OT: A Michigan Man on the SCOTUS?
Social media is the primary problem. People type things that they would never say in person. There are very few consequences for being an asshole on the internet.
You know who is guilty of fostering anti free speech? Universities, including the U of M. No joke.
Agree. UM does not support free speech. Opinions matter !
no they don't. Facts matter. That's it. You are allowed to hold whatever asinine opinion, but you are not allowed to manufacture your own facts
They kinda do... safe spaces are inherently restrictive of free speech. People have the right to say anything they want in any public space... they just have to face the repercussions for the content.
Threads like this show how far we've fallen. Even as a community with a strong common interest, we dissolve into shit-slinging over politics. More more is there room for decent conversation and finding solutions together. Nope. There has to be a winner and a loser. And if you're losing, find a way to cheat to win. Fucking pathetic.
Have you seen this board lately? They could use the traffic.
LOL. No, I am blinded by the whitespace.
Hemlock's first post is exactly how I feel. But your post (Chalky White's since it's impossible to tell who I'm replying to otherwise) is hilarious. I read this blog every day and rarely comment, but this new version and especially how it functions on mobile has been very disappointing.
For this thread to have gone undeleted this long, I have to think the delete function is broken or this is the most traffic the board has seen since they switched the format. I say let it roll. It's funny that threads stay on the first page for days now. I bet they can't wait for fall practice to start in order to see if this is going to continue.
I've been trying really hard in this thread to follow who is replying to who(m?). It is effing impossible. What little was "wrong" with the old board pales when compared to what's wrong with this one.
I thought maybe it was my phone. When I turn my phone sideways, I get a totally different view. Even then it is difficult to figure out who is replying to who. Some people are basically making an executive decision and manually quoting posts in their replies. That's the only way to know for sure if someone is replying to your post.
Wow. Just tried out that rotate-view trick. Not great, but better!
This is exactly what certain groups want and work constantly to be disruptive and divisive.
The Weather underground and Bill Ayers started this behaviour and have made it standard tactics in america...it is truly sad.
Really? I don't see it. All rather mild to me, compared to just about anywhere else that politics are discussed.
I don't care about having a Michigan man appointed. Someone above suggested term limits for SC justices. Not a groundbreaking observation, but I think that it would be a good start. I wish Libertarians would include it as part of their platform.
It's been talked about on this site before and every day I agree more that the biggest issue facing society is the hardening of the divisions created by "tribalism". We all find our own echo chambers in our preferred blogs, news, friendships, etc. They act to reinforce our own beliefs and tell us that the other side is wrong, immoral, unethical. In the process, we lose our empathy and any consideration for what matters to the other side.
This site isn't any different when it comes to all things UM and our "enemies". I don't know if this will ever get resolved in my lifetime barring some major event. I hope it will but I'm not holding my breath.
I think it will take some kind of 9-11 or Pearl Harbor type horror to reunite the country.
People are afraid or just totally unwilling to hear the other side.
I wish this were not the case, but you are probably right. Divides like ours are usually bridged - if they are bridged - by catastrophes.
We just had two.... Houston and Puerto Rico... Needs to be awfully horrendous to bring people together
I guess I don't have a lot of hope that would really unify people for any sustained amount of time, and in the interim what usually happens is we just turn all that anger and mistrust externally, which is what leads to prolonged, costly wars and snap-judgement laws and treatment of others that lead to long-standing resentments and damage.
I agree with all of that. I should have been more specific.
I think a depression or a war that taxed us to the extent that WWII did would likely have a focusing effect that erased some of our divides. For good or for bad, people living in the equivalent of Hoovervilles likely wouldn't care much about whether a Christian baker had to sell a wedding cake to a gay couple. But none of this is to say that having a depression or a war would be worthwhile.
The best we can hope for as far as the U.S. becoming more united is likely the change in political beliefs that will seemingly come with long term changes in demographics. Civil wars (and perhaps we're in a civil cold war) usually end when one side dominates the other. Maybe here our cold war will eventually end - or at least lessen - because the ranks of one side are disproportionately thinned by old age.
Yeah, I don't mean to come across as too depressed about the future. I do think we as a country can come to a tolerance, at least, of each other. And you still see that when issues are brought down to the personal/micro level, we tend to have far more agreement than when they are abstract. So perhaps when everyone (or at least a majority) feels the pain, all the bullshit that usually wraps around it will fall away and we can have actual conversations with each other.
Darkstar - you managed to salvage things a bit with this seriously enlightening comment. Thank you.
Well said, and completely agree. I am relatively young, and the inability for anyone to discuss politics anymore just because they disagree is truly concerning. We used to have good debates and conversations, and when i do this with friend I generally find myself agreeing with a lot of what the "other side" agrees with. I think most people in this country want the same things, it's the "how" that we disagree on, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be able to have conversations about how we can work together to make it happen.
I hope that can change, but this board and threads like this one only reinforce my feelings that everyone has decided to draw a line in the sand and declare the other side their enemy (and all sorts of other ridiculous insults). I too hope this can be resolved, but don't expect change any time soon.
I don't know if you can change human nature. It's a bit sad, but humans are largely wired to care for individuals like themselves and be wary out those who are different.
If anything, we mostly just yell at each other now; years before we'd go to war and try to slaughter each other.
I agree with all of this too. I also think, though, that we can say that the internet and cable news have allowed us to escape from opposing viewpoints or even a shared reality in a way that we couldn't, say, in 1972 (which had plenty of it's own division, so I'm not suggesting there is any panacea). There was a lot to be said for having someone like Walter Cronkite, someone generally taken to be telling the truth by most of the American public (or so I believe!) when he gave a report.
I don't mean to pass these off as remotely original thoughts, by the way.
Great point on a "tribalism." I think "tribalism" is, to an extent, is hard-wired into every human being's brain.
It's weird. College football thrives to a large extent BECAUSE OF "tribalism." "My team is good, the other team is the enemy." But don't go and take "the other team is the enemy" too far (e.g., start poisoning trees).
Oh good, a political thread.
I am not going to delve too deeply into the merits of him as a judge as I haven't read his opinions, but based on the rough synopses he rules predictably as a conservative judge. YMMV as to whether or not that's a good thing, but from a Michigan-based "wouldn't it be cool" standpoint, sure. Though as always, I'd rather have the most consistent judges, even if I don't always agree, because law is best served when you can predict what actions will lead to what outcomes.
One note I will add is that he did practice for a number of years both in a firm as well as in-house counsel, which isn't always a career you see with judges. It's certainly not required, but IME it helps to have some exposure to as much of the legal process as possible.
Fuck Trump
All right, shut it down. This guy thinks he's Robert DeNiro.
If you were just trying to be funny, then I am sorry - if you were serious:
Why was that necessary? Did you really believe it would add to the discourse? It's just stupid. Everyone knows that the country is deeply divided. Somewhere around 1/2 of the country hates Trump and somewhere around half of the country either supports him or his platform. This is nothing new for our country, unfortunately. Before Trump was elected, somewhere around half the country loved Obama, and somewhere around half hated him or his message. Before Obama was elected, somewhere around 1/2 of the country loved either George W. Bush or his message, and somewhere around 1/2 hated him. The divisiveness has been there for quite some time, and unfortunately, it is just getting worse.
But simply shouting "F*ck Trump" ON A SPORTS BLOG really doesn't do anything more than add to that divisiveness. This thread did not HAVE to be political - it could easily have been a discussion of how f'ing awesome UM Law is and how our university continues to put out the best and brightest across the spectrum of careers. That was clearly the OP's intent. Unfortunately, those who are displeased about Trump being president simply cannot resist the urge to turn every single aspect of life he does into a political debate. Just like those who were displeased about Obama did when the roles were reversed.
I don't mean to rant, but I, for one, an just so sick of the political discourse. People need to stop injecting their personal political views and frustrations (again, both sides) into every single conversation.
I’m not sure how you judge the OPs intent, but if one wanted to start a post on how fucking awesome UM Law is and how our university continues to put out the best and brightest across the spectrum of careers, they could have done a much better job.
Maybe something like - the fact that U Of M has so many distinguished alum (see this great list frim the alumni society -http://alumnus.alumni.umich.edu/notable-alumni/) and may even be sble to claim as an alum shows how fucking awesome UM Law is and how our university continues to put out the best and brightest.
if instead one wanted to start a discussion about the relative merits of the next Supreme Court justice while pretending to do it in a no political way, the posters approach - intended or not, was spot on.
Somewhere around 1/2 of the country hates Trump and somewhere around half of the country either supports him or his platform. This is nothing new for our country, unfortunately. Before Trump was elected, somewhere around half the country loved Obama, and somewhere around half hated him or his message. Before Obama was elected, somewhere around 1/2 of the country loved either George W. Bush or his message, and somewhere around 1/2 hated him.
I mean, if you're going to say stuff like this, you should be clear about it. What people object to about Donald Trump is stuff like his being a conman and his overseeing the kidnapping of thousands of children. What people objected to about Obama was, um, his rhetoric of hope and change and his attempts to give people healthcare? What people objected to about Bush was his program of kidnapping and torturing people at black sites. So, like, one of these things is not like the others.
Also, we will be pretty lucky if Trump doesn't cause an actual civil war. The extreme right has long tended towards extremely violent rhetoric towards the left. I am seeing a rise of violent rhetoric towards Trumpism on the left. It's no longer unthinkable for me that there could be another American Civil War. I definitely would not have said that under either Bush II or Obama. So there is something new here, I think.
Jon06
Your comment is idiot. I have read plenty of comments on this thread I disagree with, but still respect. But wow, you are dumb. SAD !
hell yeah Fuck trump and pence.
Does Fisher even have a law degree?
Elections have consequences.
Reading that in my head in a scheming Russian accent made me laugh.
Joan Larsen is the pick. BKfinest it.
Well, if this thread is being allowed to continue, I guess I'll have to take a break from this First Amendment brief I'm drafting to jump in.
If Kethledge is nominated, I'll likely be out in the streets, as a Michigan alum and lawyer to protect the rights of those protesting the choice -- many of them Michigan men and women.
If he's confirmed, I'll be doing the same again when I can get away from drafting the needed amici when the rights of Michigan men and women to choice, to marriage, and to vote are under assault, and when the new court threatens the University's policies on diversity, labor, and the environment.
Speaking of which, if you want a Michigan alum on the Supreme Court, look at Stanford's Jeffrey Fisher, who will likely be arguing a lot of those cases trying to forestall the backsliding of our rights.
Sure, fine, its nice that one of the poor menu of options is an alum. But, no, I can't be happy about the prospect of his nomination at all.
Are there any black helicopters around your house?
no but we have president under the power of a foreign agent.
Aluminum foil hats--wear em.
Meteorite00. You inspire me to go to law school. This country needs lawyers who will combat the evil you are defending. An I don’t blame you....you are simply to weak minded to see the truth. Similar to slave owners.
Someone needs to get their shit together. The fact that this thread has been allowed to stay up for over 5 hours is a disgrace. Throw in the front page political ad for a gubernatorial candidate, and this site is really taking the joy out of a forum that should be all about why we come here, Michigan athletics.
It's only cool to brag that someone is a Michigan Man (or Woman) if there is something about that person's accomplishments that you feel you can be proud of.
I don't recall too many people bragging about Michigan Men Ted Kaczynski or Rick Snyder lately.
And getting to the Supreme Court is not something to be proud of?
It’s not where you get, it’s what you do when you get there.
The unibomber has some very interesting ideas and is a genius, so I'm pretty proud he's a Michigan grad!