Videogamep
@videogamep.bsky.social
Skyler. I'm a lawyer and I write about anime. They're probably not related. Writer at The Fandom Post and Crunchyroll.
@videogamep3 on Twitter.
he/him
@videogamep3 on Twitter.
he/him
Gonna start using this line whenever someone asks how I am.
November 13, 2025 at 2:02 AM
Gonna start using this line whenever someone asks how I am.
Me scrolling Bluesky right now
November 2, 2025 at 5:32 AM
Me scrolling Bluesky right now
Just watched the latest Sanda and all I can think is this:
October 31, 2025 at 6:53 PM
Just watched the latest Sanda and all I can think is this:
And their lawyer apparently doesn’t know about the bar on generalized grievances if he’s making comments like this.
October 23, 2025 at 10:53 PM
And their lawyer apparently doesn’t know about the bar on generalized grievances if he’s making comments like this.
Truly a woman of culture.
October 10, 2025 at 5:02 PM
Truly a woman of culture.
Not what you said at the start. But ultimately, this is a side issue. Your initial point, which you seem eager to avoid now, was that First Amendment protection for porn somehow led to the Court saying hate speech isn't an exception, which is painfully ignorant of basic legal history.
September 10, 2025 at 10:46 PM
Not what you said at the start. But ultimately, this is a side issue. Your initial point, which you seem eager to avoid now, was that First Amendment protection for porn somehow led to the Court saying hate speech isn't an exception, which is painfully ignorant of basic legal history.
There's a lot wrong with what Kavanaugh is saying here, but I'm focused on this. The court doesn't have to do anything with these, its docket has been almost entirely discretionary for decades! The court could just as easily summarily deny these applications and decline to intervene.
September 4, 2025 at 9:07 PM
There's a lot wrong with what Kavanaugh is saying here, but I'm focused on this. The court doesn't have to do anything with these, its docket has been almost entirely discretionary for decades! The court could just as easily summarily deny these applications and decline to intervene.
I'm still trying to figure out why he thinks Hawaii state court decisions have anything to do with federal standing requirements.
July 27, 2025 at 1:40 AM
I'm still trying to figure out why he thinks Hawaii state court decisions have anything to do with federal standing requirements.
New drunk type just dropped
July 21, 2025 at 4:53 PM
New drunk type just dropped
Only in anime do you find a show about a high school girls bowling team transported to Sengoku Era Japan, where they defeat a couple of bandits by bowling.
July 15, 2025 at 6:59 PM
Only in anime do you find a show about a high school girls bowling team transported to Sengoku Era Japan, where they defeat a couple of bandits by bowling.
As a point of comparison, here’s what the actual largest anime convention looks like.
July 15, 2025 at 5:16 PM
As a point of comparison, here’s what the actual largest anime convention looks like.
No better close to day 1 than a concert. Can’t wait for Togenashi Togeari to come on!
July 4, 2025 at 1:57 AM
No better close to day 1 than a concert. Can’t wait for Togenashi Togeari to come on!
And finally, he argues that the 14th and 15th amendments are unconstitutional. How much time does he spend expounding on this radical proposal? One paragraph. One paragraph to say that there are these secret limits on constitutional amendments that were totally intended but never mentioned in it.
![the occupied states’ governments, and the requirement that the southern states ratify these amendments before the occupation was lifted and their elected representatives would be accepted into Congress “constituteld] an infraction of the amendment procedure ordained by Article V of the Constitution.” Second, the amendments are substantively unconstitutional. If, as Albert argues, the Fourteenth and Fifteenth amendments represent a “constitutional dismemberment” which “is incompatible with the existing framework of a constitution because it seeks to achieve a conflicting purpose,” then Article V would not permit such Amendments to be made, given that Article V only permits for “mere amendment|].”8° Albert views the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments as writing “into the Constitution a ringing declaration of the equality of all persons,” and the Court has explicitly held the former amendment prohibits “measures designed to maintain White Supremacy.”?! However, given that the United States was founded as a race-based nation-state for the preservation and betterment of White Americans (the People), as clearly laid out in the Preamble and revealed by our history, it is difficult to see how these amendments (or at least the way they have been interpreted in the post-World War II era) do not amount to unconstitutional, revolutionary usurpations by the constituted government power.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:jj4nfplwr3mybkknzp4odsok/bafkreigolwo3fqw5kuznn53fltx4kzzqeq3252ccyzlubkdg5k55ilpdia@jpeg)
June 25, 2025 at 4:58 PM
And finally, he argues that the 14th and 15th amendments are unconstitutional. How much time does he spend expounding on this radical proposal? One paragraph. One paragraph to say that there are these secret limits on constitutional amendments that were totally intended but never mentioned in it.
Then he says that the judiciary should order the government to implement his preferred immigration policy because of course the Constitution implements his exact policy preferences.
June 25, 2025 at 4:58 PM
Then he says that the judiciary should order the government to implement his preferred immigration policy because of course the Constitution implements his exact policy preferences.
Then he goes into more of his bullshit theory, which I'll skip, but I do want to highlight this for how mind-meltingly stupid it is. "They said the Constitution, not every provision" is not a serious position for reasons that should be obvious to anyone with basic reading comprehension.
June 25, 2025 at 4:58 PM
Then he goes into more of his bullshit theory, which I'll skip, but I do want to highlight this for how mind-meltingly stupid it is. "They said the Constitution, not every provision" is not a serious position for reasons that should be obvious to anyone with basic reading comprehension.
He tries to say that the Supreme Court actually agrees with his view that non-whites are not part of "the People" because Scalia cited some Antebellum cases about that in Heller for the completely unrelated proposition that gun ownership at the time was considered an individual right.
June 25, 2025 at 4:58 PM
He tries to say that the Supreme Court actually agrees with his view that non-whites are not part of "the People" because Scalia cited some Antebellum cases about that in Heller for the completely unrelated proposition that gun ownership at the time was considered an individual right.
Then he cites Thomas Jefferson, who was in France at the time the Constitution was ratified and didn't even attend the constitutional convention. He also treats Jefferson as speaking for the views of all the anti-Federalists, yet another very basic error of history.
June 25, 2025 at 4:58 PM
Then he cites Thomas Jefferson, who was in France at the time the Constitution was ratified and didn't even attend the constitutional convention. He also treats Jefferson as speaking for the views of all the anti-Federalists, yet another very basic error of history.
But wait, there's more! Immediately after that, he cites Charles Pinkney, who claimed to have written the privileges and immunities clause. Pinkney might've thought this, but once again, he doesn't acknowledge that there were 55 delegates at the convention.
![Charles Pinckney, in the 1821 congressional debate on the Missouri compromise, clarified through his interpretation of the meaning of the Article IV Privileges and Immunities Clause, which he claimed to have written, that: [A]t the time I drew that constitution, I perfectly knew that there did not then exist such a thing in the Union as a black or colored citizen, nor could I then have conceived it possible such a thing could ever have existed in it; nor... do I now believe one does exist in it . . .](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:jj4nfplwr3mybkknzp4odsok/bafkreieu4br75ndr6c53e6rbcks7ao3ueyvp65qi3vafkffg24crhipeqe@jpeg)
June 25, 2025 at 4:58 PM
But wait, there's more! Immediately after that, he cites Charles Pinkney, who claimed to have written the privileges and immunities clause. Pinkney might've thought this, but once again, he doesn't acknowledge that there were 55 delegates at the convention.
And then he makes another basic error of interpreting historical figures through a modern lens. Nationalism and the idea of the corresponding nation state (in the modern sense he uses) were both late 19th century ideas that only existed in their infancy in the 18th century.
June 25, 2025 at 4:58 PM
And then he makes another basic error of interpreting historical figures through a modern lens. Nationalism and the idea of the corresponding nation state (in the modern sense he uses) were both late 19th century ideas that only existed in their infancy in the 18th century.
Next, after a general discussion of originalism, he starts uncritically citing the Federalist Papers for his claim that the Constitution was meant to create an ethnostate (it wasn't).
![In The Federalist No. 14, James Madison placed particular emphasis on the People’s common ancestry and shared experience of enduring and emerging triumphant from the recent revolutionary struggle, arguing that “the kindred blood which flows in the veins of American citizens, the mingled blood which they have shed in defense of their sacred rights, consecrate their Union, and excite horror at the idea of their becoming aliens, rivals, enemies.”!9 Furthermore, Madison called upon Americans to “[hlearken not to the unnatural voice which tells you that [Americans], knit together as they are by so many cords of affection, can no longer live together as members of the same family; ... [and] can no longer be fellow citizens of one great, respectable, and flourishing empire.”2° The authors of The Federalist were not ashamed in asserting that the People possessed an exclusive, ancestral identity which should be jealously guarded. Indeed, they believed that it was a fundamental aspect of “human nature . .. that its affections are commonly weak in proportion to the distance or diffusiveness of the object;” and thus, “a man is more attached to his family than to his neighborhood, to his neighborhood than to the community at large.” Not only was a political union necessary in order to prevent “a band of brethren, united to each other by the strongest ties” from being “split into a number of unsocial, jealous, and alien sovereignties,” but it was those “strongest ties” which made union possible in the first place.22 The American nation served as the foundation of the American state, and the state, in turn, functioned to preserve what Schmitt would later call the “substantial equality” or “homogeneity” of the nation. Given such views, the authors of The](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:jj4nfplwr3mybkknzp4odsok/bafkreif5zzxqwexu2vnsuk5yu5gmrl2l77mlrikdeocde5qjxp5k26honm@jpeg)
June 25, 2025 at 4:58 PM
Next, after a general discussion of originalism, he starts uncritically citing the Federalist Papers for his claim that the Constitution was meant to create an ethnostate (it wasn't).
To start with, his very first citation is to a Carl Schmitt. Who is Carl Schmitt? Well, he was a literal Nazi.
So 1. don't fucking cite Nazis and 2. why would you cite a 20th century political theorist when you're talking about 18th century political theory?
So 1. don't fucking cite Nazis and 2. why would you cite a 20th century political theorist when you're talking about 18th century political theory?
![CARL SCHMITT, CONSTITUTIONAL THEORY 127 (Jeffrey Seitzer, ed. & trans., 2008) (noting that “[nJation and people are often treated as equivalent concepts” but that “[nation] denotes, specifically, the people as a unity capable of political action, . . . while the people not existing as a nation is somehow only something that belongs together ethnically or culturally, but it is not necessarily a bonding of men existing politically”)](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:jj4nfplwr3mybkknzp4odsok/bafkreih3lsrckjb5n22zfgipezqxqn5dlkuancpxybsbnrtdkvy3nhcu4i@jpeg)
![Carl Schmitt[a] (11 July 1888 – 7 April 1985) was a German jurist, author, and political theorist.
Schmitt wrote extensively about the effective wielding of political power. An authoritarian conservative theorist,[4] he was noted as a critic of parliamentary democracy, liberalism, and cosmopolitanism.[5] His works covered political theory, legal theory, continental philosophy, and political theology. However, they are controversial, mainly due to his intellectual support for, and active involvement with, Nazism.[6] In 1933, Schmitt joined the Nazi Party and utilized his legal and political theories to provide ideological justification for the regime. However, he later lost favour among senior Nazi officials and was ultimately removed from his official positions within the party.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:jj4nfplwr3mybkknzp4odsok/bafkreicgr6syp6zzox5r3ywevpp4ohdkpuklgudgls3uss7kkzodcawrom@jpeg)
June 25, 2025 at 4:58 PM
To start with, his very first citation is to a Carl Schmitt. Who is Carl Schmitt? Well, he was a literal Nazi.
So 1. don't fucking cite Nazis and 2. why would you cite a 20th century political theorist when you're talking about 18th century political theory?
So 1. don't fucking cite Nazis and 2. why would you cite a 20th century political theorist when you're talking about 18th century political theory?
