Any group can be empowering for its members. If it’s a group that already has an unequal amount of power in society, exclusive meetings will tend to exacerbate the inequality. But if it’s a relatively powerless group, it can counter the imbalance.
The same way Holder responded to the Occupy Wall Street mass protests over his failure to prosecute the banks responsible for the 2008 financial crisis?
MAGA hats will be part of the official uniforms.
Let me guess—they’re going to prevent the US athletes from returning home unless they’re white and/or win medals.
Except that I doubt Trump would ever actually talk to a janitor.
Reminds me of Sorrento-Gillis from The Expanse:
He doesn’t care about treason—that’s just him parroting you because you talked to him last. If he spoke to a janitor he’d be passionately declaiming about a fucking mop!
I’m not sure threatening performers with million-dollar lawsuits is the best way to attract new performers to your venue.
strung together two comments Trump made more than 54 minutes apart
Isn’t that about the normal interval it takes for him to progress from one coherent thought to the next?
It’s almost as if Democratic voters are selecting their candidates based on some other criterion entirely.
I ate the last one yesterday.
Did you really expect me to resist?
Jenkins in the article: “there has to be an arrest that takes place of an agent, which requires an intermediary set by another law enforcement agency.” Seems she’s passing the buck to law enforcement.
Edit: I’m not trying to defend her, I’m just quoting her actual excuse for reference.
I think humans are natural storytellers who rely on the construction of narratives for most of our basic thought processes. But the natural world is inimical to narrative, so we employ narrative worlds whose functioning is adapted to the requirements of storytelling. (Even “naturalistic” storytelling relies on subtle tweaks to the laws of causality and probability, if nothing else.)
So I believe that we can’t make sense of the world without relying at least implicitly on the supernatural, but I don’t believe that it corresponds to anything external to our own cognition.
But the “laws of nature” are just provisional rules we’ve deduced through observation. When we see things that violate the rules as we’ve deduced them (and we often have), we figure out new rules—we don’t just assume there are things to which the rules don’t apply.
“Yes, Precious—we meant ‘us’!”
Calling Trump “sinister” is an insult to honest hard-working villains.
How much of that reflects an improving assessment of the USSR vs a deteriorating assessment of the subsequent regimes?
In practice, none: wolves are locally extinct in the range of the Siberian tiger.
Not to excuse him or anything—but I have to remind myself that high-profile targets of anti-semitism (or racism in general) are exposed to orders of magnitude more of it than private individuals, and are correspondingly more likely to interpret it as a cause of things that anyone else can see have other motivations.
So local law enforcement agencies assisting ICE may actually be setting them up for lawsuits?