#2l — Public Fediverse posts

2L : « Il y aura toujours une portée contestataire dans mes écrits » https://www.bondyblog.fr/culture/2l-il-y-aura-toujours-une-portee-contestataire-dans-mes-ecrits/ #nouvelleécole #rapconscient #Culture #rap #2L

D'où personne ne parle de #nouvelleEcole et de la camarade #2L sur Masto !

Allez, au moins son passage en finale !
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3Hj9BJuaCM

I turned in a draft of "Copyright is Eugenics", so I am officially moving from #2L to #3L...

I'm looking for some quick articles about problems white people have with giving up whiteness, and this is a gateway to the libbiest takes on race, lmao. #2L

People really think "what does this add to the conversation?" is an add to the conversation about art. Or anything.

Newsflash: You are the one adding to the conversation by reacting to the piece, not the other way around. If you couldn't think of anything new to say based on the piece, that doesn't mean the piece is bad. #2L

White people so fragile that they feel racial pride from other people being forced to take the Bar exam to become an attorney.

(Washington just approved alternatives to the Bar. They should have done diploma privilege.) #2L

And, of course, the more conventional a scholarly thought, the less scaffolding is required. For example, a piece about copyright that says artists are literal angels descended from heaven doesn't have to explain the social theories behind that conception—if they did, they would have to acknowledge how raced and gendered those social theories are. #2L

I find the scaffolding that I have to build in my scholarship so others can get on my page so frustrating sometimes. There's value in just saying something out there and letting others have whatever reaction to it that they're going to have.

And those reactions are often really valuable to the reader. "Why do I like this?" "Why am I so foundationally against this?"

But, no, I must predict and address their concerns—think for them, perhaps—or it's "bad," "incomplete" scholarship. #2L

There's something to be said about the fact that I am traumatized because I perceive myself as failing others constantly and I am preparing to interact with a system that regularly traumatizes people. At least some of the time it will be because I have failed them.

Provisionally, I will be ignoring this, but I expect it to come up in therapy. #2L

This project has been developing into a critique of cultural property generally because it is privileging the same ideals that creativity does. I'm questioning a lot of what we're trying to achieve with propertizing these things when they are explicitly modeled after regimes created to shelter/affirm whiteness.

So imagine my GUFFAW when one of these cultural property scholars said "property is an essential part of what it means to be fully human."

(Ultimately my paper is developing into a cultural essentialism argument and nothing "new," but that's kind of part of the point. The fact that we value originality, an unattainable ideal with ties to race hygiene, is fucked.) #2L

Trapped in a world where everyone wants to talk about the practicalities of copyright when the philosophical underpinnings of wanting to legally regulate creativity are SO much more interesting. #2L

I'm deep-diving on Critical Race IP this week and I keep coming back to observation that these people (who I respect immensely as colleagues) find it easier to imagine a world where individual indigenous cultures have bespoke legal regimes affording them monopolies over information about the natural world...

than to imagine a world where pharmaceutical corporations aren't constantly engaged in global-scale fuckery that harms us all. #2L

The school deadass put out a notice asking students not to write graffiti about the Gaza conflict because it "disproportionately impacts the hardworking members of our custodial and facilities teams who clean up after these incidents."

How? By prompting them to do the job you pay them to do?

The school could always tell them to not clean it up or even pay them overtime if it's about extra time. But, oh, the school also says the graffiti "has a negative impact on campus climate."

Gimme a break. Abusing sympathy for workers to discourage political speech is disgusting. #2L

The history of preventing copyright restriction for works from foreign countries definitely has the specter of race and discrimination associated with it.

HOWEVER, the loudest voices in favor of international copyright were always world-famous white authors who felt that they were losing out on money they had "earned" via *checks notes* other people's labor, producing the copies abroad. Meanwhile, these authors were never in any danger of not having enough money and, in fact, tended to tour countries like the United States, where they had fans willing to pay to see them in part because of access to cheap copies.

I think international copyright is one of those times when fixating on perceptions of jingoism rather than labor tends to hide important questions. Most importantly, there is absolutely no reason to presume that intellectual "property" must be treated analogously with physical goods in discussions of trade. If a society wants writing to be a viable career choice, then the fact that a writing career is unsustainable without that writer becoming a force in GLOBAL INTER-STATE TRADE just reveals the fact the state has failed to provide a sustainable livelihood for writers.

In other words, we need to stop asking "why shouldn't someone in China pay for the book I wrote?" and start asking "why doesn't the state's plan for paying workers (including writers) actually provide enough for us to live?" The person in China never promised you a livelihood and, in fact, has no duty to provide you with money. Your state's economy (rich people's feelings) has failed you because it was never designed to sustain you. #2L #EssayIdeas

I worked on a presentation for at least THREE WEEKS during my most busy month of the year. (We'll see about April being worse.) A huge portion of that was just fielding my partner's *completely irrational* belief that the school was going to allow her to present slides ABOUT RAPE without any approvals process.

She pulled out two days before go-time in such a huff.

When you've got ME saying the word "unprofessional," you done fucked up royal. #2L

If I had a penny for every time someone I thought was incredible told me that they enjoyed my company but were doing *me* a favor by declining to "waste my time," I could afford for both of us to retire.

I am incapable of believing anything that accompanies it is genuine anymore. It's legitimately triggering, I think. #2L

Every time the post-Civil-War SCOTUS overruled objections from former Confederates, you can just replace their their reasoning with "L, ratio, scoreboard, and you fell off." It's funny every single time. #2L

Just went on a date with someone *incredibly* cool... Time to fight the urge to self-sabotage. #2L

"The City of Seattle's HOPE team [for homelessness outreach] is dedicated to equity and inclusion. 66% of shelter referrals were given to homeless people who were black, indigenous, it people of color."

...If you're supposed to be giving everyone referrals, that just means Seattle's housing system is structurally racist. Imagine bragging about this as a progressive win... #2L

I keep wanting to spell one of my teacher's names as "Rankine" and that is an extremely deep pull from my brief flirtation with physical engineering in community college, lmao. I did like that Thermodynamics class. #2L

It has a fucking telemetry data notice that I can't even USE THE COMPUTER without it sending shit to Dell whenever I connect to the internet.

Fuck the future. I want off the ride. #2L

"You will need an internet connection to complete the setup of this device."

And what if I dropped this new laptop off the top of a building? What then?

The fact that I can't put Linux on this burns me up. #2L

Honestly, when I publish that paper about Counterman, it ought to rocket me to national recognition among power-mad fuckers who professionally refuse to read for a living. #2L

Getting to the meat of it for my task and the court determined the drunk guy's death threats were true threats because he said them a bunch and "continuous angry and yelled threats to kill the troopers, their families, and members of the Asian race rise well beyond 'absurd, drunken' statements and 'hyperbolic expressions of frustration.'"

Which is literally a content-based restriction on speech by other means.

The court read Counterman as preserving the notion that the First Amendment does not protect true threats (which can't be true despite what the Counterman majority said to cover its ass). But then it ignored the entire point of Counterman, which was that the state needs to prove subjective recklessness in order to prove someone is CULPABLE for a true threat. (Which is First Amendment protection for true threats.)

So the judges reasoned that it was OK for them to openly declare that THEY didn't like what he said and that that was sufficient to determine his drunken threats were SUBJECTIVELY reckless. (They threw in a now-banned "reasonable person" for good measure.)

Plus, they pointedly refused to consider the fact that he was drunk IN DETERMINING WHETHER HE WAS CULPABLE FOR THE TRUE THREAT because he didn't raise intoxication as a defense at trial. Motherfucker, the fact that he was drunk was undisputed and a First Amendment inquiry includes EVERYTHING crucial to the speech.

And, yet again, all of this is said in spite of the fact that it is IMPOSSIBLE to prove a subjective truth without objective facts and vice versa. When courts try to hide that that's what they're doing, it just makes everything worse.

God, the true threats analysis is so fucked. Before Counterman, during Counterman, after Counterman.

(Yes, McCormack is a racist. I'm not defending that.) #2L

But, oh, to be fair. This is an appeal and the judges are restricted to the factual findings provided by the record. They are not allowed to assess credibility, so such a thing would not have occurred to them.

And yet this narrative is credulously presented as part of their reasoning regarding the legal aspects of the case.

Curious. #2L

"This trooper [self-testified that he had] discussed whether he should carry a gun 'more frequently' as a result of this incident."

This incident being a drunk guy yelling death threats after being arrested.

"The trooper testified that he did not believe these statements were jokes or political statements. The trooper was also concerned that McCormack had killed his own mother, that McCormack was a member of the mob, and believed that McCormack had the ability to carry out his threats to kill."

All things a drunk man screamed after he was arrested and put in a cop car.

Did I mention McCormack slammed his own head into the seat in front of him six times, until he had started bleeding?

Truly, judges are good at deciding things. #2L

"This cop completed at least 1000 hours of training before being commissioned as a trooper."

That comes out to about 6 months. That's a lot for a cop, eh? #2L

Manifesting that the FedEx guy delivering my new laptop will actually get it to me instead of seeing that the wrong door is locked and just leaving. #2L

"...houseless people..."

Grammer suggestion: "The homeless."

A decision was made. #2L