Ook the Librarian @ ook_the_librarian @lemmy.world

My namesake is a human librarian that was turned into an orangutan. All he

---

Read more

Posts

2

Comments

521

Joined

2 yr. ago

That sound is often termed hocking a loogie. Sorry I can't help with the more meaty part of your comment.

Yeah, I'm confused. I do use emoticons and I rarely use emojis. What half of that is relevant here?

There were no noted descents. This wasn't a ruling. We don't have 9 voices. It means that less than 4 justices wanted to take the case. It's rare any desents in this type of decision would be public.

Looks like they had $1.8M worth of proof to me.

Lol, that's the best part. I'm not even mad. I'm just writing words for readers. I know that my expectations wouldn't be met. Of course not. "Expecting" was the wrong word to use. It was more hope.

I just saw a transgression (hopefully a micro one), and thought, "hey, I got time and feel like writing." I just looped you in because I thought it might benefit both of our headspaces. Hope I was right.

Sorry for rambling

That's cool; I'll just ramble at you awhile. : ) I really want to say some things that I didn't say in the thread.

To anyone reading this, there was a comment more or less assigning negative things to "all mental illness and bigots". The author edited the comment after push back, but I didn't think that was really sufficient. In this essay.... (not memeing, gere we go)

What I wanted: I don't have a copy of what was said. It's gone and I should be happy. BUT, I'm not. I want some acknowledgement that it is understood why that wording was awful and some assurance that attention will paid in the future. I'm basically describing an apology. It's not, apologies have an acceptance stage that I'm willing to skip. I do not think it's reasonable to hope all those with a mental illness accept the apology.

I did not explicitly ask for what I wanted. Honestly saying my piece and getting silence was expected.

What I got:

Despite editing my comment to reflect fair points, I do believe mental illness absolutely needs to be discussed more.

Ok, but you did not discuss it. You made a sweeping statement. It was worthless at best. Not a discussion. Why even say this to me.

The post continues by adding extraneous groups to the discussion. So now we have bigots, trumpers, the mentally ill, people exposed to lead, drug addicts, people with genetic conditions.

Now, I have no idea what to expect. I made a fuss about making sweeping statements about general groups, and now we have more people to vilify. I genuinely cannot tell if they simply not reading what I said, or are they listing people to line up against a wall? Only the author knows. I strongly suspected it's the former. I still do, but less so.

But I did get confirmation, that no, they do not see my point. They do not realize how easily they are vilifying those with mental illness. Here's what was said:

the fact remains that there is a deeper issue of mental illness that resides within the Republican ranks.

Is it wrong for a group to have a high concentration of people with mental disorders? I don't think so. In fact, do you know what group has quite a high percentage? Therapy groups. Are they evil? What is that quote saying about Republicans that can't logically similarly apply to therapy groups?

My Goal:

The real issue here that I did not realize how subtly I was referring to a rhetorical trick that was at the root of my complaint. It's very similar to the motte-and-bailey fallacy. Say a hate preacher wants to convince their flock that gays are evil. (I'm going to switch to saying "homosexuals" because that's how you are likely to hear this in the wild.) So instead, he just decries horrible acts of molesters. But the preacher never simply says "child molesters"; they sub in the phrase "homosexuals and child molesters". That way, the audience will connect them. They won't realize it, but their brain will wire a connection anyway.

This is the language I was fighting. My goal was to get this person to see that they were (unwittingly?) committing this rhetorical trick. I heard complaints that should be made of bigots instead made of "mental illness and bigots". Don't lump innocent motte in with a horrible bailey.

It is pretty likely that the author didn't read my post. It seems they picked words to respond to instead of any ideas. Like I wasn't really talking about guns or gay rights, but those words are kicked off the typing. The gun tangent was understandable, but I said nothing about homosexuality per se, and they say

There is nothing explicitly wrong with being homoexual.

Which again, true and ick. I tried to stick an implied parenthetical "or implicitly either" in there to kinda fix the ick, but what does it mean for something to be implicitly wrong? But I knew better than to bring this up. Not the fight to have.

The Conclusion:

I simply wanted them to avow or disavow the paraphased comment: "It is nice that I can now identify all mental illness and bigots". I expected them to see vilification now. And I think they did. In fact, they added some more calling them "people who proudly broadcast their own ignorance and lack of appeal to reason and moral standards".

So I guess that is where they are comfortable leaving it. I really think there is something about the mental illness label that makes them afraid of people. It's sad.

But who knows. They claim they "wrote very, very clearly: Trump supporters" when I asked what group they were talking about. Obviously, they didn't mean people with mental illness, but again, they did bring up bigots, trumpers, the mentally ill, people exposed to lead, drug addicts, people with genetic conditions. So writing isn't their strong suit. You did not "write" that. It was not clear. It was not very clear. And it surely wasn't very, very clear. But keep writing "very" in there. I might be fooled that it was clear eventually. Maybe they genuinely don't see my point. But I doubt it. There is clear resentment of the mentally ill.

Hey, can you read my thread with lennybird? I was in a good mood too. I was hoping to get them to clearly say they understood they (inadvertently) vilified mental illness and that it was wrong. I failed. thread

Ok, there it is. I misjudged you. Sorry. It seems that you are in fact an asshole.

[you said that you are happy] that you can now easily identify “all mental illness and bigots”.

That you believe it’s a problem that I am able to identify and avoid people who proudly broadcast their own ignorance and lack of appeal to reason and moral standards is somehow a bad thing

I didn't think you would go there. I thought you saw what you were doing. I don't know now. I'm done.

with a group that is causing widespread damage to society

What group is that? All mental illness havers? You must take back your words before I take you seriously. I edited my previous comment while you were replying to it.

Frankly, I think you are the one who is making uncalled accusations and outlandish claims now.

I don't know what claim I am making besides you said that you are happy that you can now easily identify "all mental illness and bigots". If that claim is outlandish, please say so. Did you not say that? Is there an apology I missed?

Ok, I'm trying to give you benefit of the doubt here, but you're really digging in your heels here.

I do believe mental illness absolutely needs to be discussed more

Then you should* have done that. Your comment "well I'm glad we can see all the mental illness and bigots together" (paraphased since I can't access the original) is simply bigoted. It is not a discussion of mental illness or mental illness policy. It's worthless and hurtful. After posting such trash, trying to have a thoughtful conversation after being called out is disingenuous.

Edit: I missed a word, but while I'm here, I'll add:

That being said, I am going to come down hard on any Trump supporter. There is no excuse

^This is exactly why there is push back. Paired with the original comment, this sounds like "I'm going to come down hard on any Trump supporter, the bigots, all mental illness havers, there is no excuse." It sounds just like the hate preachers deliberately tacking "and homosexuals" to any phrase that includes pedophiles.

I'm hearing a lot of words from you, but besides the fact you changed your wording, you seem to show little remorse for your actions. I don't understand. I don't think you're a troll. So either defend the phrase "all mental illness and bigots" or apologize for it. I don't want to discuss mental health with you.

Right, and it seems lennybird has edited the comment. I still don't like it, but it's not as ick.

I'm happy you edited you comment. I think you can just leave mental illness out. Why bring it up without anyway to address it? When we talk about guns, mental health (with no policy action mentioned) gets brought up, and it's worthless. It's worse than worthless. It's a distraction.

I'm particularly glad you lost the phrase "all mental illness and bigots". It had a clear "homosexuals and pedophiles" ring to it when it falls on my ears. Thank you.

It's worded worse than "in an unfortunate way". The phrase used was "all the mental illness". If Lennybird wants to be less prejudice, they can rephrase it themself.

Trump has not been charged and convicted of the federal crime of insurrection.

This is true and the best argument Trump has going for him. (fwiw, my non-expert guess is that this is what SCOTUS will say.) But there is nothing in the Insurrection Act that states that there must be a criminal conviction. Furthermore, were any confederate soldiers convicted of insurrection? It seems that the framers of the Act had no intention of getting a criminal conviction to keep Jefferson Davis from running.

So we are in a world where a future criminal trial could determine a consequence now. Platonically, Trump is guilty (or not) now. In what world could you get a criminal conviction of a president in four years? Serious, it can't work like that. (doesn't mean scotus won't try.)

Edit: 's/Act/Clause/g' <- that should fix the brainfart.

Actually reading the opinion is a pretty high bar. It seems unnecessary as well. I'd rather know who can summarized various key arguments made by the sides.

It'd be cool if some polls started with a quiz on some relevant uncontroversial facts, asked questions, then reported results based broken up by competence on the quiz.

I don't care how many Democrats believe it's right; I want to know how informed people think.

Trump will not appear on the ballot in Colorado unless the Supreme Court takes the case and overturns it. As it stands, the Supreme Court has not taken the case, but it is incredibly likely they will take the case. It is also likely they will overturn it, but it is not unclear how since it's actually well-reasoned and grounded in the law as it is written. Won't stop them though.

(I'm parroting the Chris Hayes show from last night.)

Tails are pretty old too.

I think they mean the secretary of state may release a total of write-ins, but to my knowledge they make no effort to distinguish write-in names if there aren't enough to swing it.

So technically, they count write-ins. Just not in the winner's column.

Realize that when you are in a group of people, the (set-theoretic) intersection of knowledge only decreases as you add members. But you are likely to assign individual ignorances to the group as whole. "He doesn't know this; she doesn't know that" equates to "these people don't know anything".

The post never said that the side hustle was subpar. I did undergrad at a middling university and a mediocre sports, and I did grad school at a good school with a top tier basketball team.

To me, it seems the point of the post is that it is telling that there is a correlation. A well-funded university has a well-funded sports team. It sometimes feels the other way around with a well-funded sports team providing a well-funded school. Advocates of college sports actually tout that as feature.

It is so deeply rooted in our culture that I don't even wear my alma mater hoodie because I don't follow basketball. Sports is the only reason why anyone would that apparel, I guess.