Jump to content

Yogurt Baron

Members
  • Content Count

    1410
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    21

Everything posted by Yogurt Baron

  1. All right. Being polite, here, to the best of my limited abilities in that particular field. I've been reprimanded by a moderator (who didn't name names, but who was fairly clear about who he meant) in public and by private message. I've apologized to the moderator both publicly and privately, to Trigger both publicly and privately, and to the board at large publicly, in both this thread and another. I'm not sure if you missed the posts to that effect, or what. So I'm not sure what other recourse you'd like. I'm certainly not above any rules---if anything, I suspect the mods are, and should be, less patient with me than with the rest of you. But I'll apologize to you, personally, HoFChaos, if my unkindness on this or any other thread has ever been perturbing to you in any way. I know some people don't like conflict and aggression, and that the community's not well served by it. Take care.
  2. Well, obviously, but that was beside the point of this particular post. Damn elites who make $11,001, oppressing me with their riches. And don't get me started on the ones who make $11,002.
  3. Thanks, Ryn, for being reasonable and kind in the face of my raging lunacy. You're a class act. What this thread probably needed from the get-go was a Hegdis-style compendium of past conversations on this topic, because boy have they existed, though they've rarely if ever gotten this rancorous. I am not starting a fight I am not starting a fight I am not starting a fight I am not starting a fight, but listen: I grew up so poor that a part of me still considers anyone who has a roof over their head, food in their stomachs, food in their dependents' stomachs, and a reasonable expectation that all of this will continue to be the case tomorrow, to be "rich". (SO YOU'RE A CRAZY COMMIE WHO THINKS WE SHOULD TAX EVERYONE WHO MAKES MORE THAN $11,000 BACK TO THE STONE AGE? FUCK YOU! No. No. No no no.) I have since had jobs which, in pure terms of dollars and cents, make the hourly rate at which Bay Street articling students are paid seem paltry (SO NOW YOU'RE BRAGGING ABOUT HOW YOU'RE BETTER THAN ME? YOU'RE NOT EVEN A LAWYER! FUCK YOU! No no no no no.) (Seriously, though, sometime, go calculate how much Uriel made to article, relative to how many hours he worked.) I sure hope we can agree that whether lawyers make a lot of money depends on what you think a lot of money is. That's where this fight always goes. And I'm sorry this particular iteration got this ugly. But, OP, there's plenty of information---on this board and elsewhere---about what kind of hours lawyers work, and how they're compensated. Whether it's a lot of money is up to you. Now I'll bow out of this thread, and leave other people to say non-flamey things.
  4. Listen, this is going to keep happening, and if people actually think some hatemongering (I'm being an asshole; I'm not wrong) moron (asshole; not wrong) is more valuable to this place than me, I'm happy to step away. I feel like I've made some contributions in terms of helping access applicants, but maybe enough is enough. Take care, guys.
  5. I took post #32 as him being mean to me. He said he was joking, I apologized. We're good now, I hope. <3
  6. Trigger, look. Most people would agree that the "prison rape" line was over the line. The mods may chide me, and they wouldn't be wrong. But if any one person here disagrees that you: a., spout a ton of political invective which, whether one agrees with it or not, lacks any sort of logic or substance beyond "this is what conservative people believe"; and b., have yet to show a single spark of original thought or ability to understand the thoughts of others; and, c., of all the people we've seen here over the past decade, present as having, at best, a fifth-percentile intellect; I will literally eat my literal hat. Hey, you, you who disagree with me. Go pick nineteen random other people who've made 200+ posts. Tell me which one you think Trigger could plausibly be smarter than. I'll wait. As usual, I'm being an asshole. As usual, I'm not wrong.
  7. Sorry, brah. You kind of came at me when I was in a bad place. <3
  8. Like, seriously, people writing hundreds and hundreds of articulate, hilarious words, and your response is "lol". I can just picture it now: "No, Prime Minister, we've got to put the 'lol' guy on the Supreme Court! See how incisive his wit is?"
  9. I've yet to attend law school, that's true, but people who can read seem to find my posts entertaining, and I have a personality, which are two things no one could accuse you of.
  10. But, I mean, by all means, keep demonstrating how stupid you are whilst picking fights with (false modesty aside) two of the most popular people here. That's sure to get you far in a small community in a profession based on collegiality.
  11. I can guarantee you that if you polled every would-be law student in the universe and asked them from whom they'd rather receive advice between a successful, practicing lawyer and entrepreneur and a right-wing troll who has yet to attend law school or contribute anything to the universe other than incoherent jabbering about his garbage opinions (as if that matters), the vote would be literally unanimous. That would be true even if the respective IQs of the latter was double that of the former, as opposed to the reverse. Diplock is being very kind in saying that you - a 0L - "don't have the intellectual vocabulary" for the conversation you're trying to have, in that vocabulary can be learned. The simple fact, which no one could deny, is that you simply don't have the intellect. I mean, you've just characterized a successful entrepreneur and practicing lawyer giving someone practical advice about economic realities as "spewing out pinko nonsense on (unrelated threads). If you're sincerely too stupid to comprehend the relationship between a., someone asking lawyers for advice about economic realities of being a lawyer and b., a lawyer providing the exact advice that was sought; you're too stupid to be here. And I don't mean "LS". I mean "the universe".
  12. Okay, I am no longer reading this thread. Despite the tons of "(such-and-such right-wing nut responded to your post)" notifications, I am no longer reading this thread (and won't be reading any responses from here on out). I only wound up back here because I cyberstalk the living fuck out of everything Diplock posts <3 and because he posted here. So, real quick. For fuck's fucking sake, this isn't just a fun conversation about different ideas. This is literally life-and-death shit. Just as one example, do you know what the trans suicide rate is? Hundreds of trans kids kill themselves because of the abuse they receive from troglodytes like Jordan Peterson, and if it were up to me, Peterson and everyone who thinks like it does would be serving a life sentence in prison as an accessory to hundreds of murders. (My use of "it" is not accidental. The moment the first of many vulnerable students implicitly said to Jordan Peterson, "I was born in a male body but I am female, and you are my teacher and I trust you, and if you do not acknowledge that I am female, it will be devastating to me psychologically," and Peterson implicitly responded, "Nyah nyah, I have freedom of speech and I can call you whatever I want whether it kills you or not! FREEDOM OF SPEECH! YOU'RE A BOY! FREEDOM OF SPEECH!", Jordan Peterson voluntarily surrendered the right to be considered a human being.) Now, society is coming very gradually to the realization that "people" like Peterson and its followers are subhuman monsters, and that there's absolutely no justification for (say) refusing to call a trans person by their preferred pronouns other than attempting to incite their suicides. I know a lot of us - even a lot of us on the left - aren't there yet, but I remember thirty years ago, it wasn't considered "racist" to say, "I don't like (n-word)s and I wouldn't want them marrying my daughter, but I'll leave them alone and they can leave me alone." Forty years ago, that would've been not just "not considered racist", but "actively considered non-racist". Trust me: we are moving in the same direction with trans people, and we will get there. And, for the record, it is not a direction of "censorship". It is a direction of, "If you say things designed to hurt innocent people who are harming no one but who offend you simply by being different from you, people will correctly identify you as an asshole." Is anyone censoring the n-word right now? Go into a crowd of people and bellow it ten times. No one will arrest you. No one will kill you. Everyone will think you are an asshole, and they will be right, and we are going to get to the point where virtually everyone agrees that calling a trans man "she" is the same damn thing, for the same damn reason. Now, eventually, we'll reach the point that we reached with slaveowners---the history books will write, accurately, about what a travesty it was that we let Peterson and other such creatures get away with their shit. But right now? Right now, even though no rational, intelligent person could deny that there's at least a tangential link between what Peterson does and the lives that are lost because of what Peterson does (and if you mean well but are sincerely not aware of what's going on out there, I can introduce you to the survivors of several trans kids who killed themselves because of dysphoria prompted by authority figures refusing to accept their genders), literally all the blowback you get is a handful of people on the internet calling you mean names, while you continue to incite the suicides and murders of people who've done nothing wrong but for to be born in the wrong bodies. Oh, and once in a while, when one of you is stupid enough to stop pretending it's about "free speech" and admit that you're an actual Nazi and actually want to kill people who are different from you, once in a while you get...punched in the face, like that Richard guy who is literally a Nazi and would literally like to murder millions of innocent people and who suffered...what, for this? Jail time? Execution? Any attempt to actually silence him? Nope. A punch in the face, because we live in a society where one stupid white bigot with an awful haircut has a right to "free speech" that outweighs the rights of millions of people not to be murdered. Your "free speech" is literally making people die, Trigger. Trans people, people with disabilities, women, minorities. Probably me, fairly soon, which is why I'm being this blunt. I can't access the medical services I need because of people like you with your bullshit bootstrap narratives and your privilege crowding out people with disabilities, and if I'm alive this time next month, I will be very, very surprised. Every time you deny the existence of privilege, the existence of the patriarchy, the existence of white supremacy, the existence of fucking transgender human beings who fucking exist, you make this world a measurably worse place for the people you are oppressing by living those values. Your brand of "conservatism" is wantonly destroying other human beings' lives. And literally the only consequence you are presently suffering is that once in a while, a guy like me says, from his literal fucking deathbed, "Hey, buddy, it would be nice if you stopped destroying wantonly other human beings' lives." That's appalling enough---that you get to do your thing and that all you get is Jiminy Cricket chiding you to try to be nicer, please, while meanwhile people who don't look like you are literally dying in the fucking gutter because of people who act like you---without you trying to play the victim about, oh, gosh, sometimes someone is mean to me about my crusade to incite a trans suicide epidemic! Literally the only thing that is allowing me to keep my shit together at this moment is my knowledge (because it is knowledge) of the fact (because it is a fact) that society always progresses, that progress always wins, and that in a hundred and fifty years, people like you who are presently working overtime to harm vulnerable people will be viewed in the way that we, right now, view the people who did the same thing a hundred and fifty years ago. But that does a lot of good for the refugee who desperately needs a lawyer five years from now, and you're a lawyer and in a position to help, but of course you don't, and I would help, except I can't, because what's left of my body is rotting in a pauper's grave. People who run the world right now and are whining about how a comparative handful of people wish you weren't running the world: have fun while you can. I think you've got another generation or two. Make the most of it. Grapefruit: for fuck's sake just keep your head up and try not to get literally killed out there by these goddamned jackals. Take care, everybody.
  13. My example didn't change a whit. My hypothetical woman was always homeless, self-harming, schizophrenic, and generally didn't look like the typical rich, privileged white person who gets into law school despite being so cognitively limited that they have to "study for the LSAT". And of course she didn't "write the LSAT" and "do up a competitive application package" (or attend university, for that matter). These are things you can only do if you're incredibly privileged. So, okay. Rich white man who has been able to jump through the hoops ("study for the LSAT" because he's too dumb to read a simple passage and answer some simple questions about it without months and months of preparation; pay hundreds of dollars to write the LSAT; pay tens of thousands of dollars to get a BA; always attend class and complete assignments because his health allowed him to) vs. a person who has been unable to do any of those things due to illness. That's what my example always was, and it's reflective of your privilege that you made the hilarious assumption that the black woman would have prepared a competitive application. Which of these people gets into law school? Obviously the one who jumped through the hoops. And I'm not even saying that's inherently terrible. There do have to be hoops. But there's no arguing that many people cannot access higher education due to personal circumstances, and that law school is thus inaccessible to them. The fact that you seem to not even be able to imagine those people---the fact that I say, "imagine a black woman with schizophrenia" and you imagine that she has a BA and an LSAT score in hand---is just a failure on your part to comprehend anything outside your own privilege.
  14. No---my argument is that law school is less accessible to persons with disabilities than to the able-bodied. Look. I'm edging close to a personal attack here, and I genuinely don't mean it that way. So far, on this thread, you've demonstrated a rich person's understanding of finances (if you think everyone can get six figures' worth of credit---if you think anyone but the relatively wealthy can get six figures' worth of credit---you obviously don't run in the same circles I do), and a distressingly subpar level of reading comprehension. (I'm tempted to cut you some slack because, if you're Quebecois, English may be your second language, but still.) If the educational system were truly anything resembling a meritocracy, somebody who misunderstood as many simple points as you misunderstand wouldn't have gotten past the sixth grade or so. (I actually spent a few minutes giving this an honest appraisal---at what level would I, were I teaching English, start handing out Fs to someone who switched midsentence from the plural "women" to the singular "her"? Sixth grade is the point.) But you have money---oh, you might not be an O'Leary or a Trump, but you have enough money that you can't imagine anyone not being able to access credit, so you have money. Enough money to get you through an undergraduate degree, even if on loans. I'd bet a year of law school tuition that you've never been homeless. Your mental health is well enough that you think someone having a mental illness (a serious mental illness, not some Bell Let's Talk "we all get sad for one day a year but then we watch cat videos and cheer up" bullshit) is something to stick your tongue out at. But you've got to know on some level that when someone says "A (including colourful tangents C, D, E, F, G), because B (including colourful tangents H, I, J, K, L)" and you repeatedly come back with, "So you think K because D?!?", your success is not about anything resembling merit. It's about luck and circumstance and what body you were born into and what society sees when it sees that body. We have some members here who are incredibly brilliant, and I have never seen one of them weigh in on one of these threads saying, "Society is perfect how it is. Everything is already a perfect meritocracy. Things aren't inaccessible - minorities just need to work harder." That argument always comes from people who know, on some level, that they're winning at this rigged game, but that if they had to compete on a level playing field with the poor, the marginalized, and the disabled, they'd be working at an Esso. This has been my honest, and sincerely non-malicious, read on what's going on here, but this argument can go nowhere from here but, "You're just a whiner!" / "Yeah, well, you're dumb!" / "My CGPA is 3.7!" / "Being privileged enough to know what those letters mean and dumb enough to get the occasional B is the worst kind of mediocrity." / "So you're saying knowing what a CGPA is is mediocre?" / *Baron shoots self in head*, so I'm going to bow out of this thread right here. Good luck, grapefruit. If nothing else, this thread has shown you how much good luck you're going to need.
  15. I mean, the problem is, for most people, this isn't a sidetrack. In the course of asking a question, you expressed that you have a certain way of looking at the world; it then became the subject of debate. For most people, it's no different than if you said, "I like the Blue Jays, when do tickets go on sale?", and they came back and said, "The Jays are going to suck this year! Replacing EE with Kendrys Morales and Steve Pearce? Come on!" For me, anyhow, anti-oppression is (generally) just beyond debate. Occasionally I'll wade into a thread like this to try to clarify semantics and what the left means by certain terms, and then it'll turn into a fight, but generally, I'm not even open to arguing about, "Is white privilege a thing or do minorities just need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps?" or, "Are trans people people?" These things aren't up for debate, to me, and anyone to whom they seem like they might be up for debate is a ways to my right. So you might be like me---your political values may be so core to your being that they're not up for debate, and the idea of people trying to debate them might offend you. But in an attempt to be empathetic, I try to imagine how I'd feel if someone who was as far right as we are left came in here and asked something that's as offensive to me as "social justice" is to right-wingers. I'd probably yell at them. So I see where the others are coming from. The difference, of course, is that we're right and they're wrong.
  16. Okay, for clarity (for the sake of both BQ and providence)---my hypothetical person with mental illness has not pulled herself up by the bootstraps and accessed healthcare and is now functioning well on meds. She is presently homeless and hearing voices that are telling her to harm herself. Look: law schools only let in (relatively) elite applicants. You have to be able to excel (relatively) in undergraduate study and on the LSAT. As providence has noted, you need a whole lot of privilege---or, at the very minimum, a medium amount of privilege and a whole lot of gumption---to even get that far.
  17. On an individual level, sure, some people of colour and/or with disabilities can live out the bootstrap narrative. On a macro level, society doesn't afford nearly the opportunities to marginalized people that it offers to normative people. I'm sorry if my noting the racism prevalent in society strikes you as me being racist and not as me calling out systemic racism as a whole.
  18. A middle-class white kid and a black woman with schizophrenia both walk into a bank seeking a $50,000 line of credit. Which one is likelier to receive it?
  19. No. I'm using "inaccessible" to mean that it's easier to get into law school if you're rich, white, straight, male, cisgendered, able-bodied, and English-speaking than if you deviate from that norm (I gather from your other posts that we disagree), but I'm also stipulating that this belief is still a relatively fringe political view which many people don't share.
  20. I had misunderstood and thought you were talking about issues of identity politics, which are also a thing that renders law school inaccessible to a lot of people. But, see, Hegdis is a great example. He's one of several lawyers here who (please correct me if I'm misrepresenting your position here, Hegdis) doesn't necessarily go around spouting anti-oppressive dogma, but whose values generally bend in a leftward direction. You won't find that many people who default to the same vocabulary as you do, but you'll find allies.
  21. Hegdis, did you ever see that "How I Met Your Mother" where Barney and Ted try to adopt a baby together, and it briefly appears that they have done so and named it "Hurricane", but it turns out Barney has just kidnapped his niece and nicknamed her "Hurricane"? I don't have any nieces we can kidnap, but I think it is important that we adopt a baby together. I understand that geography is going to be an issue, but we can just leave the baby halfway between us (Saskatoon or so?) and take turns visiting it.
  22. Briefly (because I foresee them giving an explanation and then twenty people piling on and then things getting rancorous and then me not wanting to come back): they're defining the term "inaccessible" differently from how someone not on the relatively-radical left would. And that's exactly the crux of the issue here. You're not going to find a law school---or any major institution, really---that just casually incorporates relatively-fringe political views into its curriculum. (And, again, I say this with love. I agree with the OP's views 100%. But just because I'm out on the political fringes too doesn't mean that I don't recognize that they're still the fringes, for now.)
  23. Hi, grapefruit18! Because several of our resident right-wingers have weighed in, I just wanted to poke my head in and say that I share your values. That said, for two reasons, you're unlikely to find a law school program completely geared toward those values, for two reasons: 1. As you know, people consciously committed to anti-oppression are still a vanishingly small minority. A law school with a strong focus on anti-oppression would be, in some ways, like a law school that catered primarily to people whose eyes were two different colours. Law schools are, like mainstream political parties, "big tents" - Windsor is the school most noted for "social justice", but they're also looking to recruit the best class they can, meaning that they can't completely alienate people who don't share a certain political mindset. (And once you get into talking about anti-oppression, you're alienating the right, the centre, and a huge chunk of the left, too.) 2. This is going to piss some people off, but so be it: law schools (and the legal system, and the educational system) serve to uphold and further the existing social order. You want to go to a law school that's going to teach you to smash the patriarchy? Law school is the patriarchy. The solution isn't to go to a law school that will approach the law through the critical lens you prefer. It's to bring your critical lens wherever you go. You want a progressive experience in law school? Make one. A law school is just a bunch of buildings; its culture is set by its people. Go to a law school. Be who you are. You'll ruffle some feathers, but you'll teach some of your classmates some things, too. Find people who share your values. Take courses that will give you the practical skills to promote those values in the real world, in real ways, that really help marginalized people. But, God, don't expect any of it to be easy.
  24. This happened a few years ago at an undergraduate institution I have promised to impugn less often. I've never personally heard of it happening at a law school, and am not sure if an is referring to the same incident I'm referring to or to a different incident at a law school. But if it helps, catchthetraiin, was my admission a mistake or am I just being paranoid? is a question I have seen many people ask over the years, and they're just about always being paranoid.
×
×
  • Create New...