Stanford dean of DEI attacks invited speaker, Judge Kyle Duncan

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How will these so called geniuses deal with opposing counsel in the future? By screaming and calling them racist? What a joke.

If you want a serious answer, part of their intent is to erode the principle that "everyone deserves zealous advocacy". Some things should just be verboten, if not by the strict letter of the law, then at least socially. Essentially, they are trying to limit the universe of what is socially and professionally acceptable and worthwhile to legally defend/represent. They will do this by shaming, intimidation, slander, threats and generally making it more efforts than it is worth to represent such issues, cases and POVs.

So what they are trying to do is limit the universe of "opposing counsel" with which they will have to engage.

Well said and spot-on.
DP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How will these so called geniuses deal with opposing counsel in the future? By screaming and calling them racist? What a joke.

If you want a serious answer, part of their intent is to erode the principle that "everyone deserves zealous advocacy". Some things should just be verboten, if not by the strict letter of the law, then at least socially. Essentially, they are trying to limit the universe of what is socially and professionally acceptable and worthwhile to legally defend/represent. They will do this by shaming, intimidation, slander, threats and generally making it more efforts than it is worth to represent such issues, cases and POVs.

So what they are trying to do is limit the universe of "opposing counsel" with which they will have to engage.

Well said, and true.

Unfortunately for them, federal judges are typically made of sterner stuff. And they aren’t likely to convert most of the legal world to the pro-pedophile position.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How will these so called geniuses deal with opposing counsel in the future? By screaming and calling them racist? What a joke.

If you want a serious answer, part of their intent is to erode the principle that "everyone deserves zealous advocacy". Some things should just be verboten, if not by the strict letter of the law, then at least socially. Essentially, they are trying to limit the universe of what is socially and professionally acceptable and worthwhile to legally defend/represent. They will do this by shaming, intimidation, slander, threats and generally making it more efforts than it is worth to represent such issues, cases and POVs.

So what they are trying to do is limit the universe of "opposing counsel" with which they will have to engage.

I’m trying to wrap my head around the fact that the “indefensible” person here is the person who misgendered someone, not the pedophile who was misgendered.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How will these so called geniuses deal with opposing counsel in the future? By screaming and calling them racist? What a joke.

If you want a serious answer, part of their intent is to erode the principle that "everyone deserves zealous advocacy". Some things should just be verboten, if not by the strict letter of the law, then at least socially. Essentially, they are trying to limit the universe of what is socially and professionally acceptable and worthwhile to legally defend/represent. They will do this by shaming, intimidation, slander, threats and generally making it more efforts than it is worth to represent such issues, cases and POVs.

So what they are trying to do is limit the universe of "opposing counsel" with which they will have to engage.

I’m trying to wrap my head around the fact that the “indefensible” person here is the person who misgendered someone, not the pedophile who was misgendered.

You just have to remember that such thinking centers around the broad identity markers being defended rather than the nuance or particulars of the individual case. In this case "trans", broadly, wins out, regardless of the particulars. If you give the identity primacy, all manner of things become permissible and defensible because any individual foibles or shortcomings pale in comparison to the systematic and enduring oppression that has been enacted against such same identities, again broadly speaking.

The lack of nuance is a feature, not a bug, in order to implement the program of social intimidation, ostracism and alienation that these students intend. If you countenance nuance, then it becomes a debate, which clearly these students do not want. "Bigot" "transphobe" "racist" "woman hater" etc. are all terms with ever increasing ambit and applicability. They are, however, in the eyes of the likes of the students, effective social cudgels to enact a world in which ideas they abhor are no longer tenable or publicly defensible. This is, ironically, a politics of stigma at work. Something that you also see in very conservative, repressive societies as well, with a little threat of state violence thrown in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How will these so called geniuses deal with opposing counsel in the future? By screaming and calling them racist? What a joke.

If you want a serious answer, part of their intent is to erode the principle that "everyone deserves zealous advocacy". Some things should just be verboten, if not by the strict letter of the law, then at least socially. Essentially, they are trying to limit the universe of what is socially and professionally acceptable and worthwhile to legally defend/represent. They will do this by shaming, intimidation, slander, threats and generally making it more efforts than it is worth to represent such issues, cases and POVs.

So what they are trying to do is limit the universe of "opposing counsel" with which they will have to engage.

I’m trying to wrap my head around the fact that the “indefensible” person here is the person who misgendered someone, not the pedophile who was misgendered.

You just have to remember that such thinking centers around the broad identity markers being defended rather than the nuance or particulars of the individual case. In this case "trans", broadly, wins out, regardless of the particulars. If you give the identity primacy, all manner of things become permissible and defensible because any individual foibles or shortcomings pale in comparison to the systematic and enduring oppression that has been enacted against such same identities, again broadly speaking.

The lack of nuance is a feature, not a bug, in order to implement the program of social intimidation, ostracism and alienation that these students intend. If you countenance nuance, then it becomes a debate, which clearly these students do not want. "Bigot" "transphobe" "racist" "woman hater" etc. are all terms with ever increasing ambit and applicability. They are, however, in the eyes of the likes of the students, effective social cudgels to enact a world in which ideas they abhor are no longer tenable or publicly defensible. This is, ironically, a politics of stigma at work. Something that you also see in very conservative, repressive societies as well, with a little threat of state violence thrown in.

Well said. And, spot on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How will these so called geniuses deal with opposing counsel in the future? By screaming and calling them racist? What a joke.

If you want a serious answer, part of their intent is to erode the principle that "everyone deserves zealous advocacy". Some things should just be verboten, if not by the strict letter of the law, then at least socially. Essentially, they are trying to limit the universe of what is socially and professionally acceptable and worthwhile to legally defend/represent. They will do this by shaming, intimidation, slander, threats and generally making it more efforts than it is worth to represent such issues, cases and POVs.

So what they are trying to do is limit the universe of "opposing counsel" with which they will have to engage.

I’m trying to wrap my head around the fact that the “indefensible” person here is the person who misgendered someone, not the pedophile who was misgendered.

You just have to remember that such thinking centers around the broad identity markers being defended rather than the nuance or particulars of the individual case. In this case "trans", broadly, wins out, regardless of the particulars. If you give the identity primacy, all manner of things become permissible and defensible because any individual foibles or shortcomings pale in comparison to the systematic and enduring oppression that has been enacted against such same identities, again broadly speaking.

The lack of nuance is a feature, not a bug, in order to implement the program of social intimidation, ostracism and alienation that these students intend. If you countenance nuance, then it becomes a debate, which clearly these students do not want. "Bigot" "transphobe" "racist" "woman hater" etc. are all terms with ever increasing ambit and applicability. They are, however, in the eyes of the likes of the students, effective social cudgels to enact a world in which ideas they abhor are no longer tenable or publicly defensible. This is, ironically, a politics of stigma at work. Something that you also see in very conservative, repressive societies as well, with a little threat of state violence thrown in.

Wow. This is the sort of content I read DCUM for. I’ve been really puzzled by some of the behavior I see from activists, such as the Stanford Law students. There should be no world where anyone considers misgendering to be a worse crime than pedophilia, yet that is the plain position of some the presumably best and brightest law students out there. I genuinely don’t get it, or I hadn’t until I read this.

Thank you PP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How will these so called geniuses deal with opposing counsel in the future? By screaming and calling them racist? What a joke.

The ABA is adopting their issues as requirements for being a lawyer. They can threaten attorneys with disbarment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How will these so called geniuses deal with opposing counsel in the future? By screaming and calling them racist? What a joke.

The ABA is adopting their issues as requirements for being a lawyer. They can threaten attorneys with disbarment.

So the ABA won’t disbar people who defend pedophiles but will disbar people who misgender those pedophiles?

The world has gone crazy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How will these so called geniuses deal with opposing counsel in the future? By screaming and calling them racist? What a joke.

The ABA is adopting their issues as requirements for being a lawyer. They can threaten attorneys with disbarment.

So the ABA won’t disbar people who defend pedophiles but will disbar people who misgender those pedophiles?

The world has gone crazy.

THIS.

[Anonymous]

The activists now want anonymity.

I am betting they are just a tad bit concerned that their names and likenesses might come up in a future google search.
Too bad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The activists now want anonymity.

I am betting they are just a tad bit concerned that their names and likenesses might come up in a future google search.
Too bad.

Super cringe. The whole thing. All of it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The activists now want anonymity.

I am betting they are just a tad bit concerned that their names and likenesses might come up in a future google search.
Too bad.

This is the “find out” state, I guess.

[Anonymous]

^^^ stage

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How will these so called geniuses deal with opposing counsel in the future? By screaming and calling them racist? What a joke.

If you want a serious answer, part of their intent is to erode the principle that "everyone deserves zealous advocacy". Some things should just be verboten, if not by the strict letter of the law, then at least socially. Essentially, they are trying to limit the universe of what is socially and professionally acceptable and worthwhile to legally defend/represent. They will do this by shaming, intimidation, slander, threats and generally making it more efforts than it is worth to represent such issues, cases and POVs.

So what they are trying to do is limit the universe of "opposing counsel" with which they will have to engage.

I’m trying to wrap my head around the fact that the “indefensible” person here is the person who misgendered someone, not the pedophile who was misgendered.

You just have to remember that such thinking centers around the broad identity markers being defended rather than the nuance or particulars of the individual case. In this case "trans", broadly, wins out, regardless of the particulars. If you give the identity primacy, all manner of things become permissible and defensible because any individual foibles or shortcomings pale in comparison to the systematic and enduring oppression that has been enacted against such same identities, again broadly speaking.

The lack of nuance is a feature, not a bug, in order to implement the program of social intimidation, ostracism and alienation that these students intend. If you countenance nuance, then it becomes a debate, which clearly these students do not want. "Bigot" "transphobe" "racist" "woman hater" etc. are all terms with ever increasing ambit and applicability. They are, however, in the eyes of the likes of the students, effective social cudgels to enact a world in which ideas they abhor are no longer tenable or publicly defensible. This is, ironically, a politics of stigma at work. Something that you also see in very conservative, repressive societies as well, with a little threat of state violence thrown in.

Wow. This is the sort of content I read DCUM for. I’ve been really puzzled by some of the behavior I see from activists, such as the Stanford Law students. There should be no world where anyone considers misgendering to be a worse crime than pedophilia, yet that is the plain position of some the presumably best and brightest law students out there. I genuinely don’t get it, or I hadn’t until I read this.

Thank you PP.

Np- simpler reason: they don’t know the specifics of the case or the defendant. They only heard about the judge’s behavior and proceeded from there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How will these so called geniuses deal with opposing counsel in the future? By screaming and calling them racist? What a joke.

If you want a serious answer, part of their intent is to erode the principle that "everyone deserves zealous advocacy". Some things should just be verboten, if not by the strict letter of the law, then at least socially. Essentially, they are trying to limit the universe of what is socially and professionally acceptable and worthwhile to legally defend/represent. They will do this by shaming, intimidation, slander, threats and generally making it more efforts than it is worth to represent such issues, cases and POVs.

So what they are trying to do is limit the universe of "opposing counsel" with which they will have to engage.

I’m trying to wrap my head around the fact that the “indefensible” person here is the person who misgendered someone, not the pedophile who was misgendered.

You just have to remember that such thinking centers around the broad identity markers being defended rather than the nuance or particulars of the individual case. In this case "trans", broadly, wins out, regardless of the particulars. If you give the identity primacy, all manner of things become permissible and defensible because any individual foibles or shortcomings pale in comparison to the systematic and enduring oppression that has been enacted against such same identities, again broadly speaking.

The lack of nuance is a feature, not a bug, in order to implement the program of social intimidation, ostracism and alienation that these students intend. If you countenance nuance, then it becomes a debate, which clearly these students do not want. "Bigot" "transphobe" "racist" "woman hater" etc. are all terms with ever increasing ambit and applicability. They are, however, in the eyes of the likes of the students, effective social cudgels to enact a world in which ideas they abhor are no longer tenable or publicly defensible. This is, ironically, a politics of stigma at work. Something that you also see in very conservative, repressive societies as well, with a little threat of state violence thrown in.

Wow. This is the sort of content I read DCUM for. I’ve been really puzzled by some of the behavior I see from activists, such as the Stanford Law students. There should be no world where anyone considers misgendering to be a worse crime than pedophilia, yet that is the plain position of some the presumably best and brightest law students out there. I genuinely don’t get it, or I hadn’t until I read this.

Thank you PP.

Np- simpler reason: they don’t know the specifics of the case or the defendant. They only heard about the judge’s behavior and proceeded from there.

If that is true, they are profoundly stupid law students.