Captain_Maclaine posted:

How are you surprised that Sedan"the Obamas' marriage is a loveless power conspiracy/W was an unabashed genius"Chair is not backing down from an outrageous/poorly-thought through comment?

Captain_Maclaine posted:

How are you surprised that Sedan"the Obamas' marriage is a loveless power conspiracy/W was an unabashed genius"Chair is not backing down from an outrageous/poorly-thought through comment?

SedanChair posted:

Come on now, this is clearly a tasteless and ill-timed remark, whereas those are just God's truth.

Majorian posted:

He did come up with the incredibly profound and original theory that presidents are evil sociopaths in the Middle East thread.

Absurd Alhazred posted:

I can't pass judgment until I go up to Montreal and try it. You will, of course, pay travel and lodging expenses, I presume.

Joementum posted:

Joementum posted:

Pretty sure that's the first use of "bangarang" in a Presidential statement.

I would love to be proven wrong about that.

JohnnyCanuck posted:

Fine, but you have to stay in Ottawa. I'm not paying Montreal hotel prices.

Discendo Vox posted:

Bar exams are very similar. Each jurisdiction(the states and the others)'s bar association runs their own version of the bar exam. Since they're run and administered by jurisdiction, they're not very well-run or coherent, and the rules and processes are really outdated (DC doesn't allow computers for the essay day of the exam, but if you fill out a form and send an additional fee you can bring one of the approved models of electric typewriter!).

Most states use some or all of the Multistate Exam, a partially uniform version of the test. Since laws vary state to state and the multistate is uniform, it's not really based on anyone's law- instead, it's based on the "common" law, which for the purposes of the bar examiners means laws that were valid at some point in precolonial England. The multistate tests a whole range of areas of practice from Torts to Wills to Security Transactions. In reality, lawyers only know/practice the law in one or two areas. For the purpose of the bar, though, you need to have a complete, comprehensive knowledge of all "common" law in almost all areas of practice. As Warsazawa said, the worst part is that these areas arent'c overed equally or consistently. Want to know what's going to be on the bar exam? Tough. No one knows exactly what they'll cover.

The multistate is two six hour days- one day of essays and one day of multiple choice. Multiple choice is 400 questions covering seven areas of law. The essays are a group of 6 questions drawn from ~14 areas of law. It's physically impossible to know one of these areas completely- the examiners can ask questions on subjects they've never covered before- now imagine spending six hours pouring your brains into six questions drawn from all areas of law. The essay day also includes a "Multistate Performance Test" which gives you a set of facts, a brand new set of laws, and tells you to draft a legal document required by thew situation. The MPT can also be in any area of law. It's included in the 6 hours of the essay part of the exam- I forget how the time divvies up.

I was lucky- DC only has the multistate exam, even if it's got relatively high score cutoffs and is badly administered. Many states add their own state-law-specific version of the exam on top of the multistate, and these tend to be infamously badly made. South Carolina is famous for repeatedly making such bad essay questions on their exam that they have to basically waive their part of the test, because the questions were so vague, and answers so diverse, that it was impossible to grade fairly.


It's a long story- I had a reason at the time. Fortunately, the rationale no longer applies, so if I didn't pass I will be following your advice and applying to a multistate jurisdiction with a nice high pass rate and nice low score cutoffs.

SedanChair posted:

Let's all have well-considered original ideas like "if only gays would quit gaying it up so hard."

Joementum posted:

Pretty sure that's the first use of "bangarang" in a Presidential statement.

I would love to be proven wrong about that.

Blindeye posted:

Licensure

Discendo Vox posted:

My primary weakness as a poster is not recognizing that a number of folks in DnD, thanks to a constant diet of threads devoted to mocking right-wing talking points, have a tendency to glaze over long words or complicated sentences and assume that a thing that isn't immediately amenable to their ill-defined justice intuitions must be a vaguely similar right-wing talking point. At times folks here aren't good at separating prescription from description, consequentialism from deontology, rhetoric from policy. It's my fault, I should have accommodated this. Like most federal agencies, I need to start getting my posts proofread down to a seventh-grade reading level. In the future, I'll spend more time making my arguments clear, my implicit frame transitions explicit, and my explanations ordered. I look forward to your ignoring my efforts, and many more inaccurate custom titles, in the years ahead.

To wit:

That's not what I was arguing. Reread that series of posts more closely, and consider the possibility that I'm not the idiot you've assumed me to be.

Discendo Vox posted:

My primary weakness as a poster is not recognizing that a number of folks in DnD, thanks to a constant diet of threads devoted to mocking right-wing talking points, have a tendency to glaze over long words or complicated sentences and assume that a thing that isn't immediately amenable to their ill-defined justice intuitions must be a vaguely similar right-wing talking point. At times folks here aren't good at separating prescription from description, consequentialism from deontology, rhetoric from policy. It's my fault, I should have accommodated this. Like most federal agencies, I need to start getting my posts proofread down to a seventh-grade reading level. In the future, I'll spend more time making my arguments clear, my implicit frame transitions explicit, and my explanations ordered. I look forward to your ignoring my efforts, and many more inaccurate custom titles, in the years ahead.

To wit:

That's not what I was arguing. Reread that series of posts more closely, and consider the possibility that I'm not the idiot you've assumed me to be.


So long as it isn't the last. Personally, I'd like to see more top secret military operations named after pop culture references.

"Operation Enduring Ultraviolence is a go"

quote:

Under the conventional view of Title VII, gay and lesbian workers can bring discrimination claims based on gender stereotyping but not sexual orientation. This Article analyzes 117 court cases on gender stereotyping in the workplace in order to show that the conventional view is wrong. In cases brought by “perceived homosexuals,” courts distinguish not between gender stereotyping and sexual orientation claims, but between two ways that violations of gender norms can be perceived: either as something literally seen or as something cognitively understood. This Article shows that plaintiffs who “look gay” often find protection under Title VII, while plaintiffs thought to violate gender norms — through known or suspected sexual activity, friendships, hobbies, or choice of partner — almost never win.

By privileging appearances over identity, these cases run counter to theories of antidiscrimination law that favor blindness and assimilation, and they upend accounts of “covering” that are widely accepted in discussions of law and sexuality. These cases reverse courts’ usual hostility to appearance claims, especially Title VII challenges to makeup and grooming requirements, as well as courts’ usual sympathy to claims based on activities like child rearing, known to take place outside of work. Meanwhile, on a practical level, these cases threaten to increase the salience of sexual orientation in the workplace; help entrench the stereotypes they are meant to proscribe; and isolate the claims of successful Title VII litigants from the more assimilationist demands made by gay plaintiffs in areas like marriage, adoption, and military service. As courts have quietly begun granting protection to only the most visible subset of gay workers, this Article asks: at what cost, both to LBGT workers and to ongoing debates over the protections those workers should receive under federal law?

Discendo Vox posted:

That's not what I was arguing. Reread that series of posts more closely, and consider the possibility that I'm not the idiot you've assumed me to be.

R. Mute posted:

i hadn't read it, but i did now and i've come to the conclusion that you're an idiot but not the idiot you think we assume you are.

kill all lawyers, drink their blood, eat their hearts

Discendo Vox posted:

My primary weakness as a poster is not recognizing that a number of folks in DnD, thanks to a constant diet of threads devoted to mocking right-wing talking points, have a tendency to glaze over long words or complicated sentences and assume that a thing that isn't immediately amenable to their ill-defined justice intuitions must be a vaguely similar right-wing talking point. At times folks here aren't good at separating prescription from description, consequentialism from deontology, rhetoric from policy. It's my fault, I should have accommodated this. Like most federal agencies, I need to start getting my posts proofread down to a seventh-grade reading level. In the future, I'll spend more time making my arguments clear, my implicit frame transitions explicit, and my explanations ordered. I look forward to your ignoring my efforts, and many more inaccurate custom titles, in the years ahead.

Defenestration posted:

You guys Sedanchair is hilarious so long as he's not posting about you know what. It took me a while to realize this, what with the you know what being so terrible

Defenestration posted:

You guys Sedanchair is hilarious so long as he's not posting about you know what. It took me a while to realize this, what with the you know what being so terrible

StandardVC10 posted:

Most D&D posters have some sort of secret button that turns them into complete insufferable zealots and/or pedants when a certain topic is broached. For some people it's guns, other people Israel, other people the CIA, and so on. Excepting fishmech, because he's always like that.

The Warszawa posted:

On the topic of your custom title and that whole debate, did you read Soucek's Perceived Homosexuals: Looking Gay Enough for Title VII? From a jurisprudential standpoint, "looking gay" is arguably pretty much the only (if still uncertain) way to get civil rights protections where explicit sexual orientation claims are not allowed.

ReindeerF posted:

List of people who sadly have not (as of this writing) asphyxiated themselves due to crippling depression:

Tom Friedman
Bill Kristol
Dick Cheney
(cont'd)

Discendo Vox posted:

I'll give this a look, thanks.


Ironically, self-asphxiation was the cause of Cheney's first heart transplant, although it wasn't depression-related.

Chantilly Say posted:

I'll be the first to admit that I will literally start shouting and pounding a table IRL about the necessity of nuclear energy for the safe future of mankind dammit.

ReindeerF posted:

List of people who sadly have not (as of this writing) asphyxiated themselves due to crippling depression:

Tom Friedman
Bill Kristol
Dick Cheney
(cont'd)

ReindeerF posted:

List of people who sadly have not (as of this writing) asphyxiated themselves due to crippling depression:

Tom Friedman
Bill Kristol
Dick Cheney
(cont'd)

Discendo Vox posted:

I think a factor in crummy licensing systems is that they're not amenable to revision for a large number of reasons. In part, they simultaneously serve as a market control on the supply of professionals in a field, while also ostensibly acting as a test of qualifications. This division of purpose alone explains a lot of the less sensible elements of how these exams are designed and run.

Swan Oat posted:

i am going to watch death to smoochie tonight, to honor departed actor robin williams

Discendo Vox posted:

Ironically, self-asphxiation was the cause of Cheney's first heart transplant, although it wasn't depression-related.

Absurd Alhazred posted:

Surely Hook is the better choice.

MariusLecter posted:

Nope, Death To Smoochie not only has Williams but Edward Norton, Danny DeVito, Harvey Fierstein, Danny Woodburn, Vincent Schiavelli and Jon Stewart as Jon Stewart trying to act.