I am a public defender doing state level criminal law in the United States and I have posted about this a lot. Here are some of these posts.
How Does Court Work?: An Explanation of WTF is actually going on in the courtroom and the jails.
Part 1: Police Investigations: How do cases start? Why are police so bad at investigations??
Part 2: Bail and Arrest, or: So You've Stumbled On the Philosophical Problems Inherent in Paying Money to Get Out of Jail
Part 3: What is Trial & How?, including preliminary hearings, what makes a jury "grand," and how trials work
Part 4: Punishment, Rehabilitation, Deterrence & Incapacitation: Why Prison
Part 5: Probation and Parole, which is for some reason considered an "act of judicial grace" by the case law
Juvenile Law: I had no idea when I wrote these that any of these posts would be popular but some have proved to perform like absolute bangers on Tumblr. Mind-boggling.
What is funny about being a juvenile defender is that I never really liked children
How to interview children (people really fuckin vibed with this one for some reason)
Children, discomfort, and the Internet (minors are OK to interact with me and ask all kinds of questions)
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
✓ Live Streaming✓ Interactive Chat✓ Private Shows✓ HD Quality✓ Free Actions
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
Corporate and you: how to handle large scale group organizing and master bureaucracy without going fucking insane.
So, couple disclaimers at the beginning. This is the how to survive Corporate and why you need to learn bureaucracy rant I mentioned a few days back. This is based on my 12 years working (and thriving!) in a Corporate environment based around the US but not being physically living in the US. It's also the result of 20 years doing consistent activist work with large scale organizations and doing mostly logistics support.
Full disclosure, the realization this rant needed to exist came from a very popular blog chronicling a Bad Work Spiral and a friend sharing that with me, and me having a Weird Uncomfortable reaction to it. I will not be linking to this person because they're already having a really shitty time of it, and having a random stranger they don't know from Adam writing commentary on how to avoid landing in that kind of situation seems to me deeply unkind.
I want to be clear and upfront about this from the beginning: these observations are not meant to absolve an abusive, toxic workplace just because it's Corporate. What I'm trying to do is give you tools to navigate boundaries in Large Groups Of People, of which Corporate is one of the most common places you will find yourself in. Not knowing how to navigate the dynamic makes you vulnerable to exploitation; it never makes you responsible for it.
So with that in mind:
What the fuck is Corporate?
Colloquially, Corporate is the name we give large labor forces that are organized under a single hierarchy and function under a distinct identity. I'm talking about the work force and not the Corporation itself, because as part of the fun (read: unconscionable and corrupt) structure of modern day Capitalism, a Corporation is just a piece of paper that obscures individual ownership of things. We're not talking about the legal and financial entity of a Corporation (and the source of all those fraud ads about not paying taxes if you set up an S-Corp! Totes legit!).
I'm talking about the labor force. I'm talking about the actual people that make up a Corporation and how those people are organized and how that structure works.
Corporate at its core is bureaucracy under another name. Privatized bureaucracy, to tell it apart from Government bureaucracy, which is also deeply stigmatized and presented as an inescapable labyrinth that no mere mortal can traverse. This is equally bullshit. Don't buy that snappy, snarky nonsense. If governance and organized labor are inaccessible and incomprehensible, that only means they're forever out of reach. That you have no hope of affecting change or taking control of it.
That's a lie.
Ultimately Corporate is just a way to organize a large group of people to more or less effectively get shit done. And I know. I know. You've worked in Corporate and spent hours doing nothing. You think Corporate is the most inefficient fucking thing to ever exist. There's meetings and meetings and endless chains of emails. "Middle Management" is just a bunch of assholes collecting a large paycheck for doing nothing!
But see, that's the propaganda. That's taking your misunderstanding of how Corporate works and weaponizing it to keep you out. To keep you from seeing the purposefulness of it. If you don't understand WHY things are done a certain way, you can't identify who made those decisions and who benefits from them. And you can't really tell, at a glance, if you're dealing with a Corporate entity you want to interact with or not.
Ultimately, Corporate is bureaucracy: it assigns a role to each person and each role comes with responsibilities. What is obscured in most cases is how these roles and responsibilities interact with each other. And that's where people fail.
How it breaks down.
Let's say, for example, that you're hired as a secretary or personal assistant. And one of your roles is to manage meetings for your boss. Their entire job is meetings, it seems, with all sorts of people. And your job is to make sure their calendar doesn't contradict itself, and maybe that the meeting room is setup properly, for each meeting: i.e., if they need to present, there's a projector or the right cables or the right speaker, etc.
This is pretty straightforward, right? And when you're first hired to work Corporate, it really does feel like it's a simple job. You can manage someone's calendar. Send a few emails. Sure. And then friction happens: two very important, very busy people want to meet with your boss on the same day and at the same time. Or something is broken, in the meeting room.
The first friction, double-booking, is within the scope of your job. You need to reach out to their secretaries and negotiate time and see if it's possible to reschedule or move things around: you might need to reschedule other meetings and reshuffle the entire calendar to accommodate. But that IS your job. To manage the calendar. And that's something to keep track of to show you're doing your job properly. That you send cordial emails or networked with other secretaries to resolve this with a real time chat instead of a long email trail. Or traded favors to shuffle schedules, etc. That's within your role. That's something you're expected to do.
The second friction, however, it's not part of your job. It's a trap waiting to snare the unaware. Because your job is to make sure the meeting room is ready to be used. But your job is not to fix whatever was broken. And here is where the nature of bureaucracy/Corporate breaks some people. Some people will look at a frayed cable or a missing speaker and go "that's an easy fix, I just need to go to the hardware store." And what's worse, they'll do it. Out of their own pocket, they will pay for a cable or a speaker or what have you, and personally fix the problem. And they will feel very accomplished and satisfied with themselves. They will note this down and present it as "going above and beyond" when they talk about their performance with their boss. "Look at me," they say, "I'm fixing SO MANY THINGS."
Well, we have a name for people like that, in the Corporate sphere: The Well-meaning Idiot.
Because they're idiots. Full stop. They're in fact fucking up and documenting they're fucking up, and they're so busy self-congratulating over how Good They Are At Work, that they don't notice all the ways they've fucked up royally. But they're not mean-spirited idiots or actively trying to cause problems. They're well-meaning. They are trying their best.
It's just that their best doesn't work.
How it's SUPPOSED to work.
I know, I know. Hear me out. The thing about working in Corporate, is that there is probably someone whose job is to "fix frayed cables" and "replace missing speakers." There's probably a policy or an intake or a way to contact them and say "look, this meeting room needs to be ready by this time, and this needs to be fixed by then." And they would be able to help you deal with that friction without having to pay out of pocket for things. Or worse, they might not be able to help, because they're understaffed or underfunded, and your request not being fulfilled could be a blessing to them. Because they might have been telling their boss "we need more people/money" for months, but their boss can't actually give them anything, because there's no evidence of it. No one has complained. No one has documented it.
You went out of your way to be "a team player" and "think outside the box" and sure. You fixed your problem. But systemically. Structurally. The problem remains. The "fix cables and missing speakers" team is still understaffed and underfunded. Your fix is temporary. And possibly only benefiting you, individually. After all, if you bought the cable, you're not leaving it in the meeting room. That's your cable! You keep it for yourself and your boss' meetings.
But you will never be repaid for that cable. And you will not be graded on that cable, either. Because it's not part of your job so it's not something you're expected to do. It will get you a pat in the back and maybe some warm, social capital and maybe being treated as "a hero". But it won't reflect in your performance or your metrics or the things that decide if you get a better salary.
And that's the view that people don't see, about Corporate. Corporate runs on failure.
What you should have done was raise a request with that other team. And if they replied back and said "sorry, we're backed up and it's not possible for us to do this now"? You escalate to your boss. "Hey boss, FYI, the meeting room is not going to be ready for this meeting: the cable is broken and the team responsible doesn't have time/money to fix it." And then your boss - if they're a good boss - sends an email to the boss of that team, asking to be prioritized. To get it solved. And now there's documentation. There's evidence of an impact. So the boss of THAT team can reach out to THEIR boss and be like "see? I need more people/money." And because there's evidence, there's documentation, there's a paper trail, there's a bunch of people from varying ranks in the hierarchy speaking up about this being necessary? Yeah, something will be done.
The minimum viable solution will be applied.
And it will always be the minimum. As it should be. Remember, the point of a corporation is to make money. The reason there's policies and structures in place that demand evidence before authorizing fixes is because this is a measure against waste.
Imagine a world where, rather than going to the "fix cables and missing speakers" team, you had the option to just. Order a new cable. You don't pay for it, the business does. But you ordered it and they send it to you and it feels like YOUR cable. So instead of leaving it in the meeting room as public property, you decide to keep it. It's yours, after all. I mean, it belongs to the business, but you ordered it and it was given to you. It feels like your work laptop. Yours, but not really. But still yours enough to be exclusive.
What happens if someone else needs to use that meeting room? Well, they'll order their own cable. And now there's multiple cables, for the same meeting room, because without the friction of having a team administering those fixes and having to provide evidence of failure to release resources, you perceive things to belong to you, instead of being common goods.
Corporate policies have a tendency to be misrepresented as inaccessible and archaic and just straight up nonsense. That's propaganda. That's saying "I don't understand why this works this way, therefore it's nonsensical." Instead of "I don't understand why this works this way, therefore I should research and try to learn more." It's a thought-ending cliche designed to keep you from learning how to navigate this kind of dynamic.
And it's important that you learn how to navigate this dynamic. That you get comfortable and used to the fact "failure drives action" and "evidence justifies results."
Because that's how large scale groups of people operate.
Sike! We were talking about bureaucracy the entire time.
Bureaucracy runs on failure. Bureaucracy requires evidence of failure, in order to dispense a fix. The reason for this approach is to prevent waste. Waste can take many shapes! It can be money or food or time or people.
Bureaucracy is the best way humans have found to coordinate large scale groups of people towards a common goal. In the case of governments, to distribute and administrate common resources towards the common good. (Think, spending tax money towards improvements for the community.) In smaller scales, like activist groups or common good advocacy or sociocracy organizations the point is to divide labor up and distribute available resources towards specific goals.
Here's the thing though. In real life, we're not playing with cheats on. Money runs out. People burn out. Corporate (and bureaucracy) is frustrating and annoying until you realize the whole point is to preserve whatever resources we have and trying to route them to best possible recipient. This means people go without. This means there's always someone getting left behind.
That is the cruel reality of not having enough resources to do all the things you want to do. And in the majority of social endeavors you find yourself organizing large scale groups of people? You will not have enough resources pretty much ever. This is where compromises come from. This is where concessions and negotiation comes in.
This is where ideological purity seekers get shattered inside out and refuse to engage with the system. Any system.
Because there's not enough to go around to fix EVERYTHING. And if you don't understand how priorities are built, you are never going to be able to advocate for YOUR priorities to be taken seriously. You need to document failure. You need to build evidence. You need to SPEAK the language of bureaucracy, to get what you want.
But failure feels bad!
The elephant in the room is that failure sucks tho. Failure feels bad. Failure might require people to incur harm. Preventable harm! Harm that you could personally stop if only you step out of your role and-
Nope, nope. Look, I get it. I do. I'm brown and queer and fat and neurodivergent and VERY expendable. I understand there's a human cost, down the line. I understand there's a level of detachment and cruelty to requiring failure to action... and even then it doesn't guarantee that there WILL be a solution.
What that means is you don't put all your eggs in a single basket. And you become aware of what you personally can do. Where do you fit in the large scale system, what shape of cog are you. And where ELSE might you fit.
Because the thing that people forget in the midst of being paralyzed by the horrors is that there ARE multiple systems in action at the same time. Sure, there's government: but there's Federal and Local and State government. And even outside government, there's private and public support networks.
The lie is the idea that there's only one singular system and it's too complex and big to change or move with any kind of velocity. This is a lie. There are MANY and multiple systems of varying sizes and speeds, to respond to your needs. The more urgent your needs, the smaller the system you need to push for, because it's less numerical and more personable.
But the bigger the problem, the more long-lasting the solution you want, the bigger the system you want to tackle.
One of the most important things I have ever learned in my time as an activist has been the ability to scope out a problem and match it to the right size of system to interact with. Because yes, actually, it's insane to tell someone who is fucking starving "I get it, you're hungry, but we need DATA of starving people in order to start the multi-year process of reallocating resources to get people like you food." It's fucking evil!
It doesn't mean it's not true.
But you can get that data from a soup kitchen that's serving starving folk. You can route the starving individual to a immediate fix for their FUCKING STARVATION, while also engaging with the soup kitchen to use their data and use it as evidence to pressure local government.
All of these interactions are nuanced and complex, but they boil down to "someone has a job that is JUST to fix this, and by not routing people to them, you're fucking them up and setting them to fail." Think of all the librarians desperately asking people to use their services. Think of all the advocacy non-profits desperately wanting people to attend seminars or workshops. Because that's THEIR job and they have metrics and quotas. Because the resources are limited. And they need to justify the resources they've been given, to keep existing.
So how do I navigate this?
First and foremost, you need to accept that social problems cannot be solved individually. Please stop looking at issues as opportunities for you personally to be a hero.
Instead, figure out the shape of your cog. Where do you sit in any of these systems? And if you don't... then figure out how to join. Join local town halls. Join neighborhood watches. Join local humane aid societies.
Figure out what you are responsible for, and then try to route anything you're not responsible for to the person who is. Give them data. Give them examples. Make sure people and their needs are documented. That they don't end up as a conversation that no one remembers a month later.
Understand what are the metrics your resources are tied to. What do you need to demonstrate to get increased scopes. And also identify what are short-term solutions for those long-term goals that can be passed on to people in need.
Help people understand that challenging and reforming systemic issues is a long-haul, slow, tedious but extremely necessary process, and that it is a distinct thing from helping people who need things immediately. And that very often the people doing one are NOT the people doing the other.
Educate yourself and those around you, and do not let yourself be radicalized into paralysis. Don't let people convince you that you're too small to matter. That you can't possible affect any sort of change anywhere. But also be on guard against the people who see any kind of concession or negotiation as a betrayal. Watch out for attempts to diminish or negate efforts to improve things because they're not efforts to improve ALL things. Whether they know it or not, those people are spewing propaganda and trying to rob you of your ability to impact the world around you. Do no fucking let them.
Sure, sure, Comrade, but what the fuck do I do about my Corporate job?
Fair, fair. My main bone is the fact negativity towards Corporate structures very often bleeds into negativity about bureaucracy, which is truly negativity about large scale organization and the paths to empowerment that individuals have when they join a group of their peers.
And while these are all principles you can apply to your Corporate job, here's a few things to help you decode how to navigate that world:
Read the fucking policies.
Every Corporate job out there has policies in place. These are the ground rules. These are the things that truly dictate what needs to be done and by whom. Sure, a power tripping manager might be giving you all sort of grief, but what matters is the policy.
Read it. Understand it. If you don't understand the policy, ask the person who wrote it until you do. And then follow it.
And if you're ever asked to break or circumvent that policy: DOCUMENT IT. Get it in writing. Don't be aggressive or combative. Play the clueless nerd card.
"I'm sorry, I know in the meeting you told me to do X, but as I understand, it's policy to do Y. Can you confirm you want me to do X?"
If someone wants you, repeatedly, to break policy and is being slimy about confirming it in writing, document it yourself anyway, and consider passing it on to HR.
HR is not the enemy. They're also not your friend.
HR exists to keep the company from being sued. The moment you threaten a lawsuit, that's the moment HR starts treating you as a threat instead of part of the company.
While HR is not your friend and will not go out of its way to look out for you, personally, and you should not expect them to: HR exists to protect the company from lawsuits. Policies were written to enable the company to complete its work, comply with regulatory requirements and avoid lawsuits. When you avoid or break policies, you're a danger to the company and will be targeted by HR. Redirect that shit to whoever is demanding you avoid or break policy and duck your head to avoid the fire.
Do what you're paid to do, not what you think they should pay you to do.
The most important thing to be able to survive and even thrive in Corporate is to know what the fuck they're paying you for. What's your role. What are you responsible for. If at any point you're not sure, go ask your boss. Get it in writing. If your boss can't or won't give you clear expectations of what your role and responsibilities are?
Fucking.
Run.
Do not look back.
Do not let yourself be swayed by promises of future growth or raises.
If you can afford to, quit immediately. Otherwise, start looking for employment elsewhere.
Remember, the whole point of Corporate is that you're a cog in a machine. You have your little scope of what you're responsible for and what people expect you to do. You're the guy who wrangles the calendars. Or the dude who schedules the meetings. Or the guy responsible for replacing frayed cables. The system only works when everyone has a role and they KNOW what their role is.
When your boss can't or won't define your role, your boss is trying to exploit you. If you don't know what you're being paid for, you don't know what counts as extra. You have no real visibility as of what's considered the minimum you should do, or what success looks like. This is a common problem of companies that are large enough to be Corporate, but small enough to still have people who run things on vibes.
Nope. Fuck that. There is no amount of promised pay that makes that kind of environment worthwhile. I promise you, they will exploit you for all they can, squeeze every tiny bit of usability out of you, and then kick you to the curb and scam you out of as much money as they can, on the way out.
Figure out what you're being paid for. Get it in writing. And also get in writing what your boss considers "minimum" and "acceptable." You'll find in Corporate there's always the whole "year end review" about what you did and what you can improve and how to grade your performance. Well, you can't be graded without a metric. If you don't know what your boss thinks is "Satisfactory"? You will never be able to make decisions about your own work.
In toxic work places, this is by design. If you don't know what "good enough" looks like, they expect you to just. Work endlessly. Tirelessly. As hard and as fast and as much as you can. And that's a one way ticket to burnout city.
Which brings us to my favorite piece of Corporate advice:
Do not ever fucking put 100% on anything. Ever.
So the truth of it is, even if your manager isn't actively trying to sabotage you. Even if they're not a massive dick. Anything they see you do once is something they will expect you to do always. Unless you make a big deal out of it and get it in writing that it's a big deal and make an effort to remind them that it's a big deal? Yeah, they saw you do it which means you can do it, which means you should do it.
So no, do not stay late without overtime pay. Do not switch to work a double shift. Do not do more than you're required (BEING PAID FOR), without thoroughly documenting and clearly getting IN WRITING notice that it's a one-off and also what reimbursement you're getting for it.
But I just want to be nice to my coworkers! Right. So you're taking on the extra work instead of letting the system fail and your manager realize they're understaffed and need someone else to join. I mean, are you REALLY understaffed if you're there and able to do the work? For no extra pay? Why would they hire new people?
It all circles back to: what's your place in the machine? What were you hired to do? If they want you to change or move or do more, politely request a meeting with HR and ask to explore your options for further compensation.
You do this for money. They want you desperately to forget it's all about money. Do not fucking let them.
In the most general way, you're exchanging labor for money. However, you should be aware of whether you're selling specific actions/end results, or if you're leasing your time. These are not the same. And one might be better for you than the other.
Here's an example:
I get paid for doing a report. The report is my responsibility. The expectation is that I deliver the report on time. If I'm selling a specific action, that means I will be paid the exact same if I take an hour or forty, building the report. All they care about is that it's delivered on time. And in that scenario, the faster I can make that report, the more my time is worth.
Conversely, if the report is not as important as me being available during a certain hour window to answer questions/respond emails, I am leasing my availability. And since my boss is paying for that window of time, they probably want to see me look busy as much as possible, to feel like they're getting the most out of their investment. But looking busy doesn't mean being busy. And if it's been established that I get a certain amount of hours to do something, and I manage to do it faster? There's no real benefit to anyone about it. Because I will not get a break. I will get more tasks to do. And if it was a fluke, getting rid of new tasks is a lot harder than being assigned them.
You're not a slave. You're not a serf. Your purpose in life is not to be working 24/7.
But what if I'm idle? What if I could be PRODUCTIVE? Are you? Actually productive? Or are you putting the entirety of your sense of self on your ability to be a Good Cog and get a good grade in Working, to the point you sacrifice any kind of freedom and space to breathe you can afford? Are you actually helping or are you being a Well-Meaning Idiot and fixing shit before it fails and therefore ensuring it NEVER gets properly fixed?
It's just a job, dude. As long as you know your role and your responsibilities and you're keeping up with those?
It's okay.
A job should not feel like torture. I get it, we're in a Capitalistic hellscape and everything is awful all the time. But like. Do remind yourself, even if you can't, for any reason, remove yourself from the Torment Nexus that is your job: a job should not feel like torture. You're not insane for wanting to be treated with respect. There are in fact places where you can exchange labor for money and not be routinely exploited. I hope you're able to find one.
But mostly?
Understand the systems around you. Understand the systems you belong to. Identify when they're broken and when they're fixable.
And don't let doomerist bullshit convince you there's no way out.
One of the best descriptions I’ve ever seen to understand why, for example, I as a public defender should stick within the confines of that role and yell when things outside that aren’t being done, rather than try to be more than a lawyer to my clients.
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
✓ Live Streaming✓ Interactive Chat✓ Private Shows✓ HD Quality✓ Free Actions
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
I’m slowly scrolling through my dashing reading your arguments over leftists vs liberals/Always Vote Democrat in reverse, and I was reminded of a moment about a decade ago, when I got involved in liberal campaigns where I lived: the glorious state of Texas. There were multiple candidates running in the Democratic primaries for the federal representative seat of my district, and I had narrowed the field down to two options. One matched my politics more (I’m pretty leftist), but I feared she was too left to win. The other was more business friendly/centrist, but I thought she had a greater shot. Which one to choose?
I chose the centrist. She won. I think she still holds the seat (don’t live in Texas anymore).
When you’re trying to flip states, or are just running in perennially purple states, a lot of times you gotta make compromises. I love AOC and her politics, but she couldn’t flip a pink Texas district—and thanks to an absurd amount of gerrymandering, most Texas districts are at least light pink. Texas Republicans go through hell and high water to make sure that Democrats never ever EVER get elected, so by definition you’re playing on an unfair game board and you just gotta roll with it. Which means making compromises. Online leftists don’t seem to get that.
And honestly? I kinda understand! Because there are things that you shouldn’t compromise on, yet you might be asked to do so anyway. Remember the gay marriage struggle in the aughts, when Democrats supporting civil unions was the liberal option? What bullshit!! What is this separate but equal nonsense 🙄?! But what if actual equality seems unachievable in your local elections? Do you push for civil unions as a middle step, or shoot for the stars to get gay marriage?
In my experience, there’s never a one size fits all answer. There are times when shooting for the stars is a feasible option—a very difficult one, but still a possibility—and there are times when you can only accomplish half steps. You might even get punished severely for shooting for the stars. And you never know what time it is. It’s extremely frustrating. The last decade (which has been spent entirely in the South, fwiw) has also frightened me out of the optimism of my youth. It makes me vomit blood to say this, but I think the next Democratic candidate MUST be a straight white man. Not because straights, or Whites, or men are inherently better presidents—because I’ve lost faith in my country’s ability to elect anyone else.
But keyboard leftists don’t seem to comprehend this push-pull over when to compromise and when to fight. No, it’s more like they refuse to do so. I genuinely want to be convinced that a woman, queer, and/or POC has a shot at the White House, but instead I get called weak, a traitor, etc etc etc for reaching this miserable conclusion after bitter experience. There’s no interest in the political process, or even the dynamics of convincing people to choose you. Of course, these are the same people most likely to write off the South entirely as unsalvageable shitholes that should be abandoned to rot. Wow, thanks guys!
What's the end of that stupid saying? The wisdom to know the difference?
(duckduckgo pause)
The serenity to accept what cannot be changed, the courage to change what can be changed, and the wisdom to know the difference.
Boy we all want the wisdom to know the difference. These answers are not simple. 2020 and 2021 turned all of the accepted wisdom of what-we-cannot-change upside down in the criminal justice system for like a second -- suddenly we made huge strides and passed crazy shit and instantly fucking stalled out. We were changing the rules on jury trials so juries could know the sentencing range before they made a decision, some honestly groundbreaking shit, and now we're fighting over whether the organization that locks up juveniles should develop guidelines for how long they can lock a juvenile in solitary. Not even what their guidelines should be. Should they develop them.
There's some virtue in being the group that's constantly pushing for slow change, especially if you can shift to big change when the moment calls for it. But it's exhausting, isn't it?
The wisdom to know the difference. And the other thing I wish for is that politicians would just listen to the people who have to deal with their laws for, like, a second. When we say "this law about assault and battery on cops is producing absurd results, like mentally ill people going to jail instead of hospitals, so we want it reduced to a misdemeanor if the officer is not actually hurt in any way during the battery" the answer is "that's a non-starter, I can't be seen as anti-cop." Okay. Your reputation is worth more to you than the lives and bodies of my clients. I can still hear the snap of my client's arm when the police broke it after she called to try and get help. And you can't be seen as anti-cop.
What can you do? Pick up your shit and move on to the next Senator's office. Approach it a different way. We want a Marcus Alert. We want a different team for mental health. We want mental health-related A+Bs to be permitted in diversion programs. Then they start listening, maybe.
We just have to live in the real world.
Anyway, I really feel you.
Have also lived in Texas. I know it's a bunch of cities held prisoner by a highly hostile gerrymandered government. I don't write it off. It's a real education in how people justify voting for corrupt windbags. Seems like some potentially interesting shit going on right now, though!
And yes, that means if someone doesn't actually say or believe one of the NOT THIS beliefs, you don't just pretend they do and respond like they're hostile anyway.
TRY THIS:
Oh, you use Tactic 1 to accomplish Goal A? I use Tactic 2. I recognize that you are an ally in this fight and would like to both teach you and learn from you in the interests of making Goal A a reality.
NOT THIS:
By choosing Tactic 2, I wholeheartedly condemn Tactic 1 as being actually more harmful than the evil we're fighting. It is both ineffective and actively evil. I am not allies with anyone who uses or supports Tactic 1 and their good intentions are not magic.
TRY THIS:
You focus on Issue A? I appreciate that your focus and experience have brought you additional context. I, too, have something that is My Shit and that I am eager to share about.
NOT THIS:
If you don't care about Issues B, E, F, Z, and N-Q, you are actually enabling the deaths of innocent civilians as we speak. Children. Babies!
By caring about Issue A when there are so many more important things in the world, you are a privileged ivory tower imperialist colonialist larva. Enjoy your bootlicking
TRY THIS:
Law has a concept encapsulated by the sentence "Reasonable jurists could disagree." This means that two people, both wise and learned, could approach a particular issue, and, with intellectual honesty and reasoned analysis, end up on opposite sides of an issue. It allows you to think the other side is wrong all you want, while still preserving the understanding that the other side is a human person who has reasons for choosing the way they have chosen.
NOT THIS:
I am the rightest person in the world. This is a terrible burden, but at least I can attack everyone else secure in the knowledge that they deserve it.
Again, sorry for being snippy about it yesterday. Though like, y'all try wearing a suit and being bored in a hot office and see what you do.
"sorry I was a dick but you see I was experiencing mild discomfort and more importantly boredom. Now let me share my tips for respectful dialogue. Step 1: no straw men! Step 2: gather some straw. Step 3: using the straw you collected in the previous step, fashion a man. Again, sorry my tone was suboptimal. My only goal here is promoting respectful dialogue."
Do you really not see the connection between this:
"And yes, that means if someone doesn't actually say or believe one of the NOT THIS beliefs, you don't just pretend they do and respond like they're hostile anyway."
and all of this?
"you are a privileged ivory tower imperialist colonialist larva...I am the rightest person in the world."
When you review your contributions to the discussion ("Do I Need. To. Repeat. This."), do you think it is a good idea for you right now to position yourself as the person who has valuable insights on how not to antagonize people? Do you honestly believe that this follow-up is not snide?
No, I remain imperfect. I fall short of my ideals. I get things wrong. And sometimes I’m not as nice as I’d like to be. Those are all human things that happen. And I very often conclude intensely philosophical posts with “don’t take my word for it, decide for yourself.” If I was right about everything forever, I wouldn’t have changed so goddamn much over the last ten years.
But you are reading a meanness into this that isn’t there. This isn’t even about yesterday. It’s about the last month and a half, of which only one argument has been about Democratic Socialists.
It’s possible to recognize patterns like this without “wholeheartedly condemning” people who are in them. I dont think anyone in this is a bad person. I actually don’t believe in bad people, or in wholeheartedly condemning, and it is genuinely fucked up how often people use that shit against each other, and how as a result it is often read into the things I say.
Y’all, reminder: I defend murderers, sex offenders, and abusers, and kids and victims and addicts, and those categories all messily overlap. There is simply no situation where I think disagreements on the internet are worth moral condemnation. Making fun of? Oh yes! Condemnation? Get outta here.
I wasn’t nice yesterday. I responded initially satirically: oh yes certainly this rage will work! This one purge of evil will finally purge the evil forever!
I say basically the same to anyone who enforces purity. Of language, of party. Liberals love to attack each other and I have a long history of telling all kinds of liberals and leftists that it would be super if they stopped doing that and started working together. Nothing hits the rage button faster on the Internet than suggesting that an imperfect ally is not an enemy.
It’s not that I don’t understand the rage. I do. It’s not that I don’t think you’re entitled to feelings. I do. It all makes total sense. It’s all very human. We still have to get over it and work together if we want my clients to be not dying from Republican policies.
And let’s please bring it back to that. I would like people to talk to each other and not at each other. I would like my clients not to die. I am uninterested in a moral crusade.
Hate me? Sure, I can take it. But stop scaring off other voters in the party whose worst crime is disagreeing with you. Please.
And yes, that means if someone doesn't actually say or believe one of the NOT THIS beliefs, you don't just pretend they do and respond like they're hostile anyway.
TRY THIS:
Oh, you use Tactic 1 to accomplish Goal A? I use Tactic 2. I recognize that you are an ally in this fight and would like to both teach you and learn from you in the interests of making Goal A a reality.
NOT THIS:
By choosing Tactic 2, I wholeheartedly condemn Tactic 1 as being actually more harmful than the evil we're fighting. It is both ineffective and actively evil. I am not allies with anyone who uses or supports Tactic 1 and their good intentions are not magic.
TRY THIS:
You focus on Issue A? I appreciate that your focus and experience have brought you additional context. I, too, have something that is My Shit and that I am eager to share about.
NOT THIS:
If you don't care about Issues B, E, F, Z, and N-Q, you are actually enabling the deaths of innocent civilians as we speak. Children. Babies!
By caring about Issue A when there are so many more important things in the world, you are a privileged ivory tower imperialist colonialist larva. Enjoy your bootlicking
TRY THIS:
Law has a concept encapsulated by the sentence "Reasonable jurists could disagree." This means that two people, both wise and learned, could approach a particular issue, and, with intellectual honesty and reasoned analysis, end up on opposite sides of an issue. It allows you to think the other side is wrong all you want, while still preserving the understanding that the other side is a human person who has reasons for choosing the way they have chosen.
NOT THIS:
I am the rightest person in the world. This is a terrible burden, but at least I can attack everyone else secure in the knowledge that they deserve it.
Again, sorry for being snippy about it yesterday. Though like, y'all try wearing a suit and being bored in a hot office and see what you do.
Mammal in a Sunday Dress explores the uneasy relationship between femininity, civilisation, and the animal body. At first glance, the figure appears modest and withdrawn. Her posture is composed, her gaze seemingly lowered towards her bare feet, recalling the conventions of nineteenth-century portraiture where women were often depicted as passive objects of observation. Yet as the viewer moves closer, the illusion collapses. Her eyes are not lowered at all. She is looking directly back.
The delayed eye contact transforms the encounter. The viewer approaches believing they are safely observing a woman; instead, they realise they have been observed themselves. The work refuses the traditional power dynamic of portraiture, denying the comfort of anonymous spectatorship. Looking becomes a reciprocal act.
For Cox, the painting considers humanity's persistent desire to separate itself from the rest of the animal kingdom. The title quietly undermines this distinction. A "mammal" is not another creature—it is us. The Sunday dress, rich with cultural associations of femininity, morality, and respectability, becomes an attempt to distinguish ourselves from nature. Yet clothing cannot alter biology. Beneath lace and ritual remains the same vulnerable animal body.
The work also reflects on the historical relationship between women and nature. Across art, religion, and philosophy, women have repeatedly been positioned as closer to instinct, emotion, reproduction, and the body itself, while men have been aligned with reason, culture, and civilisation. Mammal in a Sunday Dress does not reject this comparison. Instead, it questions why proximity to nature has so often been treated as something lesser.
Chiaroscuro isolates the figure within darkness, allowing the luminous dress to symbolise the performance of civilisation while the bare feet quietly return the body to the earth. Neither is presented as more truthful than the other. The painting exists in the tension between performance and instinct, refinement and biology.
Mammal in a Sunday Dress ultimately asks a simple but unsettling question: if every layer of culture were stripped away, what would remain? Not a king. Not a saint. Not a gentleman or a lady. Only another mammal, looking back.
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
✓ Live Streaming✓ Interactive Chat✓ Private Shows✓ HD Quality✓ Free Actions
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
Lmao I saw your apology for fighting while bored at work at it took me a few before I went to your blog and went, oh, I have OP blocked bc I find that person extremely grating for exactly the reasons you said. Its not like I don't understand being angry at armchair leftists and keyboard warriors who take on these fucked up accelrationist stances, or for the inability to deal with nuance or practical reality. But the weirdly rabid and inflexible hate for all leftists period, as if we're an unthinking mass is... just as weird and fucked up as leftists who think all democrats are Nancy Pelosi. Like you are 100% right that their self-defeating circle jerk about how leftists cost the election over and over and over again is... just, pointless. What they're doing is so deeply reactionary too, like the slightest bit of pushback to their behavior and its just the same 3 assumptions that you must therefore be a nonvoting saboteur!!! Oh its your fault Trump won, nevermind.... any of your actual voting history and positions? It is exactly as pointless and hollow as the things they claim to rail against, a smug exercise in futility.
Also just... plenty of reasonable leftists will absolutely avoid you if you act like that, so you just end up just interacting with the exact sort of people that confirm your biases. Also also its not like I haven't met plenty of centrists and libs who weren't racist, sexist, ableist, antisemitic and so on and so on. Its almost like bigotry is a societal issue or something
anyway tyvm for the work you do, irl and trying to bridge gaps by actually talking to people, i appreciate you.
There truly are assholes in every part of the left half of American politics.
By which I mean: there truly are assholes everywhere. Any time you judge a whole group by the worst assholes, you are missing out.
Anyway, I must have missed some shit. I didn't realize "leftists" weren't calling themselves Democrats anymore? Like, we're all Democrats, right? We all understand that in a winner-take-all geographical-district system the only realistic way to operate is in a two-party system, right? And that in order to make any progress on our political goals, we need not to divide our forces further than that, right? Everyone's on the same page, right? ...right???
But some parts of that all were just boggling to me. Where was I during Bernie or Bust? Damn, actually, I was Not Really Getting The Hype. I voted for Hillary because I thought that she would do a better job as a president than Bernie. I think there are things that you have to do as a politician that you cannot do as a ~quirky outsider~ and that knowledge and experience count. Nonvoting? Choosing not to vote is like choosing Sitting On Your Ass as a form of transportation. Congrats in making your voice be unheard.
Sometimes I really feel like people have spent this whole time coming up with whole entire paradigms and I've been busy running to court, visiting jails and sleeping. My clients gotta explain slang to me now. I'm not even forty! Why the fuck is everyone so mad all the time??? NOT at Republicans, who are the ones killing my clients?
And the frankly bewildering frequency with which people assume that if I am offering anything but overflowing praise, it means I have Taken The Other Side. First of all, thinking people with minds and hearts can actually disagree on really important things. Second, I don't like the forced binary of taking sides!
My gender is starting to be this way too. I'm cis female, completely comfortable. I think if I was born male, I would have been completely comfortable cis male. I'm just not that attached, I can't imagine gender being such a big deal to me that I would go through the amount of trouble that trans people do. (So I goddamn respect how important it is to them, is what I do.) But the more people from the left and right insist on traditional gender roles these days, the more I'm like "I will fuck with it. Now I would like to fuck with it because I do not like that."
hey i really appreciate your take on the whole dsa/leftist vs liberal (whatever) debate. i think a lot of those blogs are missing the forest for the trees. if a non-republican candidate i don't like will help reduce the power of the republican party -- which is actively killing people -- then fine whatever. dealing with internal dem/liberal/politically left party politics can come after extinguishing the fires the republicans put out. which, again, are killing people as i type this
i'm concerned about the rhetoric coming out of some of those candidates but as long as they're willing and able to defeat the republicans, i don't care right now. the dems love to infight & then we lose races and it does us exactly zero (0) good.
I just can really sympathize with a lot of angles on this one.
Like, okay -- and please know I just speak for myself here, I don't label myself "leftist" or "liberal" anymore because I have too many bits that don't comfortably fit -- I admittedly had an extremely bad time voting for Kamala Harris. Why? Because she was a prosecutor. And most of the American voting public doesn't know prosecutors, or "progressive prosecutors," and they don't know the kind of things prosecutors say or what they mean when they say those things, but there were times when I instantly recognized the way she identified problems and solutions. When asked how she would alter business regulations to produce less of [x bad thing, I can't even remember what it was specifically], she immediately said that what needed to be done was to prosecute bad actors, not to change regulations to incentivize different behavior. It's exactly 100% how prosecutors think. If there is wrongdoing, there is someone to Punish, and once they are Punished, the problem is Solved?
For someone unfamiliar with that pattern, she did sound very liberal and good on many things. And I wasn't about to not vote, or vote for someone who didn't have a chance to win. I voted for her.
But there was a big part of me that was like -- YIKES!! Like, in a world where Kamala is president now, do we really think she would be against Flock cameras? Would she want them taken down, or would she just say "we need to make sure that only GOOD cops are viewing the data"? Because I bet it would be the latter. I don't think prosecutors really believe "freedom" is a virtue, because they chose their virtuous life by picking a profession of control.
And fucking hell, some of the nearby Democratic governors are just infuriating. In Virginia recently, Abigail Spanberger, Democrat, vetoed a law that would have made possession of drug residue into a misdemeanor. Drug residue essentially being an amount of drugs only detectable through scientific examination on drug paraphernalia. Her justification was that Virginia's drug treatment courts provide an opportunity for offender accountability and treatment, and that removing drug residue charges would so tragically remove that avenue. Of accountability!!
Almost no one graduates from our local drug court, because they're hounded into accountability by repeated short stays in jail until they fail out of the program.
But, put that aside; I'm not practicing in Abigail Spanberger's backyard. Only a minority of Virginia's jurisdictions have a drug court, and the ones who have one are more likely to be urban, heavily populated jurisdictions. Those are the jurisdictions most likely to drop drug residue felonies because they are a fucking waste of time. Rural jurisdictions, without a drug court, are more likely to prosecute as felonies. So, Madam Spanberger, would you be willing to apply this law to the majority of jurisdictions in Virginia that do not have a drug court? Or do you just not want to budge on the notoriously destructive, violent, costly, and losing War on Drugs?
I'm sick of them! I'm sick of Republican-Lite!
At the same time, those Republican-Lite guys I'm so sick of did, in fact, help pass many small reforms, including a pet bill of mine involving juvenile shackling, that made a huge difference in the lives of my clients.
So: sympathy! Sympathy all around! I'm sick of Republican-Lite and also I acknowledge that working with a center establishment can be an enormously productive thing to do! I recognize that the specter of small reforms can distract from the need for ground-up restructuring and yet when ground-up restructuring is not going to happen, small reforms are crucial!
And, above all, let's get these fucking Republicans out of here!
Nope! You were completely in the wrong here, and you should go ice your forehead. You didn't display any sympathy, not that it's possible to sympathize with someone you refuse to hear.
You know the paradox of tolerance? How you can't tolerate Nazis?
The people in that thread, which you clearly were not reading very thoughtfully, are not complaining about leftists with extreme political views. They're complaining about leftists who do nothing but smear Democratic candidates and spoil Democratic elections, and who often pretend that this is the same as promoting leftist political views.
That's not a big tent issue. It's not a conflict between centrists and progressives or progressives and radicals. It's not really ideological. It's a complaint about strategy - namely, the strategy of loudly insisting that it is immoral - nay, evil - to not ratfuck your political allies.
It's a complaint from the adults in the room about how a bunch of children spend the primary season pissing in. Children who then have the fucking nerve to complain about a lack of solidarity from the same people they literally called genocidaires for making the exact same demands for solidarity.
And you should have figured that out, because they were talking about Uncommitted and Graham Platner. Uncommitted famously claimed that Democrats were the same as Republicans - in other words, that moderate Democrats had no place in the Democratic party. At least a few prominent Uncommitted voices refused to agree that Kamala Harris was in any way different from Donald Trump. They actively dissuaded people from voting against Donald Trump: anti-solidarity.
Graham Platner was not a radical or progressive candidate. He was an oppo wet dream forced on Maine by jerkoff political consultants who displayed absolute contempt for the Democratic base in general and particular. In this analogy as in life, a Nazi: anti-solidarity.
The people who are bitter about this pattern are not complaining about Medicare for all or whatever. They're all progressives. (Also really fucked up of you to act like you're the only one who cares about keeping people alive! Mx. "No More Hate!")
They're not refusing to cooperate. They're saying that it isn't possible to cooperate with selfish assholes who demonize cooperation. They're sick and tired of being demonized by said selfish assholes for promoting cooperation.
They're really sick and tired of people who call them the problem whenever they complain about this selfish asshole behavior. Behavior that on top of everything else has an extremely poor track record vis-a-vis this thing that you claim is our shared priority. That's not infighting.
And you REALLY need to do better than equating "Fucked up to draft an unelectable right-winger who probably raped some women to be the Democratic standard-bearer" to the vicious racism and misogyny that promoted that choice.
I say: "I am not interested in blame and I don't care who started it."
Y'all hear: "It is your fault and I am blaming you. You started it and I am holding you personally responsible for everyone's behavior."
Me: "I don't punish and I am not interested in punishing."
Y'all hear: "I would like to punish you specifically."
-
Is it that I critiqued the behavior I saw? Because what I saw was this:
Y'all: I am extremely upset and personally offended at the existence of Democratic voters that don't agree with me and have taken actions I have found personally evil. Here are many citations to their evil, which I am right about and will not budge on. They deserve to be punished. I would like to exile them forever to the corners of the Earth.
Me: Ok but if you do that my clients will die and we will lose.
Y'all: But you don't understand: they're evil.
-
Hey, listen:
I literally do not care who is evil and deserves to be punished. I want to win elections over Republicans and not have my clients die.
hey i really appreciate your take on the whole dsa/leftist vs liberal (whatever) debate. i think a lot of those blogs are missing the forest for the trees. if a non-republican candidate i don't like will help reduce the power of the republican party -- which is actively killing people -- then fine whatever. dealing with internal dem/liberal/politically left party politics can come after extinguishing the fires the republicans put out. which, again, are killing people as i type this
i'm concerned about the rhetoric coming out of some of those candidates but as long as they're willing and able to defeat the republicans, i don't care right now. the dems love to infight & then we lose races and it does us exactly zero (0) good.
I just can really sympathize with a lot of angles on this one.
Like, okay -- and please know I just speak for myself here, I don't label myself "leftist" or "liberal" anymore because I have too many bits that don't comfortably fit -- I admittedly had an extremely bad time voting for Kamala Harris. Why? Because she was a prosecutor. And most of the American voting public doesn't know prosecutors, or "progressive prosecutors," and they don't know the kind of things prosecutors say or what they mean when they say those things, but there were times when I instantly recognized the way she identified problems and solutions. When asked how she would alter business regulations to produce less of [x bad thing, I can't even remember what it was specifically], she immediately said that what needed to be done was to prosecute bad actors, not to change regulations to incentivize different behavior. It's exactly 100% how prosecutors think. If there is wrongdoing, there is someone to Punish, and once they are Punished, the problem is Solved?
For someone unfamiliar with that pattern, she did sound very liberal and good on many things. And I wasn't about to not vote, or vote for someone who didn't have a chance to win. I voted for her.
But there was a big part of me that was like -- YIKES!! Like, in a world where Kamala is president now, do we really think she would be against Flock cameras? Would she want them taken down, or would she just say "we need to make sure that only GOOD cops are viewing the data"? Because I bet it would be the latter. I don't think prosecutors really believe "freedom" is a virtue, because they chose their virtuous life by picking a profession of control.
And fucking hell, some of the nearby Democratic governors are just infuriating. In Virginia recently, Abigail Spanberger, Democrat, vetoed a law that would have made possession of drug residue into a misdemeanor. Drug residue essentially being an amount of drugs only detectable through scientific examination on drug paraphernalia. Her justification was that Virginia's drug treatment courts provide an opportunity for offender accountability and treatment, and that removing drug residue charges would so tragically remove that avenue. Of accountability!!
Almost no one graduates from our local drug court, because they're hounded into accountability by repeated short stays in jail until they fail out of the program.
But, put that aside; I'm not practicing in Abigail Spanberger's backyard. Only a minority of Virginia's jurisdictions have a drug court, and the ones who have one are more likely to be urban, heavily populated jurisdictions. Those are the jurisdictions most likely to drop drug residue felonies because they are a fucking waste of time. Rural jurisdictions, without a drug court, are more likely to prosecute as felonies. So, Madam Spanberger, would you be willing to apply this law to the majority of jurisdictions in Virginia that do not have a drug court? Or do you just not want to budge on the notoriously destructive, violent, costly, and losing War on Drugs?
I'm sick of them! I'm sick of Republican-Lite!
At the same time, those Republican-Lite guys I'm so sick of did, in fact, help pass many small reforms, including a pet bill of mine involving juvenile shackling, that made a huge difference in the lives of my clients.
So: sympathy! Sympathy all around! I'm sick of Republican-Lite and also I acknowledge that working with a center establishment can be an enormously productive thing to do! I recognize that the specter of small reforms can distract from the need for ground-up restructuring and yet when ground-up restructuring is not going to happen, small reforms are crucial!
And, above all, let's get these fucking Republicans out of here!
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
✓ Live Streaming✓ Interactive Chat✓ Private Shows✓ HD Quality✓ Free Actions
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
you’ve stated before that the general public does often have misconceptions about court/court stuff and how it works, but do you think fictional media (movies, tv, even comics or theatre, I guess) depicting court and lawyer stuff has, overall, had more of a positive or negative impact on people’s understanding of and/or willingness to interact with the judicial system?
There is a scornful attitude among prosecutors and police of the "CSI effect" -- this being perceived as a juror's desire to see actual forensic evidence of the perpetrator committing a crime before they convict.
I think -- surprise surprise -- it's complicated. I think the biggest idea is that cops are heroes who are out to catch the bad guy and protect us all.
Which is kind of an interesting takeaway from the mountain of procedural shows. NYPD Blue was basically the first, right? And after that, the original Law & Order, which had the very notable bifurcated episode, with half in the investigation and half in the legal case. With that format, it actually drew a ton of inspiration directly from actual cases. Sometimes, especially early on, there were actually interesting issues -- like, if someone is attacked and a doctor's malpractice causes their wounds to be fatal, can you ethically prosecute both the attacker and the doctor for the death? And in some of those episodes, there was real room for the characters to come up with different answers.
How this proceeded to a completely unchallenged and unquestioned detective-catches-murderer (or rapist or whatever) procedural show is kind of annoying. Because it moved the legal issues, and the real thought, into the background. And it made the paradigm be one of unquestioning cop-worship. Cops as noble, self-sacrificing, warriors, protectors.
I think now it's an exceptionally nasty wake-up call when someone calls the cops for genuine help and finds that instead of the warrior heroes they were promised, they get Some Fucking Guys who were bullies in high school and then were trained literally to shoot first and figure out what the threat was later.
My aunt called 911 when my cousin tried to commit suicide and ended up with a bunch of huge armed men in her house asking her pointed questions about her home and what happened and fire trucks down half the damn street, her neighbors rubbernecking, while my cousin (not a large person!!) was a thousand times more terrified, now of being hurt *and* of losing their mom.
Can't count the number of clients who've been the one who called then who got arrested at the scene because Some Fucking Guy determined they were the 'primary aggressor' and that was the beginning and end of their investigation.
I think it makes people more willing to call the cops at least once, is what I'm saying.
Well I would love to have a simple black and white response to this meme but certain underlying factors have led me to an attitude that, while it embraces ambiguity, I wouldn't say loves it per se --
ryann meer @thelawfulchaotic - Tumblr Blog | Tumlook