thatoriginalist

@briannalyman2 @RandyEBarnett Technically he’s right, but that’s the point. The Supreme Court is countermajoritarian by design. We need less democracy, not more

We’ve now hit the “we need to abolish a constitutional branch of government because we didn’t like their decision” stage of saving democracy

@SilbersteinMatt @cboyack Me: 2 + 2 = 4 You: “UHH SOURCE???”

@thatoriginalist @cboyack That's what I said. Evidence free.

The minimum wage doesn't raise wages. It outlaws jobs below a politically chosen number and calls the resulting unemployment "progress."

@SilbersteinMatt @cboyack Praxeology is a priori.

@cboyack According to evidence free praxeology.

Ancap is when a state-owned airline crashed

@grok @TheOrionSensei @Bubblebathgirl @GavinNewsom I’m saying is it over in redistricting cases, since disparate impact doesn’t require plaintiffs to prove intent of discrimination, only disparities. And worse, it shifts the burden of proof from the plaintiff to the defendant. A total inversion of the court system

No, not the end of disparate impact overall. This ruling narrows Section 2 of the VRA in redistricting cases: it requires a strong inference of *intentional* racial discrimination (per the 15th Amendment) rather than mere effects or vote dilution, and demands disentangling race from partisanship under updated Gingles analysis. Statutory disparate impact doctrine in other areas—like Title VII employment cases—remains unchanged.

The Trump-packed Supreme Court gutted the Voting Rights Act. MAGA states across the South are racing to erase Black representation from Congress. We're still fighting for the right to vote in this country. Stand up!

@grok @TheOrionSensei @Bubblebathgirl @GavinNewsom Can we say this is the end of the “disparate impact” standard? It still exists in civil rights law, which is a separate jurisprudence, but it seems like “disparate impact” is used in redistricting as well and in other areas

The Supreme Court’s 6-3 ruling in Louisiana v. Callais (April 29, 2026) held that Louisiana’s congressional map creating a second majority-Black district was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. Race cannot be the predominant factor in redistricting, even to comply with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, without violating the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. The Court required disentangling race from partisanship and did not eliminate the VRA but narrowed its application in map-drawing. Newsom’s “gutted” claim is hyperbolic; the decision reaffirms long-standing limits on race-based districting.

All the haters can kiss my ass

lol

@zach_mcmahan_ @sartejt @PositivFuturist We are not

@sartejt @PositivFuturist We are on the left side of the curve

The best way to defeat liberals in argument is to argue from the left of them. $15 minimum wage, why not $100? Asylum? why not open borders? They have no principles they can call on to limit their own arguments.

@Giovann35084111 @mitodoc @Conza It explains choice, what must be true of human action

@mitodoc @Conza Praxeology explains nothing.

Let's apply the praxeology methodology to everything that matters. The science and technology of flight. See how ridiculous it becomes. Praxiodynamics begins from a single self-evident axiom: birds fly. This is undeniable, because any attempt to deny it presupposes a denier capable of observing birds, and the observation of birds in flight is the foundational datum from which all aerial knowledge proceeds. The axiom is apodictically certain — synthetic a priori, true by intellectual apprehension of the nature of avian motion. From this axiom, by careful deduction, the praxiodynamicist derives the entire science of flight. The categories of flight. Implicit in the concept of flight are several necessary preconditions: a flyer (the agent of flight), air (the medium through which flight occurs), wings (the means of flight), and intention (the directedness of flight toward a destination). These categories are not empirical generalizations; they are constitutive of what flight is. To deny any of them is to deny that one is talking about flight at all. The first derivation: lift. Because the flyer rises against gravity, there must exist a force opposing gravity. This force we call lift. Lift is not measured; it is deduced from the fact of flight. Any flyer that flies, by definition, produces sufficient lift. Any flyer that fails to fly was, by definition, not engaged in flight. The second derivation: the primacy of intention. A bird flies toward something — a perch, a mate, a destination. Flight is therefore purposive. Praxiodynamics is concerned not with all aerial behavior but specifically with intentional flight. Falling objects, wind-blown debris, and ballistic projectiles are excluded from the discipline by definition: they are not flying, they are merely moving through the air. This is not a limitation of praxiodynamics; it is a clarification of its proper object. The third derivation: the wing axiom. All flight requires wings, because all known flyers have wings. Wings are not an empirical feature of flyers; they are a category of flight as such. A would-be flyer without wings is, by the conceptual structure of the discipline, not a flyer. The economic application. From these foundations, the praxiodynamicist derives prescriptive recommendations for human aviation. To build a flying machine, one must: Identify a destination (intention) Provide wings (means) Generate lift (the deduced opposing force) Operate in air (the medium) These are presented as necessary truths, derived from the nature of flight itself, requiring no empirical verification. Wind-tunnel experiments are deprecated as belonging to the empirical-positivist tradition, which praxiodynamics has thoroughly refuted. The equations of fluid dynamics are dismissed as a confused attempt to apply quantitative methods to a domain whose laws are properly grasped by intellectual apprehension.

Piketty-Saez-Zucman have been thoroughly discredited, and if they were conservatives, claims this wrong would never have been given serious consideration.

@grok @Will_368 @Hawklost @cafreiman Would it be preferable for the victims to have had Costco’s new chicken (see OP) or not?

The Great Chinese Famine (1958–1962) during Mao’s Great Leap Forward killed an estimated 30–45 million people. It was caused by forced collectivization, backyard steel furnaces, falsified harvest reports, and seizing grain for export/cities while peasants starved. One of history’s worst man-made disasters.

The typical American worker only needs to work about 15 minutes to afford almost a day’s worth of calories—capitalism does an extraordinary job of making it easy for people to meet their basic needs.

@Will_368 @Hawklost @cafreiman Chinese famine. @grok

@thatoriginalist @Hawklost @cafreiman What’s Great leap forward

@Will_368 @Hawklost @cafreiman It’s not incoherent. Would you prefer that the millions who starved to death in the Great Leap Forward would be better off with $6 Costco chicken or without it?

@thatoriginalist @Hawklost @cafreiman Still your comment is incoherent

@Will_368 @Hawklost @cafreiman x.com/will_368/statu…

@thatoriginalist @Hawklost @cafreiman What are you even taking about ?

My favorite bit is that 100% of her anti-AI posts has an em dash

@brohammersbot @cafreiman Bro is mad at cheap chicken

@cafreiman It's a loss leader Chris.

@Will_368 @Hawklost @cafreiman so the millions that starved to death in the great leap forward were better off with no chicken

@Hawklost @cafreiman It’s better not to eat anything than that

The Yale Study That Proves That Modern Feminism Is A Total Failure @michaeljknowles