Active thread

Only the replies to the one thread you selected
Uranus: What a class
Dun Dâre: I don't know how effective it was to have people line up without allowing them to speak about their opinion-- I feel like I pre-judged people without having a chance to hear them talk based on where they fell
Chulak: i think the discussion was interesting and i'm glad that there were people present with different opinions.
Earth: I want to start off by saying that it was fantastic that we all go the opportunity to speak in the last hour of the class. It's hard to find a place to get your participation credit in when the same people were being called on.
Barnards Star: I really enjoyed today's discussion. I liked the break out into smaller groups and then the bigger overall discussion about impeachment and deeper convo about republic v. democracy.
Blackeye: Felt like Joseph Stalin standing their in the middle
Io: Totally lost in today’s class but it resembles the discussion in our congress in the sense that there is no conclusion at all. Re the impeachment, I personally dont see Trump a terrible president coz we had even bad ones. The impeachment should be just a chance to make the president pay for what kind of person he is, rather than really achieve the purpose of this system.
Barnards Star: The conversation was interesting overall. I like the format of smaller then bigger group and hope the class continues to follow that format
Sateda: Snacks should be provided.
Langara: Didn't like the lining up, think that was pointless and wasted time.
Uranus: +1 to snacks
Langara: Bring back sweetpea
Luyten 726-8B: I appreciate that sweet pea was not there today
Lower Posada: snacks are a human right
Lower Posada: not providing them is a violation of the 8th amendment
Phobos: Most fun and insightful discussion I've had in law school in a long time. Really liked the structure of small groups then larger discussion
Barnards Star: Bring back sweetpea!
Langara: Bring back sweetpea or we invade Iran tomorrow
Phobos: Also first we lost sweetpea then we lost Fern. By God, what is next?
Pinwheel: I think the discussion proceeded as well as could be expected. I'm so grateful *for* these conversations, but I wonder if more people would offer more divergent views (within broader "Left" and "center-left" buckets, for example) depending on the level of anonymity provided. and +2000 to snacks and please bring back cute god aka sweet pea
Uranus: What would have been a more fruitful alternative to the lineup would have been to ask people to write whether they were #TeamMcConnell or #TeamPelosi on the thread. I'm sure there would have been more variety in responses in that case.
Io: And also on the teaching assistants, i would say my discussion group is totally off the track and we should have more ground rules for discussion within the group, like each one speak for 2 mins and then discuss? Coz it is totally depending on if you want to cut off the others, and obviously some people is willing to do that! @Professor Nesson
Mahasim: I am on the left but I, like Nesson, wish there were more people farther right on the spectrum to increase the discourse in the class. It would be nice if the arguments from the right could actually come from people on the right rather than us all assuming what they would say.
Pinwheel: @ Uranus right?
Centaurus A: i think it might be interested some time to be given a prompt, be given 15 minutes or so to discuss it pseudonymously here, then bring the discussion in person
Barnards Star: Given the breakdown of the class into mostly Left. I think it would have been interesting to divide us into center left, moderate, left-left and see how the conversation proceeded given that there was no one of the conservative side of the room/discussion
Centaurus A: that might give people a chance to voice ideas they might be afraid to say in person, that can then get attention in the larger discussion
Europa: This was a really exciting and powerful class. I wish though that those who were part of the small minority in the middle/right would have been given more of a chance to talk, especially since they were going against the typical echo-chamber
Messier 83: Naturally, the discussion may have been more comprehensive (and likely much more contentious) if we had a broader representation of the ideological spectrum. Of course, this would require intelligent people buying into the often time illogical conclusions of the GOP. But I appreciate that even those who disagreed with each other engaged in a healthy debate and articulated their perspectives in a thought-provoking yet respectful way.
Blackeye: Is it not possible to both think McConnell has some valid arguments and also to read the transcript and think Trump is a thug
Betelgeuse: I really liked Jordan's point at the end, and would be interested in teasing out the potential contradictions in our support for jury nullification vs our apprehension towards allowing the public decide on impeachment. I think this also goes towards discussions around the composition of the deciding body, and requirements of knowledge/impartiality/etc.
P3X-888: I enjoyed having different viewpoints presented in class, and marrying the smaller group format with a larger class discussion afterwards was appreciated. On the issue of impeachment, the points made about whether the election actually constitutes a reasonable means of voting on impeachment. My inclination is no. I think the deeper issue that we touched upon, but should definitely be exploring more, is the incompatibility of the constitution with public developments at large. The constitution was envisioned in a world that is very different from the one today, and perhaps the issues we should be talking about re: impeachment is not the impeachment process itself, but rather, how reform of the constitution itself should proceed.
Earth: The closing comments on jury nullification were superb. In a way, the Senate is acting as a jury and it seems like the class is against nullification here, whereas there were strong opinions in the opposite direction with the gun case. It's hard for me to discuss impeachment as a constitutional process when political parties weren't even thought to be of concern when the constitution was being drafted. It's all politics and it feels too disingenuous to talk about here without being cynical of the process itself. Still, it was nice to hear all of yall's opinions. Looking forward to class tomorrow.
Uranus: I don't know that I agree that the class is a majority left, or at least as it was represented today. I feel anonymity would allow for more (representative) takes, which I encourage people to share
Langara: Re: nullification, wonder if people feel Clinton should've been removed; I think the argument he was innocent was very small, and I think most agree that he wasn't convicted because of politics. How do folks feel about that? I'm curious
Polaris: I appreciated the different approaches we took to facilitate today's discussion. I think there is value in being able to discuss these issues in a small group environment to develop our thoughts and then come back into a big group to have a more well thought-out discussion. However, there may be value in focusing conversations by having us engage with individual questions. I felt, at points, the conversation was a little disorganized as people were talking about different issues and were not directly engaging each other. Overall though, I thought the class was fantastic.
Europa: I did feel that lining up and being forced to "out myself" as not far left was anethema to the whole other aspect of the class which supports anonymity and the ability to express oneself without fear of reprisal
Deimos: I understand the impulse to explain the lineup through partisanship. To a large extent, that probably explains much. But also consider that the one side's arguments - as presented through the final discourse - are considering more compelling and consistent with our constitutional design. I think looking only at a right/left dichotomy may give the right more credit than it deserves. It hasn't made a strong case.
Langara: I wish we had more diversity of ideology, and species. BRING BACK SWEETPEA
Centaurus A: I also agree that we should spend much of the class like we spent the last hour. Everyone needs to get their participation in and it can be difficult if we are only allowed to speak in small bursts
Europa: But I did find my smaller group highly receptive and respectful to opposing viewpoints which was very admirable
Uranus: +1 to my small group, y'all did your thing
Aldersberg: Great class! The group discussion was excellent, and I liked going from group to full class. It was unfortunate (though not unexpected) that we didn't have anyone to the right in the lineup. I think the best full-class discussions unfold when Prof. Nesson asks follow-up questions of the person who has just spoken, or when he asks the next person who speaks to follow-up on a given theme. But I also appreciate the wide-ranging, free-flowing discussion
Langara: Do the mods get to mention how we participated in small groups to help our participation grade?
Uranus: The queen is back
Sunflower: calling people who support impeachment far left is an insult to the far left
Neptune: retweet that we should explore the differences of views within the left and also wish we could've discussed the jury nullification issue more, because i find the two issues to be completely different and i wish we could've explored that more to tease out why it's different, re the comment in the other group about saving someone's liberty v allowing someone to have great power
Pinwheel: the queen we stan
Phobos: Fern is my spirit animal
Neptune: also loved my group ur fab
Betelgeuse: I think speaking in small groups is most conducive to increasing participation, and would like to echo @Langara's question about whether that's somehow taken into account
Uranus: #SoftBeveragesOnly
Sateda: @europa I agree: Professor Nesson forcing us to "out" as not far left was terrible for the dynamic of the class. And offensive. I hope it is not repeated, and if it is I will refuse to take part.
Earth: take small groups into participation @nesson
Centaurus A: @sateda if it helps i don't even remember who the people in the middle are lol. except that yall were all men
Europa: I would also like to point out that I believe that without the peer pressure of fearing to speak out publicly about such a contentious matter, some may have sided more to the right. I find it hard to believe that in such a small group of highly educated and intelligent people that there is such overwhelming uniformity of thought. What a shame!
Centaurus A: uniformity of opinion on an issue does not mean that the people are not intelligent, and it's not always a goal to strive for. if i polled the class and everyone said racism was bad, i'd be happy, not disappointed.
Europa: @Centaurus A but certainly the matter here (in which almost half the country is divided) is not so easily reducable
Europa: But I of course agree in clearly defined matters
Sateda: @europa: in agreement once again. The peer pressure and herd pressure are unbearable.
Celestis: I think it could have been interesting if, after polling our opinions on the issue, we were made to argue for the other side in order to better understand their position and examine our own biases. We did a bit of this in class, but I feel it could have gone further
Centaurus A: a lot of people complaining about peer pressure; you could perhaps not give in to it
Milky Way: Harvard Law School, 2020: as ideologically diverse as the Politburo in the Soviet Union
Mars: Milky Way flexing big time even though I agree with them lol
Mars: But seriously #freesweetpea
Langara: I like how the feedback he responded to was for the impeachment discussion but not this thread tbh
Rigil Kentaurus: Nesson, look up here!!!
Rigil Kentaurus: This is the right place for feedback!
Rigil Kentaurus: Take a look at the snacks suggestion above!
Langara: Let's be honest if I were Nesson I wouldn't listen to us either
Langara: #freesweetpea
Rigil Kentaurus: Sweet peas could be a nice snack!
Rigil Kentaurus: Caramelized edamame
Altair: If Sweet Pea comes, I’ll bring dog treats for them
Altair: How about some special brownies? That would mellow out this class, especially the gunners
Rigil Kentaurus: Please, Nesson, read and comment on THIS feedback
Felucia: LOOK AT ME!! I AM HUMAN!!
Wolf 359: What is Sweatpea? A dog? A bear? A god? A snack? All of the above?
Langara: A cute god
Langara: And also dog
Triton: sweet pea for deity