I was reading the intro to New York magazine which was the article in question down below. I was a little surprised as well about the support of racism which lead me to the Atlantic piece below.
http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2013/11/richie-incognitos-accidental-racism-an-apologia/281320/
QuoteFormer NFL player Nathan Jackson makes a full-throated defense of Richie Incognito over at New York. It's worth focusing on Jackson's notion that Richie Incognito was well within his rights to call a black man a half-nigger:
QuoteThrough the TV screen, Richie Incognito looks like the big jerk. But we don't understand the context, intent, or perception of the joking that goes on in that locker room, or whether it was perceived as joking in the first place. The voice-mail in question sure sounds like a joke, albeit a bad one: It allegedly involves Incognito using the N-word and offering to poop in the dude's mouth.
Of course, no one but ESPN's Adam Schefter takes the mouth-defecation threats seriously. I mean, imagine the logistics there. But that Incognito called Martin a half-N-word is worth discussing. Out in society, the word nigger still excites and appalls, and a white man who is unlucky enough to utter it, even in jest, is forever labeled a racist. But inside an NFL locker room, the meaning of the word has washed out. There are white men who are so close to their black brothers that their lexicon is identical, and they communicate with the same phrases, jokes, and nicknames.
Some in the media were quick to label Incognito a racist, but some of his black teammates defended him. Every NFL locker room is full of proud black men who have a keen eye for the intentions of their white peers. If Richie Incognito said the N-word in a malicious way, those teammates would have taken care of the problem.
The thinking here is unfortunate. If I am found on camera inveighing against "hook-nosed Jews," to call myself "unlucky" would be deflection and self-serving understatement. The word "unlucky" presumes that virtually all adult white men can be found, at some point, in full-on Michael Richards-mode and those of us who would shame them for it are the real culprits.
This is accidental racism, which is to say white innocence, at its finest. Richie Incognito did not choose to employ the most incendiary slur in the American lexicon, so much as he was caught by some peeping Tom (who happened to be the victim.) Riley Cooper didn't physically threaten a black security guard with a phrase that has accompanied some of the worst acts of terrorism in our country's history; some rude voyeur videoed Cooper relieving himself in public.
It's that same white innocence that allows for Jackson's claim of brotherhood and his invocation of "proud black men." We have heard a lot about the peculiar context of the locker-room. I think we should remember the peculiar context in which the locker-room exists. The locker-room is a workplace controlled--almost entirely--by white people. In this sense we are all in locker-rooms, workplaces with different rules, but with white control remaining constant. I see no reason why the NFL should be immune to the basic laws of American gravity. On the contrary, players, like all workers, have interests--among them, securing food for their families and loved ones. Players, not unlike workers, do this by subverting individual interests in favor of the interests of their employers.
I highly doubt that the invocation of "nigger" has "washed out" of NFL locker-rooms. More likely, it is that players simply can't afford to be bothered fighting over it. This is not so different than any other work-place. White people relying on black people to be their conscience will very often be disappointed. We come to work to put dinner on the table. Charging me with taking my work-time to list the reasons why calling me a "half-nigger" might not be a very good idea is the magic that transforms your ignorance into my burden.
The limits of using work-place friendships to analyze something that happened outside of the workplace, are evident in Jackson's notion that "nigger" is the ultimate statement of fraternity. White people who actually spend time around black people--not black individuals whom they know from work, but black people with their families, in their communities, with their parents--will quickly notice that using "nigger" actually isn't a barometer of closeness. I'm black and I don't call even some of my best friends nigger. They, unlike me, are offended by it. Black humans, like most humans, are different from each other. But to grasp this, you must have to have relationships with black humans that go beyond your job.
That is why black players defending Incognito is irrelevant. Those players are free to invite Richie Incognito to call their voicemails and threaten their lives, and threaten their mothers, and threaten to shit in their mouths, and call them half-niggers, and when it all becomes public hold a press conference in which they laud Incognito as the second coming of Lincoln.
But Martin doesn't have to live by their standards. Arguing that he should because, like, these other black dudes I work with it said it was fine, is myopia.
Martin absolutely has to live by those standards. He's the one who wanted to join them. Now, he'll never play in the NFL again.
I like the Atlantic but I intentionally avoid anything Ta-Nehisi Coates and Conor Friedersdorf write. They are both one trick idiots.
Neil is right in his hyperbole for once, to work in the NFL you basically need to be a mouth-breathing gorilla, which is exactly what Richie Incognito was. Martin's problem is he was too well brought up and educated to do that, and he didn't fit in.
QuoteThe locker-room is a workplace controlled--almost entirely--by white people.
O RLY?
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 17, 2013, 12:54:25 PM
I like the Atlantic but I intentionally avoid anything Ta-Nehisi Coates and Conor Friedersdorf write. They are both one trick idiots.
Yeah, I do think he does reveal himself to be a ridiculous commentator.
Quote from: Berkut on November 17, 2013, 01:22:14 PM
QuoteThe locker-room is a workplace controlled--almost entirely--by white people.
O RLY?
I found that an interesting comment as well.
Terrible article. The writer *could* have asked some pro athletes questions about race in the locker room, or spent some time in one observing, but instead he announces everyone must be like the upper middle class professional writer blacks he hangs out with.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 17, 2013, 02:23:51 PM
Terrible article. The writer *could* have asked some pro athletes questions about race in the locker room, or spent some time in one observing, but instead he announces everyone must be like the upper middle class professional writer blacks he hangs out with.
I've never seen Coates do any hard journalism. He's purely an opinion writer that I suspect the Atlantic keeps on solely for diversity reasons. It's edgy to have the son of a Black Panther with a militant (but firmly upper middle class tinted) black power streak all of his own.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 17, 2013, 03:07:22 PM
I've never seen Coates do any hard journalism. He's purely an opinion writer that I suspect the Atlantic keeps on solely for diversity reasons. It's edgy to have the son of a Black Panther with a militant (but firmly upper middle class tinted) black power streak all of his own.
I've got no problem with opinion pieces. For example that post-feminist writer about women's issues has some great opinion pieces in The Atlantic. The problem here is with the quality of thinking.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 17, 2013, 01:50:46 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 17, 2013, 01:22:14 PM
QuoteThe locker-room is a workplace controlled--almost entirely--by white people.
O RLY?
I found that an interesting comment as well.
And it's absolute bullshit, believe me. Not one non-gangsta song is allowed. I keep wanting to sneak to the iPad on the wall and put on some Steely Dan or Nirvana. If I could get away with it & still see the reaction, I would.
Quote from: derspiess on November 18, 2013, 11:26:54 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 17, 2013, 01:50:46 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 17, 2013, 01:22:14 PM
QuoteThe locker-room is a workplace controlled--almost entirely--by white people.
O RLY?
I found that an interesting comment as well.
And it's absolute bullshit, believe me.
Why, of all people, would we believe you?
Quote from: garbon on November 18, 2013, 11:28:16 PM
Why, of all people, would we believe you?
Because I've been in an NFL locker room many times.
Quote from: derspiess on November 18, 2013, 11:30:46 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 18, 2013, 11:28:16 PM
Why, of all people, would we believe you?
Because I've been in an NFL locker room many times.
And that makes you worthy of trust?
Quote from: derspeissBecause I've been in an NFL locker room many times.
Do you like movies about gladiators?
Quote from: Ideologue on November 18, 2013, 11:36:51 PM
Quote from: derspeissBecause I've been in an NFL locker room many times.
Do you like movies about gladiators?
:lol: You learn pretty quickly where not to look.
Quote from: garbon on November 17, 2013, 10:59:35 AM
QuoteThis is accidental racism, which is to say white innocence, at its finest.
Really? At its finest? Man I would hate to see it at its worst.
This is what I'm talking about with Ta-Nehisi Coates by the way, he literally only posts about angry black issues and does so using poor reasoning and demagoguery:
QuoteWhy Black Folks Tend To Shout
George Zimmerman Is Who We Thought He Was
TA-NEHISI COATESNOV 19 2013, 9:39 AM ET
Very few black people were shocked by the lamentable return of George Zimmerman to the headlines:
Mr. Zimmerman, 30, was charged with domestic aggravated assault, domestic battery and criminal mischief after he and his girlfriend, Samantha Scheibe, had an argument at their home in Apopka, northwest of Orlando, said Chief Deputy Sheriff Dennis Lemma of Seminole County. Ms. Scheibe told investigators that she had asked Mr. Zimmerman to leave the residence, and that he had begun packing his belongings, including two firearms, before growing agitated and turning violent.
Deputy Lemma said that Mr. Zimmerman had "broken a table and, at one point, pointed a long-barreled shotgun" at Ms. Scheibe, who said he had aimed at her for about a minute. Later in the altercation, the authorities said, Mr. Zimmerman forced Ms. Scheibe, who was uninjured, out of the home before obstructing a doorway with furniture.
"He just pushed me out of my house and locked me out," Ms. Scheibe told a 911 dispatcher.
Zimmerman has a somewhat different version of events:
In his own 911 call before the deputies entered the home, Mr. Zimmerman said that Ms. Scheibe was pregnant with his child and that he wanted "everyone to know the truth" about Monday's episode.
"I never pulled a firearm. I never displayed it," he said. "When I was packing it, I'm sure she saw it. I mean, we keep it next to the bed."
He also said Ms. Scheibe was responsible for the broken table when she started "smashing stuff, taking stuff that belonged to me, throwing it outside, throwing it out of her room, throwing it all over the house."
It may well be true that, against all his strivings, trouble stalks George Zimmerman. It may be true that George Zimmerman never pointed a shotgun at his girlfriend's face. That Ms. Scheibe smashed a table, took his stuff, started throwing it and then called 911 on herself. That she was simply being poetic when she said "you pointed your gun in my freaking face and told me get the fuck out" and then added "he knows how to do this. He knows how to play this game."
And it may be true that in September when Zimmerman's ex-wife, Shelly Zimmerman, claimed that he had punched her father and threatened them with a gun she was embellishing. That when she called 911 and said "I'm really afraid. I don't know what he's capable of. I'm really scared," she was suffering some form of hallucination. That Zimmerman had not smashed his wife's iPad. That it was his wife that assaulted him with it. That Shelly's father had challenged Zimmerman to a fight.
And it may well be true that Trayvon Martin was empowered by a heretofore unknown strain of marijuana which confers super strength. That in a fit of Negroid rage, a boy with no criminal history, decide to ambush a hapless neighborhood watchmen. That the boy told Zimmerman "You gonna die tonight, motherfucker" punched him, banged his head against the concrete repeatedly and then reached for his gun. That in killing the boy, Zimmerman rid the world of a gun-runner and drug dealer.
And it may well be that George Zimmerman is yet another victim of the nefarious forces of black privilege. That he is helpless against the hordes of hyper-violent blacks, crazed women and the machinations of Eric Holder. That George Zimmerman continuing to live armed is evidence of sane public policy and a polite society.
Only God knows what George Zimmerman did on that rainy night in Sanford. God is not in the habit of talking--because we are not in the habit of listening.
The real problem with George Zimmerman is the people writing about George Zimmerman.
lulz, "Negroid rage".
Pretty decent opinion piece right there. He is pretty much spot on in regards to Zimmerman and the idea that "George Zimmerman continuing to live armed is evidence of sane public policy and a polite society. "
I think he is making an excellent point. The idea that we are all safer because there are a couple million armed George Zimmermans out there is ridiculous enough to warrant some demagoguery.
QuoteVery few black people were shocked by the lamentable return of George Zimmerman to the headlines:
Was anybody who was familiar with this guy's rap sheet?
Quote from: Berkut on November 19, 2013, 12:33:54 PM
The idea that we are all safer because there are a couple million armed George Zimmermans out there is ridiculous enough to warrant some demagoguery.
Well, yeah. You just can't be black when you do it, though.
Quote from: Berkut on November 19, 2013, 12:33:54 PM
Pretty decent opinion piece right there. He is pretty much spot on in regards to Zimmerman and the idea that "George Zimmerman continuing to live armed is evidence of sane public policy and a polite society. "
That isn't really a good point. You can either say people shouldn't be allowed to freely own guns or they should. But if you think people should be allowed to own guns, there isn't really much you could use to deny them to Zimmerman that would make sense. He has no criminal convictions on his record, zero. The worst thing he has on his record is a misdemeanor he was arrested for and that was dismissed because he entered a pre-trial diversion program. If you oppose private gun ownership, then Zimmerman is irrelevant to that. Coates by associating Zimmerman with public policy is saying there is something about Zimmerman specifically that makes letting him have guns a bad idea. But that makes no sense, if you don't believe people should have guns then things specific about Zimmerman are irrelevant. If you believe only Zimmerman himself should be denied guns you'd need to explain why. I doubt any argument would hold water, because it's hard to argue for taking away a right you believe people should have in general from people who are
accused but never convicted of crimes.
QuoteI think he is making an excellent point. The idea that we are all safer because there are a couple million armed George Zimmermans out there is ridiculous enough to warrant some demagoguery.
I don't think the idea that people believe we are safer because of George Zimmerman is actually a mainstream enough idea to warrant writing about it in such a way. As always, the left loves to make it seem like the craziest aspects of the right are mainstream. It's akin to me arguing Kucinich or PETA are good representatives of what the left is about.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 19, 2013, 01:04:38 PM
I don't think the idea that people believe we are safer because of George Zimmerman is actually a mainstream enough idea to warrant writing about it in such a way. As always, the left loves to make it seem like the craziest aspects of the right are mainstream. It's akin to me arguing Kucinich or PETA are good representatives of what the left is about.
States whose laws permit individuals with rap sheets like Zimmerman--restraining orders stemming from domestic violence, arrests for assaulting a police officer, and undergoing court-ordered treatment for alcohol--to legally possess and carry concealed weapons is pretty mainstream enough to write about exactly how fucking crazy it is.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 19, 2013, 01:10:04 PMStates whose laws permit individuals with rap sheets like Zimmerman--restraining orders stemming from domestic violence, arrests for assaulting a police officer, and undergoing court-ordered treatment for alcohol--to legally possess and carry concealed weapons is pretty mainstream enough to write about exactly how fucking crazy it is.
In his case, a judge actually granted both him and his ex the restraining order, so it was mutually granted. In many States when you have a DV restraining order out you have to forfeit your firearms, but it's never a permanent thing to my knowledge.
I'm not aware of any State in the country where, as of the night he shot Martin, Zimmerman would have been prohibited from owning or keeping firearms based on his non-conviction based arrest in which he got into a scuffle with an ABC officer and his four year old DV restraining order which was expired at the time.
Not all States allow carry permissively like Florida does, but there aren't any States where Zimmerman would be prohibited from simply owning and keeping firearms.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 19, 2013, 01:04:38 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 19, 2013, 12:33:54 PM
Pretty decent opinion piece right there. He is pretty much spot on in regards to Zimmerman and the idea that "George Zimmerman continuing to live armed is evidence of sane public policy and a polite society. "
That isn't really a good point. You can either say people shouldn't be allowed to freely own guns or they should.
I think the point is more about culture than it is about the law.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 19, 2013, 01:12:30 PM
I'm not aware of any State in the country where, as of the night he shot Martin, Zimmerman would have been prohibited from owning or keeping firearms based on his non-conviction based arrest in which he got into a scuffle with an ABC officer and his four year old DV restraining order which was expired at the time.
Not all States allow carry permissively like Florida does, but there aren't any States where Zimmerman would be prohibited from simply owning and keeping firearms.
Funny how I didn't write "simply owning and keeping firearms". I wrote "possess and carry concealed weapons". George Zimmerman had--and still has--no business carrying a firearm outside the home.
C'mon, Otto. While I can appreciate the effort to twist concealed carry issues into the usual 2nd Amendment argument, you're smarter than using the usual mouthbreather NRA reverb techniques. Don't be 11Bravo. Don't be that guy.
Poor Seedy :(
Pfft, I'm not a young black male in Florida. I'm safe as shit.
I just skimmed your post and didn't notice you had made such a distinction. But to be honest, in shall-issue concealed carry States I'm not aware of any that would prevent Zimmerman from getting a license. In may issue States it's obviously a crapshoot, those States are hinky on who they give permits to in the first place.
Maryland State Police would've shot him down in a heartbeat, based on the totality of his background. The court-ordered alcohol counseling for cop-fighting would've been the final nail, even more so than the restraining order.
Was he in an actual altercation with a "sworn" officer? My understanding in VA is the ABC goons are sort of closer to code enforcement guys than real police, I think they carry pepper spray to handle unpleasantness but sort of like code enforcement or meter-ticketers their job is mostly to look for violation of specific code and then write up reports...and call the real police if they observe criminal activity.
And isn't Maryland "may issue?"
Again, the article isn't about the law per se, but rather the culture that informs the law.
There might not be any state where Zimmerman would not be technically banned from owning a gun.
But there are plenty of cultures where the odds of someone like Zimmerman doing things like Zimmerman does is vastly lower than in the US. You can tell because those cultures have some small fraction of the yearly gun deaths that the US has...
The article is talking about the cultural meme in the US that states that free and easy access to lots of personal firepower is somehow making us all safer. And it is a completely ridiculous idea, because it means that we end up with a society where people actually says things like "Gee, I cannot imagine any state law that could prevent this fucking nutjob from strolling around carrying a concealed weapon looking for someone to shoot! So oh well, thems the breaks!"
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 19, 2013, 02:54:21 PM
Was he in an actual altercation with a "sworn" officer? My understanding in VA is the ABC goons are sort of closer to code enforcement guys than real police, I think they carry pepper spray to handle unpleasantness but sort of like code enforcement or meter-ticketers their job is mostly to look for violation of specific code and then write up reports...and call the real police if they observe criminal activity.
I'm not sure where you're going with this Otto.
So it's "no big deal" to be in an altercation with uniformed peace officers who aren't "real police"? And that people who get into altercations with meter-maids are A-OK to have a concealed carry permit?
Quote from: Berkut on November 19, 2013, 02:55:04 PM
The article is talking about the cultural meme in the US that states that free and easy access to lots of personal firepower is somehow making us all safer.
It is pure gun lobby propaganda. We do not have the right to bear arms so we can be safer, that is ridiculous. But it was dreamed up because freedom and the Bill of Rights do not really stand on their own these days (presuming they ever did) you have to create some sort of positive policy outcome for them. This can take us down some pretty bizarre paths like this.
Quote from: Barrister on November 19, 2013, 03:12:02 PM
So it's "no big deal" to be in an altercation with uniformed peace officers who aren't "real police"? And that people who get into altercations with meter-maids are A-OK to have a concealed carry permit?
:rolleyes: Seriously? I mean, who hasn't slugged a meter maid at least once.
Quote from: Barrister on November 19, 2013, 03:12:02 PM
I'm not sure where you're going with this Otto.
So it's "no big deal" to be in an altercation with uniformed peace officers who aren't "real police"? And that people who get into altercations with meter-maids are A-OK to have a concealed carry permit?
What neutral questions you're asking me, counselor.
I should first say, I'm on the record as being pro-gun control, as long as we never get to the point where police or some other degenerate group gets to "exercise judgment" about who should and shouldn't be allowed to own guns and who should and shouldn't be allowed to carry guns. I'm all for strict gun control, but where you qualify for the privilege to own and carry guns, I believe in an expansive privilege. But we're not talking about my positions on gun control. We're instead talking about whether Coates is making any sense by saying Zimmerman shouldn't be allowed to carry guns. Then Seedy comes in with the point about how, under current laws, the altercation with the police officer would be a reasonable reason to deny him a CCL.
That's when I speculated that I don't believe ABC officers are real police officers. So, why would that be different? Because under the current regime of laws getting into an altercation with a police officer is almost always more harshly punished, and considered a more serious crime, than getting into an altercation with anyone else. Should someone who gets into an altercation with a Macy's store clerk be banned from carrying a gun for life, if you otherwise believe people should have the right to carry? Because that's more how I see an ABC officer or a code enforcement officer. There is a reason they do not broadly have arrest powers, there is a reason they do not carry guns. I actually think it is reasonable, and the distinction is important. If someone is willing to get into a fight with a real cop, then that shows greater instability and troublesome mental state than getting into an altercation with a non-cop. Because everyone knows you don't fight a cop without serious consequences, and everyone also knows cop's walk around armed and are known to bust your head open if you get into it with them. So someone willing to, in spite of all that, fight a cop is a lot more concerning from the perspective of "should this guy have a CCL" than someone who gets into it with a minor functionary of the ABC.
Further, we're also assuming Zimmerman was in the wrong in his scenario. We don't know the particulars, maybe Zimmerman was let off easy (no conviction, pre-trial diversion) because there was weak evidence he even assaulted anyone, or perhaps the officer behaved improperly.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 19, 2013, 04:45:32 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 19, 2013, 03:12:02 PM
I'm not sure where you're going with this Otto.
So it's "no big deal" to be in an altercation with uniformed peace officers who aren't "real police"? And that people who get into altercations with meter-maids are A-OK to have a concealed carry permit?
What neutral questions you're asking me, counselor.
I should first say, I'm on the record as being pro-gun control, as long as we never get to the point where police or some other degenerate group gets to "exercise judgment" about who should and shouldn't be allowed to own guns and who should and shouldn't be allowed to carry guns. I'm all for strict gun control, but where you qualify for the privilege to own and carry guns, I believe in an expansive privilege. But we're not talking about my positions on gun control. We're instead talking about whether Coates is making any sense by saying Zimmerman shouldn't be allowed to carry guns. Then Seedy comes in with the point about how, under current laws, the altercation with the police officer would be a reasonable reason to deny him a CCL.
That's when I speculated that I don't believe ABC officers are real police officers. So, why would that be different? Because under the current regime of laws getting into an altercation with a police officer is almost always more harshly punished, and considered a more serious crime, than getting into an altercation with anyone else. Should someone who gets into an altercation with a Macy's store clerk be banned from carrying a gun for life, if you otherwise believe people should have the right to carry? Because that's more how I see an ABC officer or a code enforcement officer. There is a reason they do not broadly have arrest powers, there is a reason they do not carry guns. I actually think it is reasonable, and the distinction is important. If someone is willing to get into a fight with a real cop, then that shows greater instability and troublesome mental state than getting into an altercation with a non-cop. Because everyone knows you don't fight a cop without serious consequences, and everyone also knows cop's walk around armed and are known to bust your head open if you get into it with them. So someone willing to, in spite of all that, fight a cop is a lot more concerning from the perspective of "should this guy have a CCL" than someone who gets into it with a minor functionary of the ABC.
Further, we're also assuming Zimmerman was in the wrong in his scenario. We don't know the particulars, maybe Zimmerman was let off easy (no conviction, pre-trial diversion) because there was weak evidence he even assaulted anyone, or perhaps the officer behaved improperly.
You're not my witness - I'm allowed to cross-examine liberally. :contract:
Your argument about non-police uniformed officers is perverse. It's 'not as bad' to get into a fight with them because they're not armed? If anything the reasoning should be the reverse - the law should be harsher on anyone who assaults a peace officer who isn't armed with deadly force. After all, the police officer can defend themselves, while the others can't (as well).
If there was diversion or no conviction, then why would we even be talking about an assault PO conviction?
I'm trying to see why it is reasonable for a person to be fighting anyone. :unsure:
/I think the demonstration of poor impulse control should be a great reason to revisit whether a person should be allowed to carry.
Quote from: Barrister on November 19, 2013, 05:15:41 PM
Your argument about non-police uniformed officers is perverse. It's 'not as bad' to get into a fight with them because they're not armed? If anything the reasoning should be the reverse - the law should be harsher on anyone who assaults a peace officer who isn't armed with deadly force. After all, the police officer can defend themselves, while the others can't (as well).
Yet it's entirely common for the law to assign harsher penalties for assaults on police officers than for assaults on private citizens. By the your logic, it should be the opposite.
Quote from: dps on November 19, 2013, 07:03:55 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 19, 2013, 05:15:41 PM
Your argument about non-police uniformed officers is perverse. It's 'not as bad' to get into a fight with them because they're not armed? If anything the reasoning should be the reverse - the law should be harsher on anyone who assaults a peace officer who isn't armed with deadly force. After all, the police officer can defend themselves, while the others can't (as well).
Yet it's entirely common for the law to assign harsher penalties for assaults on police officers than for assaults on private citizens. By the your logic, it should be the opposite.
There's a reason Ice-T and Body Count didn't have as much success with "Actuary Killer."
Quote from: Barrister on November 19, 2013, 05:15:41 PM
You're not my witness - I'm allowed to cross-examine liberally. :contract:
Can you please explain a) the logic behind this rule and b) what it means in concrete terms if one is granted permission to "treat the witness as hostile?"
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 17, 2013, 12:54:25 PM
I like the Atlantic but I intentionally avoid anything Ta-Nehisi Coates and Conor Friedersdorf write. They are both one trick idiots.
I love Ta-Nehisi Coates.
I like Conor. I used to read him, but I think he's gone off the tracks a bit. He seems very angry. All the time. Often at the wrong things.
Edit: On Coates, his series of articles and blogs about starting to read about the ACW, then developing a serious interest, then almost an obsession are brilliant. They inspired me to read a couple of books on the ACW and are generally very interesting and engaging and well-written.
I think probably you all would like something of them.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 19, 2013, 07:26:24 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 19, 2013, 05:15:41 PM
You're not my witness - I'm allowed to cross-examine liberally. :contract:
Can you please explain a) the logic behind this rule and b) what it means in concrete terms if one is granted permission to "treat the witness as hostile?"
b) Ask leading questions to/impeach the credibility of.
EDIT: Though at least in Vermont law, during a criminal trial either side can impeach the credibility of its own witness. (Anecdotally, this is often the State's privilege, when a prosecution witness starts to "forget" things or corrects his/her prior testimony at trial...)
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 19, 2013, 07:53:45 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 17, 2013, 12:54:25 PM
I like the Atlantic but I intentionally avoid anything Ta-Nehisi Coates and Conor Friedersdorf write. They are both one trick idiots.
I love Ta-Nehisi Coates.
I like Conor. I used to read him, but I think he's gone off the tracks a bit. He seems very angry. All the time. Often at the wrong things.
Edit: On Coates, his series of articles and blogs about starting to read about the ACW, then developing a serious interest, then almost an obsession are brilliant. They inspired me to read a couple of books on the ACW and are generally very interesting and engaging and well-written.
I think probably you all would like something of them.
The fact that you like them both confirms I was smart to stay away from them. They both are overly-emotional writers that think far too highly of themselves and pontificate endlessly.
:lol:
OvB's probably the only poster who can make me laugh when insulting a poster I really like.
Quote from: Queequeg on November 19, 2013, 08:12:08 PM
:lol:
OvB's probably the only poster who can make me laugh when insulting a poster I really like.
I know. I'm tempted to write five paragraphs about why emotion matters. I'll resist :sleep: