GavinMcG

This is just the court following the law Oklahoma has enacted, which does not give it the power to act here. It's not forcing anything—it's doing the nothing it's empowered to do. If Oklahoma wants its court to have the power to grant relief, it can change its law. (Or better, just get rid of the death penalty entirely.)

The statute in question ([0] – see (D)(8)) says the court may not consider the merits or grant relief unless there are facts or legal rationales that could not have been raised earlier. The court isn't empowered to do something just because two parties agree.

Also, the governor can commute the sentence, as he did for Julius Jones.

[0] https://casetext.com/statute/oklahoma-statutes/title-22-crim...

No, that’s the thing: it’s unsafe unless it stays safe to an “unrealistic” range, since people exceed “normal” usage without meaning to.

The article did not use that headline, and is explicit about what it claims:

> no passenger jet pilot has tried again since (emphasis added)

Interesting questions. What do you think?

> McInnes is open about his glorification of violence. In a speech, he described a clash with Antifa outside a talk he gave at NYU last year: “My guys are left to fight. And here’s the crucial part: We do. And we beat the crap out of them.” He related what a Proud Boy who got arrested told him afterward: “It was really, really fun.” According to McInnes: “Violence doesn’t feel good. Justified violence feels great. And fighting solves everything.”

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/10/gavin-mcinnes-proud-b...

> These people are only ever made fun of

That doesn't mean they're "tangentially related." They sow the seeds that grow into extreme right wing commitments and actions like insurrection. McInness didn't raid the capitol himself, but the organization he founded has five members standing trial right now, including its current national leader.

He's given people like Alex Jones and Gavin McInnes a platform—something that McInnes himself (for example) has said directly helped recruitment to the Proud Boys.

Effectively monetizing the hosting of images embedded elsewhere seems like a fool's errand—at best, it's possible to subsidize that usage with other revenue streams. The vast majority of people wanting to post images on forums have never financed their posting and the communities themselves haven't managed to either. Photobucket and Tinypic left a lot of litter on forums that survived their era, and Imgur will ultimately do the same.

> I am not a lawyer

Don't be so confident, then. I'm not either, but it doesn't take much looking around to see that the situation isn't as simple as corporate presence. A company can be subject to the state's jurisdiction for claims related to the contacts a company does have – and relatedness is not just a matter of directly causing harm or some other outcome. [0]

What you pointed out actually demonstrates that point: even though manufacturers aren't selling directly to consumers, they're still selling there via distributors, and are still subject to product liability suits, etc. The distributor doesn't shield them, in other words.

Here's what the Court said in Ford:

> Specific jurisdiction is different: It covers defendants less intimately connected with a State, but only as to a narrower class of claims. The contacts needed for this kind of jurisdiction often go by the name “purposeful availment.” Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 475 (1985). The defendant, we have said, must take “some act by which [it] purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State.” Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 253 (1958). The contacts must be the defendant’s own choice and not “random, isolated, or fortuitous.” Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 465 U.S. 770, 774 (1984). They must show that the defendant deliberately “reached out beyond” its home—by, for example, “exploi[ting] a market” in the forum State or entering a contractual relationship centered there. Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277, 285 (2014) (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted).

Whether only advertising could be enough hasn't been definitively settled, but it certainly could count as "purposeful availment" whereby the company "reache[s] out beyond its home" and seeks to "exploi[t] a market" in the state.

[0] https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt14-S1-7-1...

Being an Illinois company is irrelevant once they actively choose to do business in Colorado. You have to follow the law wherever you go; so do companies.

Pulling out entirely is one possible answer, but something less than that (like advertising and servicing without selling directly) could be enough to bring a company within the state's jurisdiction. The Supreme Court decided a similar case a couple years ago, Ford Motor Co. v. Montana. In that case Ford was selling in-state, but hadn't sold those particular vehicles there.

That's a stretch. Volokh queried “Whether sexual harassment by professors has been a problem at American law schools; please include at least five examples, together with quotes from relevant newspaper articles.”

If Alice asked this question of Bob, you wouldn't say Alice "had a hand in" Bob's defamatory creation.

You might be thinking of "publication" which merely means sharing with a third person – even one. It's a term of art distinct from spreading it widely in a periodical, say.

Libel has a pretty clear definition in most legal systems, and how it was generated doesn't come into play. What makes you think there's any real ambiguity here?

You can of course blame the victim while also blaming the perpetrator. As you point out, they're not mutually exclusive. But if your communication to your friend focused exclusively on her actions—like the comment does—then yes, I think that would be worthy of criticism.

Yes, fine, but lacking all naiveté is a horrifying view of the world. We must have mechanisms for achieving justice after wrongdoing, and have faith that we can trust each other to do the right thing.

Cf. Shaw: “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.”

This is a horrifying view of the world even on its face, but also: even if we anticipate that people might do the wrong thing, it is still wrong and it is still appropriate to condemn that wrong and call for justice.

Quite the opposite: both cradles and graves are spots to lay human bodies, and both are being used metaphorically for times in one's life.

No, we agree about the phrase. But that's the whole ballgame: if "cradle" independently referred to the place, there would be no need to say "of civilization." It's an idiomatic use that is expressly non-literal. We also agree that "cradle" as a verb is not metaphorical.

Whether "cradle" is more or less common than "crib" (say) doesn't indicate one way or another whether its usage in other contexts is as a first- or second-order signifier.

Our other thread fleshes this out, but there's a difference between widespread idiom and accepted definition. A dictionary's description of idiomatic use does not indicate that the term independently denotes the idiomatic meaning.

Similarly, if I say "cats and dogs," that isn't a measure of volume or intensity except where paired with "raining." Having to say "of civilization" indicates that "cradle" is being used metaphorically or idiomatically.

Please be more charitable. None of what I've said is misinformation.

I think "whether or not [you] know it" is key. The definitions I'm advancing have to do with the subjective mental work you do (or don't do). I agree that "typing" is literal because we do not loop in the concept of physical type making an impression when we interpret or describe the action of fingers on a keyboard. The term has flown the nest, so to speak.

What about my last paragraph? Do you deny that there's a two-step process going on, or do you actually see the phrase "Chinese cradle" and interpret it to mean "birthplace of civilization" rather than first assuming it means a baby-related object produced in China?

Of course it's weak. This is all pedantry. But then again, "literal" now means both "literal" and "not literal" so maybe all linguistic distinctions are fragile. Less useful once they're destroyed, though—it would be nice if we had a word that meant "literal" without also meaning "not literal."

Not denying that the process happens, and maybe it's irreconcilable. But I'll attempt to describe my position in more general terms.

The difference between "literal" and "figurative"/"metaphorical" is whether a term is being used as a first-order label for a thing in itself, or as a reference to another concept. That is, a figurative use of a term applies meaning by drawing on a distinct source of meaning.

Words (or idiomatic phrases) can become literal when their usage becomes so strongly identified with what they label that their meaning is no longer determined by reference. "Turn on" no longer involves turning, for example.

I agree that "definition" has become literal, because we no longer refer to the concept of boundaries each time we encounter the term. So too with "cradle": we imagine a particular object that isn't a basket, in itself.

I do not believe this is the case when someone calls the Yellow River the cradle of Chinese civilization. I believe that people hearing that term primarily understand "cradle" by reference to the baby-related object, rather than because the word has meaning in itself relating to the start of civilization. As evidence of this, I think attaching "of Chinese civilization" is doing meaningful work, and that most people would be thrown off by the abstract phrase "cradles around the world" or even by the more specific phrase "the Yellow River, China's cradle." They may still understand the speaker's meaning, but they would do so by connecting the metaphorical dots, not because "cradle" has become a literalism.

Then don't play fast and loose. Maybe one day we will look at a river or valley and use the word "cradle" in a non-metaphorical manner. Right now, we don't.

Yes. But at this point in time, no one is looking at a river or valley and using the noun “cradle” to categorize it. I’m not saying it could never become a literalism—only that it remains metaphorical, as a way to invoke the idea of a birthplace.

No, it isn’t. The definition is of a metaphor. A metaphor doesn’t become a literalism just because a dictionary included it.

It does when it’s part of eliminating an entire division and 7,000 others are losing their jobs.

(Along with 7,000 people who still need to work for a living.)

Maybe I shouldn’t complain, though; laying off management alongside labor should be normalized.

I agree. Also, I dislike it, and the double emphasis provided by "quite" makes it even worse—how can something be especially non-metaphorical, or especially understood in the (already) "strongest admissible sense"?[0] Maybe my criticism should have been better targeted, but it's silly usage and I'm feeling like a SNOOT.[1]

[0] OED Online

[1] David Foster Wallace, Tense Present, available at https://harpers.org/wp-content/uploads/HarpersMagazine-2001-...

When you say “quite literally” you seem to mean “figuratively.” A river is not a cradle.

As a man, talk therapy has worked wonders for me. No individual tool will fix the underlying cause, of course, and I also benefit greatly from weightlifting and other exercise.

If therapy is less immediately effective for men, that may signal a greater need for it, not a lesser one. Learning to understand and experience one's emotions is both a skill therapy can develop and one that is needed for therapy (or journaling, etc.) to be maximally effective.

Do you think banks don't need to compete? Aren't exposed to risk? They're not hedge funds, but they're still participants in various investment markets, and compete for customers on rates.