kawklee

I think the first portion is why we're seeing such a commodification of outrage.

People want to feel like they have a voice, that their opinion matters. They go on a platform that allows them to preach their opinions to the world, but are by-and-by ignored. They realize in reality that their opinions dont matter. They are one of thousands, one of millions. All braying for attention.

Disappointed then that, they focus on making their opinions so strongly expressed and central to their identity that they cant possibly be ignored. Outrage is a very self-righteous and self-affirming emotion. It places your point of view on a pedestal of unassailability.

Its saying, "this topic is so important to me it OUTRAGES me, and you need to pay attention because it should outrage you, too. And if it doesnt, then theres something wrong with YOU." Nothing gets people attention better than them being challenged as deficient. Which is what each "outrage" type post/emotion does. What alot of those types of outrage posts seek more than anything else is reaffirmation that their opinion matters, that anyone else cares like they do. Or cares that they care.

Corporations are ran by people too, and those people have realized that those emotions can be commodified and profitized. Hence, outrage porn reporting, from either side. Intended less to educate or inform, but moreso to harness peoples preconceptions.

Each article is a challenge, and draws in readers. "We're outraged, here's why." "We're outraged, how about you?" "We're outraged, and you should be too, unless you're a subhuman sack of shit that has no value whatsoever and can be completely ignored within the prevailing socio-political dichotomy. And you don't want to be that. So click this and get angry with us."

Probably not a new phenomenon by any means, but absolutely inflated by facebook as a platform, and a service provider.

have any of the guests ever scared YOU? I remember as a kid I'd try to get real low and sneak up behind the spookers and spook them instead.

Some laughed, some were immensely annoyed. One guy got so pissed that I spooked him that I decided to never do it anymore

This is the type of question I wanted to see answered, and it was ignored.

Democrats removed the filibuster for nominees in 2013. What benefit has that had? Nominations have only become more politicized, and there is no longer an intent of hiding political allegiances of judges, causing more political extremism in their appointments.

And I'm blaming both Parties now for how appointments then became another point of political policy making, instead of appointing the best interpreters of law.

So how has that benefitted the country? How has the appointments of life term Fed Soc judges in their mid 30s with nary any legal experience helped our country? This situation is the result of political brinksmanship where efficiency was favored over effect. The democratic leadership opened the door to worse judges for their own benefit, which neither party is going to show restraint from abusing. They forced it into a zero sum game.

These artificial brakes were installed for a reason. The couple hundred of representatives and senators will lose the bigger vision in the quagmire of politics. Forcing them to lose, when their policies are unpalatable to an extended majority, forces them to compromise and work together. That's what a filibuster represents.

Does it REALLY please the Court?

I know a number of attorneys that have gotten LLMs in specific practice areas. Seems it's pretty much dependent on the program/degree.