Top Law Schools

chewinggum wrote:

saf18hornet wrote:

twiix wrote:If we want some more shitposting we just need people providing some hot takes. I'll start.

People that complain about individuals (NFL Players) kneeling for the Anthem are the problem with America and are unable to properly comprehend what "freedom" entails.

Let me get this straight....
Kneeling in protest of a man's comments = exercising freedom, but
Saying you disagree with someone's kneeling = an unacceptable freedom of expression

Yeahhhh, that doesn't seem quite right.
#itsjustfootball

I think one is supporting the right to protest whereas the other is opposing a form of protest.

So, yes.

Caveat: Form =/= Right

What if you are both socially and economically conservative? I'm neither but that seems like a weird dichotomy to have to choose between if you are

april_ludgate wrote:What if you are both socially and economically conservative? I'm neither but that seems like a weird dichotomy to have to choose between if you are

I swapped neoconservative to conservative for you since neo had 0

Could include something like welfare capitalist. Not a common label but it’d characterize well a good chunk of American Dems who are neither neoliberal (bc they don’t favor as much deregulation) nor a democratic socialist (because they prefer mixed or ‘free’ markets as wealth maximizers).

So then people believe that it's possible to be socially liberal and fiscally conservative?

chilover691 wrote:So then people believe that it's possible to be socially liberal and fiscally conservative?

Um... yes?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertari ... ed_States)

isn't neoliberal just an economic view? I could be 100% wrong, so feel free to roast me if I am, but I thought it was typically just used as a descriptor of extreme deregulated markets, opposite of communism, or entirely state-planned economy.

OldSpeedoGuy wrote:

chewinggum wrote:

saf18hornet wrote:

twiix wrote:If we want some more shitposting we just need people providing some hot takes. I'll start.

People that complain about individuals (NFL Players) kneeling for the Anthem are the problem with America and are unable to properly comprehend what "freedom" entails.

Let me get this straight....
Kneeling in protest of a man's comments = exercising freedom, but
Saying you disagree with someone's kneeling = an unacceptable freedom of expression

Yeahhhh, that doesn't seem quite right.
#itsjustfootball

I think one is supporting the right to protest whereas the other is opposing a form of protest.

So, yes.

Caveat: Form =/= Right

NOW WE'RE GETTING SOMEWHERE. Keep it up.

I think the difference is that while yes, there are some people who verbally disagree, there are others who are saying they deserve to be fired and there's no place in this country for those types of people (types meaning, those who kneel during the anthem). I think verbally expressing disagreement with their actions is entirely fine, it's the solutions that these people are proposing that are the problem. More often than not those who verbally disagree with others kneeling turns into a "white lives matter" circle jerk from conservative voters, which stems from them feeling attacked by those kneeling, or that those kneeling are disgracing them/our country. [At least that seems to be the case with the middle class americans that are from where I grew up.]

So it's not a matter of me disagreeing with someones freedom to have an opinion, but it's more of a matter of me disagreeing with their self entitlement and acting like their opinions are more important/correct than others.

New poll idea... which of the T14 are you not applying to?

Walliums wrote:New poll idea... which of the T14 are you not applying to?

I'm prob not applying to Penn and Yale

penn is too cocky and prob will deny me, Yale more than likely will deny me because of LSAT history and I'm too lazy to type up 250 words YEET

Walliums wrote:New poll idea... which of the T14 are you not applying to?

If I can pull in a 172+, prob not applying below UVA except for Cal

There's no center left option in the poll. Way too much emphasis on fringe terms

Yarg worst LSAT dream yet last night. I didn't have a watch, had no sense of time, and was physically unable to fill in the correct scantron bubble related to each question. I kept realizing I'd filled in the wrong one, over and over and over. TORTURE. Thank god my brain finally woke me up.

twiix wrote:isn't neoliberal just an economic view? I could be 100% wrong, so feel free to roast me if I am, but I thought it was typically just used as a descriptor of extreme deregulated markets, opposite of communism, or entirely state-planned economy.

It's a fraught term because it has wildly different connotations in different places, but I imagine that people who self-identify as neoliberal are unified by the following:

Utilitarianism and (scientific) empiricism. Polices are good or bad to the extent that they demonstrably help or hurt people. Most neoliberals are fans of things like human rights and the rule of law, but that might be explained by the fact that defending human rights and the rule of law tends to produce good outcomes. Neoliberals are, conversely, deeply skeptical of ideologically-motivated programmes with poor track records, such as economic isolationism and socialism. I'd say the extreme right wing of neoliberalism is defined by market advocates and Monetarists like Milton Friedman, whereas the extreme left wing is held down by advocates of Nordic-style systems (still thoroughly capitalistic but with a greater appetite for taxation and industrial policy).

This outlook is important because the reasons why neoliberals support liberalism has wide-ranging effects on the sorts of economic and social policies they support. Not really because "the freer the market, the freer the people", or any sort of values-based drive like that, but because market economies consistently produce the best outcomes. This ideological difference from libertarians, to the right, means that neoliberals are much more likely to support government intervention in order to internalize negative externalities and otherwise align economic actors' interests with society at large. A similar ideological gap from collectivists, to the left, means that neoliberals are relatively quite tolerant of private wealth, and of the commanding heights of the economy being controlled by private actors as opposed to the government, so long as everyone plays by the rules.

There has certainly been a shift in the past few decades towards being less apathetic about social issues (as opposed to the old-school neoliberalism of, say, Thatcher, which held that opening up economic opportunities and generally making people better-off would be sufficient for social harmony.) There are a number of reasons for this, but I think the biggest is recent economic research that has laid bare the depth and breadth of problems like racism and sexism that were easier to sweep under the rug in the past. There has been a similar shift on environmental issues because of the unique danger posed by climate change.

Because they are defined by pragmatism more than anything else, neoliberals catch a lot of hate from ideologically-driven groups like environmentalists, conservatives, Marxists, etc., who perceive neoliberalism (liberalism in general, really) as heartless, mercenary, or fake in some proportion. Current world leaders that I would describe as neoliberal include Angela Merkel and Emmanuel Macron. The most neoliberal figures in American politics today would include establishment Democrats like Obama and Clinton as well as moderate Republicans like Kasich and Huntsman, although the latter group are hobbled greatly by their party's values-based approach to issues like climate change and gay marriage.

sodomojo wrote:

chilover691 wrote:So then people believe that it's possible to be socially liberal and fiscally conservative?

Um... yes?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertari ... ed_States)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jess-cole ... 55550.html

april_ludgate wrote:

sodomojo wrote:

chilover691 wrote:So then people believe that it's possible to be socially liberal and fiscally conservative?

Um... yes?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertari ... ed_States)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jess-cole ... 55550.html

Gr8 b8 m8

april_ludgate wrote:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jess-cole ... 55550.html

Thus, what the “socially liberal, fiscally conservative” person is really saying is: “I support the plight of the marginalized, so long as I don’t have to do anything about it.”

Obviously, that guy thinks that "socially liberal and fiscally conservative" is a bad/ineffective stance, and he might be right that many of its proponents are disingenuous. But that certainly doesn't make such a stance impossible. That's like saying "it's impossible to be a communist, because I don't think communism would work."

ugh, waiting for scores is so boring.

but I'm not trippin, I know waiting for schools' decisions is going to be even worse so YEET

icechicken wrote:

april_ludgate wrote:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jess-cole ... 55550.html

Thus, what the “socially liberal, fiscally conservative” person is really saying is: “I support the plight of the marginalized, so long as I don’t have to do anything about it.”

Obviously, that guy thinks that "socially liberal and fiscally conservative" is a bad/ineffective stance, and he might be right that many of its proponents are disingenuous. But that certainly doesn't make such a stance impossible. That's like saying "it's impossible to be a communist, because I don't think communism would work."

Reminds me of the "you're pro-birth, not pro-life" tripe. You can support a cause without believing that government is the best vehicle for realizing its goals.

Barry grandpapy wrote:

april_ludgate wrote:What if you are both socially and economically conservative? I'm neither but that seems like a weird dichotomy to have to choose between if you are

I swapped neoconservative to conservative for you since neo had 0

Barry can we axe this poll? 10/10 boring

Mikey wrote:ugh, waiting for scores is so boring.

but I'm not trippin, I know waiting for schools' decisions is going to be even worse so YEET

na def not as bad

Rupert Pupkin wrote:

Mikey wrote:ugh, waiting for scores is so boring.

but I'm not trippin, I know waiting for schools' decisions is going to be even worse so YEET

na def not as bad

I think waiting for scores is worse. Because with your score in you really know where you stand and what your chances are. Without it I don't even know if I'm applying this cycle.

Can someone define democratic socialist for me?

april_ludgate wrote:

Rupert Pupkin wrote:

Mikey wrote:ugh, waiting for scores is so boring.

but I'm not trippin, I know waiting for schools' decisions is going to be even worse so YEET

na def not as bad

I think waiting for scores is worse. Because with your score in you really know where you stand and what your chances are. Without it I don't even know if I'm applying this cycle.

Yup exactly how i see it.The score is the biggest factor of your entire future of law school.

OldSpeedoGuy wrote:Can someone define democratic socialist for me?

Not really. The "Nordic Model" sense it's used in the US is pretty much wrong, but it's hard to tell who means it that way vs the anti-capitalist Allende/Chavez/Debs way.