Here we spot wild Bardfinn Bluesky activities.
Be valid and ping ! bardfinn for something worthwhile or create a new thread.
/h/bardfanns
BardWatch
She/Her
Anti-Hate-Brigade
2d ago
(text post)
119 thread views
#328519
earned 24 coins from votes
Bard spotting on Bluesky 27 December 2024 
- 25
- 5
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Corey Bowers (@cbowers.bsky.social):
This should make you less inclined to indulge in efforts to stoke populist anti government views
Ms. Penny Oaken, SkyWitch (@skywitches.net):
bsky.app/profile/skyw...
Corey Bowers (@cbowers.bsky.social):
Right, you are fully aware of the harm that spreading lies that help build a perception of corruption can cause. That's my point
Ms. Penny Oaken, SkyWitch (@skywitches.net):
Question - have you ever read Dr Martin Luther King's Letter from a Birmingham Jail?
Corey Bowers (@cbowers.bsky.social):
Yes
Ms. Penny Oaken, SkyWitch (@skywitches.net):
Would you agree that the thesis of his letter is,
"I am sure that none of you would want to rest content with the superficial kind of social analysis that deals merely with effects and does not grapple with underlying causes."
-?
Corey Bowers (@cbowers.bsky.social):
Not sure at 3 am that I can establish his thesis from memory, but I'll grant that something like that was a argument he offered
Ms. Penny Oaken, SkyWitch (@skywitches.net):
Thank you.
And can we, for a moment, propose that an appearance of impropriety exists (parallel to the legal term of art) as a political phenomenon, in the eyes of millions of disempowered, exploited, angry beholders.
Ms. Penny Oaken, SkyWitch (@skywitches.net):
Frankly, I was taught that the legal discipline is self-regulating to a high standard because, if it wasn't, Politics Would Happen in its stead.
My observation is that this is coming to pass.
Corey Bowers (@cbowers.bsky.social):
None of which addresses the fact that you are spreading lies. Or that your perception that it isn't self regulating in this case is based on falsehood. You only look at the effects, you don't care at all about the underlying cause
Ms. Penny Oaken, SkyWitch (@skywitches.net):
I think the underlying cause is that millions of people perceive an appearance of widespread systemic corruption, a blindness to it amongst its professors, and that actions taken on this perception are trending towards the destruction of the Constitutional government.
Corey Bowers (@cbowers.bsky.social):
ok? assuming that you think its bad, do you think openly lying and then smearing people in the system will help resolve the issue or make it worse? Are you in fact seeking to cause civil unrest?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Corey Bowers (@cbowers.bsky.social):
You can propose it, sure. I'm not sure how this will justify your effort to contribute to the underlying cause of that appearance by spreading lies without remorse
Ms. Penny Oaken, SkyWitch (@skywitches.net):
Well, again - it's easy to resort to appeals to specified definitions when the scope of what's being discussed is established as beyond that; it's easy to dismiss a member of one's own profession raising the alarm as a self-interested hack, marketing a podcast.
Ms. Penny Oaken, SkyWitch (@skywitches.net):
It's tough to say, "Perhaps there are underlying causes to this phenomenon".
The riot is the voice of the unheard. Or so I am told.
Corey Bowers (@cbowers.bsky.social):
yes, one of the underlying causes is people like you who have no shame in lying to get what you want
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Kathryn Tewson (@kathryntewson.bsky.social):
Are lies good, Penny? Let's start there. Is it good to lie to people?
Ms. Penny Oaken, SkyWitch (@skywitches.net):
I'm going to change the subject.
I'm sorry for the death threat you received earlier. I've done what I can, in the immediate sense, to prevent that from re-occurring in my mentions.
To change it back -
I am also sorry for my lack of talent in speech has led to being accused of lying.
Ms. Penny Oaken, SkyWitch (@skywitches.net):
I'm also not unacquainted with rhetorical patronisation. You are free to simply say, "What you say here, I consider to be false", and I will address that; I'm not agreeing to a framing where I am psychologically tensed as bad.
Corey Bowers (@cbowers.bsky.social):
I think truth exists. I consider objectively false things to be false.
Ms. Penny Oaken, SkyWitch (@skywitches.net):
And to circle back to my original assertion, I think people are talking past one another.
I am old enough to recognise the symptoms of it here. Whatever I imagined I was communicating does not seem to have been communicated.
Kathryn Tewson (@kathryntewson.bsky.social):
You made it very clear that you think it's not just acceptable but an active moral good for the magistrate to violate Mangione's rights in order to improve the public perception of the courts.
Ms. Penny Oaken, SkyWitch (@skywitches.net):
Did I?
Again - whatever I imagined I was communicating, it is clear to me that I have failed to do so, in these circumstances.
Kathryn Tewson (@kathryntewson.bsky.social):
Yes, you did. You argued that this judge should have recused herself instead of arraigning him, in order to restore the public trust.
Ms. Penny Oaken, SkyWitch (@skywitches.net):
Oh thank you.
In point of fact, I said that there is an appearance of impropriety (and then spent column inches qualifying that term in an If-By-Whiskey), and then asserted that such condition should suffice for a recusal.
I understand that legally, in a legal scope, no such requirement exists.
Ms. Penny Oaken, SkyWitch (@skywitches.net):
It is perhaps β and can be vigorously asserted β that I am at fault for employing the If-By-Whiskey rhetorical construction.
Corey Bowers (@cbowers.bsky.social):
bsky.app/profile/kath...
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Corey Bowers (@cbowers.bsky.social):
but, again, it's not just the legal requirement. your claim that there is an appearance relies on objectively false claims. you have not bothered to support your claim with a single fact, and have never shown any concern that the claims you are pointing at are false
Ms. Penny Oaken, SkyWitch (@skywitches.net):
it relies on the observation that the POTUS-elect has made a populist case for close to a decade that there is widespread systemic corruption, & now a wide political sentiment agrees.
Perhaps it is an observation that the system - however ethical - has already failed.
Don't shoot the messenger.
Kathryn Tewson (@kathryntewson.bsky.social):
Is Judge Parker assigned to the Mangione case, Penny?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Corey Bowers (@cbowers.bsky.social):
Let's back up. What is the appearance of impropriety in regards to this judge in this particular case? I'm not appealing to any legal standard, I'm asking you to lay out what your claim is
Corey Bowers (@cbowers.bsky.social):
Can you also explain how Trump, who has no connection to either the case or judge, relates in any way?
Ms. Penny Oaken, SkyWitch (@skywitches.net):
I believe that I have previously lamented, at length, my inability to explain my position.
Corey Bowers (@cbowers.bsky.social):
are there seriously no facts at issue? Nothing the judge did, or has as some circumstance? Nothing about the case?
It doesn't need to be a good explanation, just tell us anything at all about it
Ms. Penny Oaken, SkyWitch (@skywitches.net):
And as I have confessed, mine is so poor as to escape understanding by the present audience.
Corey Bowers (@cbowers.bsky.social):
fwiw, it turns out that "I refuse to offer an explanation" necessarily leads to people not understanding your explanation
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Kathryn Tewson (@kathryntewson.bsky.social):
I'm not certain you have a position.
Ms. Penny Oaken, SkyWitch (@skywitches.net):
Which, again, the blame for a failure in communication is one I accept.
Kathryn Tewson (@kathryntewson.bsky.social):
Do you believe the judge should have recused herself from arraigning Mangione? This is a yes or no question.
Ms. Penny Oaken, SkyWitch (@skywitches.net):
I believe that the system should not have allowed such a question to arise in the first place, and that such has arisen is a failure mode.
Kathryn Tewson (@kathryntewson.bsky.social):
How would you avoid raising the question?
Ms. Penny Oaken, SkyWitch (@skywitches.net):
Oh my.
I don't believe this is a choice any of us can make now, and not a choice anyone with the power to effectuate it was interested in making, and we all will reap it.
Kathryn Tewson (@kathryntewson.bsky.social):
Please answer the question I asked. I don't see how you can have recusal requirements without raising the question of whether someone is required to recuse, and I am interested to learn.
Ms. Penny Oaken, SkyWitch (@skywitches.net):
I was taught that there was a value, "to avoid even the appearance of impropriety". I was taught this value exists for reasons. I believe many others were, as well.
Ms. Penny Oaken, SkyWitch (@skywitches.net):
What those reasons are included "avoiding inverting the public trust in the institution."
Which, I was taught, and which I believe, to be a political question.
Corey Bowers (@cbowers.bsky.social):
The judge is not responsible for people lying about her. also, linear time means that lies told after arraignment cannot be a basis for recusal before arraignment
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Corey Bowers (@cbowers.bsky.social):
how can a judge be expected to avoid the appearance when the appearance exists entirely outside the judge's sphere and nobody communicates the issue? how does one go about avoiding without taking action to avoid?
Ms. Penny Oaken, SkyWitch (@skywitches.net):
This is at the heart of it.
The riot is the voice of the unheard.
Also, the poll results in elections backing a full-throated call to "Drain the Swamp" for a decade might be considered a communication attempt
Kathryn Tewson (@kathryntewson.bsky.social):
The voice of the mob does not change the law, which the judge is bound to obey.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Corey Bowers (@cbowers.bsky.social):
of, the heart of it is that the judge should do the impossible?
and that she should know that she is acting improperly, because a mob that feeds on false information made vague claims
Again, your call for recusal is dishonest. You think Luigi shouldn't face trial
Ms. Penny Oaken, SkyWitch (@skywitches.net):
Do I?
Kathryn Tewson (@kathryntewson.bsky.social):
Yes. You have argued that justice can only be served by him never even being told what he is charged with.
Ms. Penny Oaken, SkyWitch (@skywitches.net):
I understand that this is your perception of what I have attempted to communicate. I have confessed that I am a poor communicator. I have no intention that he should be denied his rights β¦
Ms. Penny Oaken, SkyWitch (@skywitches.net):
β¦ nor that justice fail to be done.
Kathryn Tewson (@kathryntewson.bsky.social):
If the judge refuses to arraign him, his rights are denied.
Should the judge refuse to arraign him? You said yes, very clearly; truly excellent communication.
QED.
Ms. Penny Oaken, SkyWitch (@skywitches.net):
I believe a judge should (should have) arraign(ed) him. And I believe that has happened! But, the fact of the execution of arraignment is rather beside my point.
Corey Bowers (@cbowers.bsky.social):
if the facts are beside the point then there was no impropriety and, your accusations notwithstanding, nothing that was done harmed justice at all
not having to deal with facts just means you get to throw bombs without facing challenge
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Ms. Penny Oaken, SkyWitch (@skywitches.net):
My point is that a discipline that relies on a widespread perception, value, ideal, etc of Avoiding Even The Appearance of Impropriety - as a political necessity - has met the political reality that value exists to handle.
It keeps me awake with dread.
Corey Bowers (@cbowers.bsky.social):
Stop spreading lies and get some sleep
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
Kathryn Tewson (@kathryntewson.bsky.social):
You were taught incorrectly. That is not what the law actually says.
Ms. Penny Oaken, SkyWitch (@skywitches.net):
Thank you.
Kathryn Tewson (@kathryntewson.bsky.social):
Does this change your position that the interests of justice required her to recuse?
Ms. Penny Oaken, SkyWitch (@skywitches.net):
The Code of Conduct is not law; Yet, the judge is bound to follow (her conscience) in it. This requirement is for the interests of justice. So here you appear to accept that the interests of justice have a scope outside the letter of the law.
Ms. Penny Oaken, SkyWitch (@skywitches.net):
There is a great deal which should have occurred in many ways for the interests of justice to be best served here. In my opinion. None of which involves deny Mr Mangione his rights, or conflating that question with what I intended to communicate.
Ms. Penny Oaken, SkyWitch (@skywitches.net):
I am a poor communicator. And an insomniac.
Kathryn Tewson (@kathryntewson.bsky.social):
You communicate just fine when you want to.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
Kathryn Tewson (@kathryntewson.bsky.social):
No answer here, huh
Ms. Penny Oaken, SkyWitch (@skywitches.net):
Would it change anything if I did answer?
Kathryn Tewson (@kathryntewson.bsky.social):
You said you would engage with specific things if I pointed out that they were false. So I pointed out some specific things that were false, and you did not engage with them. So I guess what it would change is that then I would have SOME evidence that you're acting in good faith?
Ms. Penny Oaken, SkyWitch (@skywitches.net):
I think you did so; I believe you also put words in my mouth a few times.
I have specified that you are correct in that, in a legal scope, there is no compulsion for her to recuse herself.
Kathryn Tewson (@kathryntewson.bsky.social):
Is she assigned to the Mangione case? Yes or no.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Corey Bowers (@cbowers.bsky.social):
You're confirming that you are approaching this is bad faith
Ms. Penny Oaken, SkyWitch (@skywitches.net):
I appreciate the information you shared. Not so much for the abrasiveness, but it is what it is. You don't know me, and it is understandable to presume ill intent when someone takes a position that seems hostile to what is right. β
Ms. Penny Oaken, SkyWitch (@skywitches.net):
In truth, I am a poor communicator; If-By-Whiskey was my choice and I bear the consequences of it.
I agree with this - bsky.app/profile/dmsc...
And I should have written in hope, rather than existential fear and nihilism.
BADNEW (@j-mike.bsky.social):
Like how is she supposed to recuse herself from the arraignment if she has no one politically acceptable to replace her, without seriously violating Mangione's right to due process? If you acknowledge the court system is already running short on infrastructure why place more onerous demands on it?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Kathryn Tewson (@kathryntewson.bsky.social):
I want you to acknowledge that Judge Parker is not assigned to the Mangione case.
Ms. Penny Oaken, SkyWitch (@skywitches.net):
I rely on your representations in that matter.
Kathryn Tewson (@kathryntewson.bsky.social):
Are you going to stop saying or implying that she is assigned to the case?
Ms. Penny Oaken, SkyWitch (@skywitches.net):
I think so. And to do so, you would prefer I take which actions? Should I delete - or keep intact and refute in a separate statement - the post that spawned all this? Or simply accede that I made a misleading statement?
Ms. Penny Oaken, SkyWitch (@skywitches.net):
And I do want to thank you for your patience and your persistence. I do value your zeal for justice. I do not want to kneecap myself, you, or any effort to prevent a Trumpist political gutting of faith in institutions. I am just β¦ human. And angry.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Kathryn Tewson (@kathryntewson.bsky.social):
You think so?
Ms. Penny Oaken, SkyWitch (@skywitches.net):
I was wrong; you corrected me. I made (ignorant, which is a choice) misstatements about whether a magistrate is assigned to the Mangione case; I made a misleading statement about whether she can and should recuse herself.
Does this satisfy?
Corey Bowers (@cbowers.bsky.social):
^this is direct and clear. Absolutely the way to go, and appreciated
Ms. Penny Oaken, SkyWitch (@skywitches.net):
And I hope my crisis (ugh I have to own this) didn't keep you from sleep. I appreciate your efforts as well.
Corey Bowers (@cbowers.bsky.social):
Oh, the sleep thing was just my brain refusing to shut off the night before a travel day. Stupid, stupid brain
Ms. Penny Oaken, SkyWitch (@skywitches.net):
I hope you get enough rest!
Corey Bowers (@cbowers.bsky.social):
Thanks! I'm hitting the delusional point now. Maybe some sleep on the plane this afternoon
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Kathryn Tewson (@kathryntewson.bsky.social):
It does if you stop repeating them and tell the truth to anyone who believed you.
Ms. Penny Oaken, SkyWitch (@skywitches.net):
Got it.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
Ms. Penny Oaken, SkyWitch (@skywitches.net):
I perceive these exchanges as adversarial in nature, with a necessary axiomatic restriction that officers of the court have an affirmative compulsion under ethics to avoid any imputation that justice cannot be delivered through the court. This colours my expectations of what is possible.
Kathryn Tewson (@kathryntewson.bsky.social):
Where are you getting the existence of that "necessary axiomatic restriction," and why do you continue to act like you believe it's operative?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Ms. Penny Oaken, SkyWitch (@skywitches.net):
In truth, I should have written my thoughts in a diary, and some time later gotten feedback and editing. Rather than belabour the public with decoding my ramblings.
Ms. Penny Oaken, SkyWitch (@skywitches.net):
This - bsky.app/profile/dmsc...
Approaches the issue much more charitably than I did. I feel there ought to be a justice system that allows jurists to avoid political appearances of impropriety; reality is otherwise. My complaint is not with those doing what they can with the little they have.
Corey Bowers (@cbowers.bsky.social):
Except that you explicitly condemned those doing what they can with what they have. Repeatedly.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
(@funkadelicgringo.bsky.social):
No. One can be careful as to how much truth is revealed and when it is revealed, but lies are harmful.
"Frick every cause that ends in murder and children crying." (@nocatsnomasters.bsky.social):
Gonna come out and disagree here; this is an absolute statement that is easily falsified by situations in which the lie, "Of course there are no Jews in my attic, Obergrupenfurher." is the correct and moral response to questions asked in good faith.
(@funkadelicgringo.bsky.social):
Falsified by a hypothetical?
Some individuals do not have the right to the facts or truth we possess, so when they demand them, a moral response would be to remain silent.
"Frick every cause that ends in murder and children crying." (@nocatsnomasters.bsky.social):
Thus, sometimes the correct, moral choice is to lie.
"Frick every cause that ends in murder and children crying." (@nocatsnomasters.bsky.social):
As an aside, it's... not a hypothetical question?
Ms. Penny Oaken, SkyWitch (@skywitches.net):
In this case it is. Kathryn's question had a specific scope which is implied from context; it isn't a general philosophical conundrum, but a Socratic counter dialogue. She isn't actually arguing whether lying is acceptable or not; She is making me examine my axioms.
"Frick every cause that ends in murder and children crying." (@nocatsnomasters.bsky.social):
Fair, and thank you for the clarification, since the thread itself has a block in the middle preventing access to some of the context.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
Alvaro IbaΓ±ez (@alvaroim.bsky.social):
Of curse you are. Because if you were to actually answer the very sunple question if whether lies are bad, you'd put yourself in an untenable position
The problem is that your transparent attempt to dodge the question just showcase that...
Ms. Penny Oaken, SkyWitch (@skywitches.net):
Please, allow me to interject -
The people I was talking with above have persuaded me I was wrong. Twice. Thank you.
Alvaro IbaΓ±ez (@alvaroim.bsky.social):
My apologies. That's what happens when you're trying to follow back from the start
Ms. Penny Oaken, SkyWitch (@skywitches.net):
You don't need to apologise; the blame lies with me.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
(@shirleydunk.bsky.social):
I don't think there's a bright line there. Lying to Nazis about whether you are harboring Jews in your house is clearly good. Lying to kids about Santa or, "does this make me look fat?", well, people can legitimately have different opinions. However, these lies about the judge are bad.
Heptaglemious (@heptaglemious.bsky.social):
The problem comes when those who are vested in denying facts succeed in replacing fact with Truth(TM) as the arbiter of reality. Big Tobacco, creationists, climate change deniers, antivaxers and so on.
(@shirleydunk.bsky.social):
I don't get what this means, or what it has to do with these lies about the judge.
Is this a defense of lying? "They lie so we should lie back harder"? I really don't see how that would do any good, and I've never seen that end up anywhere than backfiring horrendously.
Ms. Penny Oaken, SkyWitch (@skywitches.net):
And the fault for that devolves to me. I am not able to communicate my position sufficiently in our interaction.
(@shirleydunk.bsky.social):
Have you considered that might mean that your position is not as well grounded as you think?
Ms. Penny Oaken, SkyWitch (@skywitches.net):
In "GΓΆdel, Escher, Bach", Douglas Hofstadter proposes a three-tiered hierarchy of information in messages: the frame, the outer message, and the inner message.
I believe I understand the inner messages posited by the legal professionals in audience, here. I can articulate no confusion about them.
Ms. Penny Oaken, SkyWitch (@skywitches.net):
My axiomatic first assertion in the original post is that people are talking past one another. That inner messages aren't surviving the process of encoding into outer messages and frames.
So it could be supposed that I have considered that question.
Ms. Penny Oaken, SkyWitch (@skywitches.net):
My only ethical conclusion is that β absent perceiving some acknowledgment that my inner message has survived the modulation and demodulation β the failure lies somewhere with me.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
(@shirleydunk.bsky.social):
I only have the experience of several decades, to experience that if one is attempting to tightrope across a sea of bullshit, they'd best ensure their rigging and equipment is solid, lest they end up in the bullshit themselves. Fancy circus costumes and glittering makeup are of no help.
(@shirleydunk.bsky.social):
I usually manage to remember all that, check my rigging and stay out of the bullshit.
But only usually. I am only human, alas.
(@shirleydunk.bsky.social):
My take on this case is that there will end up being very little justice regardless of the outcome. Luigi's message is irrevocably tainted by the fact of murder. He could have chosen to use a paintball gun instead. Your message is tainted by the lies underneath it, you could have chosen truth.
(@shirleydunk.bsky.social):
In either case, we would not be flailing around in this bullshit, and would have stood a much better chance of making the other side.
Ms. Penny Oaken, SkyWitch (@skywitches.net):
M(r?)s Tewson & Mr Bowers talked me around.
I, too, think there will be a scant chance at justice. I believe he committed murder, and will be convicted of something like that.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
You could have done crack instead of this shit
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
Morten F. (@mortenf.bsky.social):
But that "appearance of impropriety" (non-existent) in your case means violating Mangione's constitutional rights to set right.
I'd personally rather protect his constitutional rights than turn him into Josef K.
Ms. Penny Oaken, SkyWitch (@skywitches.net):
The appearance of impropriety I speak of, exists in the eyes of the beholders. Here, being millions of people exploited and angry. It is an appearance of impropriety of a system.
bsky.app/profile/skyw...
Morten F. (@mortenf.bsky.social):
Sure, but I don't understand why you want to make it worse by giving judges permission to hold you for indefinite amounts of time without telling you what you're accused of. That seems like it makes things less just, not more.
Ms. Penny Oaken, SkyWitch (@skywitches.net):
I have previously lamented that I have clearly failed to communicate my position, so it may possibly, perhaps, tentatively, be put forward that under such failure mode, any perception of my desire or intention is unfounded.
Kathryn Tewson (@kathryntewson.bsky.social):
You literally said "to see justice done with as few doubts as to a derailment of justice be introduced as possible, the judge should recuse." So I think I can be forgiven for thinking that you believe the judge should recuse.
Ms. Penny Oaken, SkyWitch (@skywitches.net):
Fair.
Kathryn Tewson (@kathryntewson.bsky.social):
And, further, that you believe that this recusal is in the interests of justice, because it would assuage the public doubts.
Am I wrong in either of those conclusions? Did I misread you?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Robert Szasz π (@rszasz.bsky.social):
Should all the judges in Trump's cases have had to recuse?
Ms. Penny Oaken, SkyWitch (@skywitches.net):
My point is rather that this question is moot.
It is that - like it or not - politics has already supplanted the rule of law in our justice system.
Kathryn Tewson (@kathryntewson.bsky.social):
to a troubling degree. Why are you advocating for more of it?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context