Victory! Court Rules OPM Data Disclosure to DOGE Is Unlawful
eff.org
eff.org
Sure sounds like you want to oppress a people to me.
Maybe if those where are in public service, would actually do their jobs and serve the public we would all be better off.
It's a hard thing to do - letting people get away with murder - but if the alternative is to expand the current divisions in society, is it the best outcome for that society?
I don't have the answers, but I know it's very easy to point fingers and say "it's all their fault".. They have been doing it for years, and have shown it works, do you also want to take up their methods?
What makes you think they don't?
Why would a billionaire known for bribing authorities pay Alina Habba $50MM (for no apparent reason) immediately before receiving a presidential pardon? If we continue to let people like this get away with committing crimes right out in the open, we're never going to get back to a world where the rule of law matters.
We can't let accusing your political enemies of a crime as you are actively committing the same crime continue to be a get-out-of-jail-free card. There's no both-sides here. One side is obscenely corrupt, the other is... the best we have at the moment.
(Downthread:)
> Prison is necessarily oppressive.
> Sure sounds like you want to oppress a people to me.
Are you arguing that we should strive for a society that does not imprison anyone, or are you asking people to recognize prison as oppression without excluding prison as a valid/necessary/reasonable treatment for some people?
> Teach them empathy as justice is served to make whole the oppressed.
While the oppressed should not have sole decision-making authority or unlimited options (and afaik the oppressed almost never if ever advocate for such), generally the evaluation of whether the oppressed have been made whole (and whether the oppressed can be made whole in the first place) is for the oppressed to make, not for others or the law to decide.
Let us also recognize fundamental differences between oppressing people for their identities or their not-acted-upon thoughts and oppressing people for their actions.
The quote about oppressed becoming oppressors is a loose summary of "The Pedagogy of the Oppressed" where a central thesis is that it is relatively easier for the oppressed to fight to become oppressors rather than seek the liberatory education that would free both.
It's fairly common throughout modern history for a change in power to result in oppressed taking over the systems of the oppressor. You see it VERY commonly in US politics, as evidenced by the insinuation up thread by another poster that we should kill people.
And yes, you are right that the oppressed get to decide when they are made whole. I am specifically pointing out that for many of them, they choose the systems of the oppressor to achieve that, themselves becoming oppressors in the act of making themselves whole. Rather than making themselves whole through ending the cycle of violence and elevating everyone.
Literally all this appeasement has lead to MAGA. You let conservatives get away with evil and illegal shit decade after decade trying to be "empathetic" and "understand them" and "be bipartisan" while they call for your head.
> “Meet me in the middle, says the unjust man. You take a step towards him, he takes a step back. Meet me in the middle, says the unjust man.”
~ A.R. Moxon
And way too many Democrats keep falling for it.
And I'm not proposing appeasement. Fascist policy must be stamped out. You can not barter with it.
This is not a "meet in the middle" position I propose. This is a leftist position of "feed everyone, house everyone, care for everyone, wellbeing for all, no matter who".
Yes, all means all. I do not care who you are, you deserve food, water, healthcare, housing, etc. If you have done harm to others, you must work to make them whole through your acts, not by rotting in a cell -- restorative justice not punitive justice.
Do not mistake my kindness for weakness.
> With the establishment of a relationship of oppression, violence has already begun. Never in history has violence been initiated by the oppressed.
What's the concern? Friere is not saying the oppressed cannot enact violence. Just that the oppressor is the first to do so.
Who is the 'we' that is teaching empathy, and who is the 'them' receiving it?
Are we possessors of moral wisdom, and they deficient, empty vessels?
It requires structural changes, yes, but different from what you suggest.
It starts with empathy for the student. Recognizing that everyone deserves love and care. Showing first and foremost that the teachers are not seeking to be better than, but rather alongside.
It includes adding marginalized voices to pedagogy. If all you've ever heard are stories from one perspective, you tend to other the outgroup. Simply listening to other human experiences is one of the strongest ways to build empathy.
Then we must ask the people learning to examine their society. Does it dispossess anyone? You've heard from marginalized people, are there structural reasons why those people are marginalized? Could we change them?
And you make this the norm for education. It's not wedged into every lesson, but it's considered by teachers. You grow empathy generationally. You make it available online, you speak about it regularly (society doesn't only teach in classrooms).
You start to provide everyone with basics. The less we need to compete to survive, the more room we have to collaborate.
Maybe you don't reach every adult. Thats ok. Maybe you cannot teach everyone. But if you surround all those people who do have well developed empathy, their ability to cause damage is severely blunted.
It's not much of a victory if the remedy is meaningless. The initial suit asks for:
1. Declare that the Suitability Rule and the Performance Appraisal Rule are not in accordance with law; in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right; and arbitrary and capricious in violation of the APA; 2. Vacate, hold unlawful, and set aside the Suitability Rule and the Performance Appraisal Rule under the APA; 3. Enter any stay or preliminary and permanent injunctive relief as warranted by law; 4. Award Plaintiffs their costs, reasonable attorneys’ fees, and other disbursements asappropriate; and 5. Grant such other relief as this Court may deem just and proper.
----------
As far as I can tell, this comes down to "don't let this affect people's performance ratings come the next review". That seems really unlikely to me. You can't ask people to forget what they know -- and even if they pretend to, they won't.
What do the Supremes say?
There have been a lot of doctrinal changes over the last few years, and lots of courts haven't gotten the memo.