PhilipTheBucket

Yeah. The judge in that situation was pretty chill with me as well. I feel like it's like a lot of human interactions, if you show that you respect the other person's side of the interaction, they'll be inclined to do extra for you where they can.

And FFS, dress appropriately.

Random story, I once showed up groomed and in a suit that was sharp enough that the judge thought I was defense counsel (with the defendant not showing up) instead of the defendant, and I had to politely correct him. 😃

This?

https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ETA/publications/ETAOP_2023-07_Advancing_Employment_Opportunities_for_Justice-Involved_Individuals_through_Work-Based_Learning_Experiences_%28Issue%20Brief%29.pdf

The study that Trump's Department of Labor funded in 2018/2019 which then decided to use "justice-involved" in their report?

Why is that "democrat activists" or "democrat members"?

Which is fine as far as it goes, yet does very little if anything to address the body of the above concerns.

What? Of course it does. A near-unanimous consensus by experts in the field is worth more than whatever you are bringing up in your Lemmy comment.

I mean, it would be possible to lay out logic so compelling that even if experts in the field felt one particular way about it you could make a case otherwise, but weird strawmen like wanting archaeological evidence of Jesus's specific skeleton or something is not that.

In a 2011 review of the state of modern scholarship, Bart D. Ehrman wrote, "He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees."[13] Richard A. Burridge states: "There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church's imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that any more."[14] Robert M. Price does not believe that Jesus existed but agrees that this perspective runs against the views of the majority of scholars.[15] James D. G. Dunn calls the theories of Jesus's non-existence "a thoroughly dead thesis".[16] Michael Grant (a classicist), "In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary."[17] Robert E. Van Voorst states that biblical scholars and classical historians regard theories of non-existence of Jesus as effectively refuted.[18] Writing on The Daily Beast, Candida Moss and Joel Baden state that, "there is nigh universal consensus among biblical scholars – the authentic ones, at least – that Jesus was, in fact, a real guy."[19]

Plus when I looked up a few terms I had never heard of they were being used in places like the department of labour publications

Interesting, which terms?

Most modern scholars think that none of the gospels were written by eyewitnesses.

It's a little bit academic (har har) anyway, since they all went through so many layers of translation often by people with specific agendas that the modern English versions can't really claim to be "authentic" to the originals anyway, but regardless of that they almost certainly weren't written by those specific disciples of Jesus (even if you accept the events described in them as semi-authentic.)

Bro it's like sooooooo unfair that you don't want to just chill, man

Mans is severely out of his league, all surprised that geopolitics isn't like his high school

democrat activists

Sus

Also, the article is clearly referencing this think-tank paper that was aimed at "democrat politicians," not "democrat activists."

This man is a board certified turbo nerd. I very much like for example his succinct explanation of NixOS, with concrete examples of what it makes easy that can be remarkably difficult on other distros sometimes, and how he likes to time his arrival in meetings so that he comes in exactly on the second that the meeting starts (I actually used to do the same with meetings that I was running, setting the clocks if I needed to so that their second hands were accurate.)

Also: "People will use screen sometimes, if they're very old." 😃

The point is, no one in the Democratic party was actually doing any of the things they listed. Like literally 0 people in 0 emails, for most of them, and then a tiny handful of them had been used once or something.

Yes, I agree that "Latinx" is stupid and that Latinos specifically feel that way overwhelmingly. The point is that they're creating an artificial reality wherein all these mainstream Democratic politicians are saying "Latinx," when pretty much none of them are.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NV5gwfJm-BI&list=PL2wXgg5v5E1qQr3sXPgD9-I9nkcJYlVkE&index=28

I wish I could find the whole episode, it is from the golden age