I wouldn’t swear that it’s an affliction that only affects criminal defense lawyers, but it seems that we suffer from it far more than most.* When we see something that we think is wrong, we say so. We say so in clear language. We call it what it is, and make no bones about it. To other lawyers, this may come off as overwrought, as they prefer more moderated words, less clarity. That’s not our way.
There was a twit yesterday by an academic, who retwitted a twit by a former Obama administration adviser that was total malarkey, suggesting that border patrol agents had been great guys, honoring the law, until now. It was a basic anti-Trump twit which promoted the lie that CBE wasn’t just as bad before. I responded by calling it out. This wasn’t meant as a commentary on the life and times of this particular academic, but as a commentary on the one twit as an example of a recurring theme among profs.
This is an example of the myopia of academics, as if it never happened before b/c you were too busy looking elsewhere, and only now notice.
This is where I’m going dark on certain details, and it’s not offered to besmirch anyone for their feelz, but to make a different point. One twitterer for whom I have a great deal of respect responded that my twit was “uncharitable,” questioning whether I was aware of the academic’s full body of work. Do I have to be? Am I precluded from criticizing one twit because the person hadn’t been a miscreant in every public assertion?
But then, another twit came at me, also from someone for whom I have a great deal of respect.
Maybe don’t go out of your way to condescendingly accuse a brilliant [academic] of myopia and ignorance based on a retweet. Ridiculous smear.
A lot of adjectives and maybe a hint of hyperbole. It’s unlikely that the key word was “condescendingly,” as that’s become a fairly facile attack word used to tone-police critics with whom one disagrees. Was it a smear? That’s a matter of how sensitive one is. To some, any criticism is a smear. To others, it’s just criticism. But clearly, the object of my criticism was someone deeply respected by the twitterer, who believed it worthy of ripping me a new one.
Did I deserve it? Maybe. Perhaps I beat on the wrong person, someone whose work has been terrific and has earned a pass for a twit that I misunderstood. Stercus accidit.
The first level of my butt-kicking was about tone. Granted, I suffer the affliction common to my niche of the guild, of failing to use the moderated tones that give the Bernie Burks an excuse to ignore substance.
But the second level concerns me more. Was this tribal warfare? Did I attack a team member, so the team defended? This would be less a concern if my rebuke came from someone I didn’t know, for whom I had no respect. But it did.
In my favor, I can’t be expected to know whom people put on their list of untouchable tribesfolk, such that they’re off limits from criticism I lest infuriate friends. But should that impact what I say or how I say it? What may be fine, if not too tepid, when twitted about the other team becomes a “ridiculous smear” when it’s about someone in their tribe. Except much as I may respect individuals, I’m not a member of the tribe.
And as much as they may find my affliction as a criminal defense lawyer “condescending,” that’s what I am. Just as they are what they are. It’s not that I want to piss off the people I like and respect, but can they expect me to live by their limits?
*While not quite a rule of life, one of the most obvious ways to distinguish a real CDL from a poseur is their ability to be criticized and still be friends. Ask Bennett or Tannebaum, both of whom can give and take a punch and then have a beer (or wine, for the effete) afterwards.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Well, that’s a bit unnerving. If I’d had to pick two people in the twittersphere who I would have thought would understand your tweet, why you tweeted it, and the issue you addressed, it would have been those two.
Me too. That’s what made this something worthy of further consideration.
Wow, lots of overly sensitive people out there. To imply that Trump’s election caused the Border Patrol guys to go bad is a ridiculous assertion – no organization changes overnight. Academics, though, hate being challenged by anyone outside their circle of support, and thought you were like the guy who wondered why the emperor was naked in public.
Academics are traditionally thin-skinned, and I’ve been informed by a few over the years that they don’t want to play with me because I’m a big old meanie. But this wasn’t a reaction from an academic, but about an academic.
Anecdotally, the border patrol agents are feeling their oats these days, almost as if they have political cover for bothering more people more intrusively.
As you and Scott both point out, it’s not a fundamental shift in agency outlook. But when the class bully becomes the teacher’s pet, the overall quality of life in the classroom doesn’t go up.
Bullshit. People who tell anecdotes want it to be worse these days because now they’re literally Hitler. And you should know better than to fall for or spread this bullshit.
How many border patrol videos did we go through over the past eight years showing every sort of abuse, constitutional violation and violence? Did they all magically disappear? CBP was horrible before and is horrible now.
What we have here is a failure to communicate. The anecdotes I give credence to (both my own and those of personal acquaintances) do not paint a picture of an agency that is doing worse things now — because none of us have been subject to the worst excesses the agency has to offer.
But they certainly appear to be bothering people who had never before been bothered. Confirmation bias? Perhaps. Bad luck or timing? Possibly. Spreading rot unrelated to Trump? Probably.
Trump hasn’t even had time to re-make the agency in his own image, so it’s certainly not about him.
But Trump doesn’t have to be the devil for either the white supremacists or homeland security to claim him as one of their own, as a champion who is on their side. Heck, when it comes to border patrol, he’s made it patently clear he’s the biggest fan of their core mission.
Trump could conceivably tame the agency, especially if they bother someone he cares about. Anecdotally, the behavior of the people on the ground does not indicate they find that possibility worrying.
They were tamed before?
Not at all. I just rate Trump as more likely than predecessors to mercurially clean house. Probability of taming went from .00001% to .0001%.
Simultaneously, though, agency went from not giving a shit to not giving two shits about who realizes how wild they are.
Well sure, 1,000 bullets to the head is much better than 10,000 bullets to the head. Everybody knows that.
Patrick, that’s like saying it’s ok for the bully to beat you up and take your milk money, so long as the teacher pretends to ignore the problem. If the teacher smiles and nods at the bully, only now do we have a problem?
You’re right. I was wrong to write that the original bullying was OK. I want to correct that, but I can’t find where I wrote it now; can you point it out to me?
Jeez, give each other a hug guys. This new prez has everybody so worked up. Okay, three taps, break it up. Hug’s over.
I’m fine; just a bit bemused. I thought this was the one place on the net where front-loaded gertruding wasn’t required.
It’s not required. It’s totally optional. Did I ever mention I had a great aunt Gertrude? She’s the one who got electroshock, and that was the least of the fun stories about her.
I only was responding to your first comment, as the others hasn’t posted when I made mine. I would say it’s a fair implication from your first comment. Had I seen the rest of your exchange with Scott, I probably wouldn’t have commented. Had I known Scott was going to order hugs all around, I definitely wouldn’t have.
P.S. You can’t spell “hugs” without “u” and “shg”.
I love this. It will be my mantra from now on.
And I could draw my own implications from the fact that you’ve apparently gone back and re-read it more carefully and still believe that, but I don’t want to be ordered into another hug.
Thank you for thinking of me.
“This is an example of the myopia of academics, as if it never happened before b/c you were too busy looking elsewhere, and only now notice.”
It is also an example of people not noticing that Scott is an insensitive dick until he’s an insensitive dick to someone they respect…and I mean this as the highest form of compliment (from a former Navy Submariner)
Compliment notwithstanding, I am a very sensitive dick, you asshole.
I hear the thicker condoms can fix that.
“Uncharitable”? Boy, that’s brutal. There goes your invitation to tea and crumpets. I shudder to think of the terror that person probably maintained over the schoolyard, however many years ago that was.
We don’t do tea and crumpets. We do barbecue and bourbon. And I pay, proving conclusively that I am, indeed, charitable. At least as to some things.
Scott,
Overestimating people and getting it wrong stings worse than underestimating. You’re human. Deal with it.
Not sure that’s the issue here (not about the I’m human, deal with it part). I don’t know that it has anything to do with over or underestimating. I still respect both as much as ever, but can’t quite figure out where I fit in or how I avoid this problem without failing to be and do what I do.
Uncharitable seems like a fair enough way to defend a friend, but “smear” is just nuts. This is going to affect my ability to take her seriously, as that was just basic SJW nuts stuff.
She was angry with me. Don’t judge too harshly.
In my experience, what’s said in anger is exactly the right thing to judge people about.
My experience is that it’s just one data point, often less valuable than others.
…so, the esteemed counselor Greenfield criticizes people who say wrong and silly things? Wow, I never would have guessed. Who knew?