraged surrounding yourself only with like-minded ppl instead of learning to live with one another, progs ignored, and then a subset of conservatives adopted the tactic

Doesn’t really feel like something that’s ever “complete” so much as it’s “maintained.” The whole idea of the safe haven is that Jews face threats constantly, from a variety of sources, and so ensuring their safety is an ongoing project.

One more time for the people in the back: Neither major political party has a monopoly on morality. Politicians are best viewed as presumptively horrible and degenerate until proved otherwise.

That heuristic eliminates the need to pat oneself on the back for expelling sex pests decades too late

I mean, I guess that’s *a* takeaway from all this

Another would be, Ds have no problem protecting their sex pests and allowing them to prey on staffers for years until they become an electoral problem

Yet another (most accurate) would be, neither party cares much about sex pests until they have to

One problem with this is, if you have to convince voters the house is on fire at this point, either you're wrong that the house is on fire or the voters don't care anyway

Danny freakin Jansen man

Objection: assumes facts not in evidence

Look at that, signs of life from Jung

providers have performed a different type of treatment that may hav harmed a different class of patients than the one at issue here.

On this question, Casey involved language a physician had to say in order for consent to be informed and the procedure to be performed if the patient still wants it. Today’s case involves a provider being *prevented* from furnishing a treatment the patient may want and benefit from bc other

Most people don’t want judges deciding what’s good vs. fake science

The few whose beliefs were obvious were FAR less effective professors, even when our beliefs aligned.

I don’t have any clue what this person is like in the classroom. All I’ll say is, my favorite thing about law school was it was genuinely difficult to determine what my professors’ political beliefs were because they understood and could deftly explain each side’s arguments.

The lesson here is that progressives should not try to encode their very much unsettled social preferences in law

There are other considerations and interests at play, of course.

KBJ will just say anything won’t she

There’s been some silky smooth finishes by the Devils, which they never should’ve gotten close enough to the net to pull off

First two on the defense. That last one is on Jake for being way too deep in the net.

But that’s probably due to New Jersey’s speed contributing to the first two goals.

I can see what you’re getting at but in my mind—and it’s entirely possible this is just my persnickety side in which case please forgive me—it’s hard to abandon someone you’re still funding

Right, “the thing she said” that no one can find evidence of her saying.

Appreciate the civility but I think we’re done here.

What’s clear?

Yes, that supports what I’m saying: if someone “explicitly says” something that means no implication is necessary to prove they said it

Yes you would (though it’s somewhat awkward syntax/usage).

If you said I’ve explicitly said I disagree with you then that would be incorrect.

This one’s on you to find support for because you seem to be confusing explicit with implicit, or “to explicitly say” with “to imply”

wut

If the claim is that she “explicitly said” something no one’s able to find a quote for then it’s definitionally invalid

Yeah I should’ve said attribute claims* but now who’s concerned about exact phrasing? :)