You must be fucking kidding.
You think this makes your party look sane? Or fair? Or even 1% honest?
I guess he expects no one to remember all the threats righty politicians make against the court, the left, and each other…usually involving a “second amendment solution”, not a threat of basic ethics rules.

Then you think listing some working lecture trips some justices took that were publicly reimbursed by law schools that never had cases before the court and which they reported equates to tens of millions in hyper luxury international trips for the entire family by people with cases before the court that were hidden and not reported as specifically and unambiguously required by law helps make the right seem LESS criminal. 😂

Clarence Thomas delegitimized himself by selling access to himself in secret, selling his decisions in secret, by not recusing himself from cases involving his “friends” (that he only met after becoming a justice), not recusing himself from cases involving his wife, her political movement/business, and pretending that he, the top legal authority in the country, didn’t know it was illegal despite it being incredibly clear in the law…laws he is 100% aware of and followed until corrupt Scalia told him he could get away with it by just not reporting it anymore (like Scalia did with million dollar hunting retreats over 70 times).

It makes you all look criminally unethical and moronic.
Why would anyone want no rules for the highest court unless they are complicit in the bribery schemes?
Self regulation has clearly completely failed, it’s never once worked in human history, but it’s Graham’s/the right’s only plan. Keep bribery legal at the highest levels. 🤦‍♂️

I came into the world with my legs forward:

The midwife wonder'd and the women cried
'O, Jesus bless us, he is born with teeth!'
And so I was; which plainly signified
That I should snarl and bite and play the dog.

Then, since the heavens have shaped my body so,
Let hell make crook'd my mind to answer it.

I will be deaf to pleading and excuses;
Nor tears nor prayers shall purchase out abuses:
Therefore use none:




my opinion of people like this has changed -


Save your lectures for people who need them. Talk to my mother who is afraid to wear a mask because it might give her covid.

It happened, it was halted, it's happening again. As long as lower education is so disparate between mostly white and mostly black schools, it's proper. Revamp the education system so all high school graduates have the same educational opportunities, I would support removing it again, but we are moving the opposite direction. No link required, I explained....but from the link you provided....
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/18/upshot/some-colleges-have-more-students-from-the-top-1-percent-than-the-bottom-60.html

Did you read the link you provided about the one place supporting a day of absence? Evergreen? Their "day of absence" was 100% voluntary, not enforceable and not enforced, contrary to your claim.

The reporter chased out wasn't chased out, he was confronted, and he had left the media area to interrupt the event by "interviewing" people who didn't want to be interviewed in the middle of the event. Trump's campaign has adopted this tactic and added violence, and often physically assaulted reporters even when they comply and stay in the media area. This particular event was akin to a reporter jumping on stage and insisting the speaker let him interview him then and there, disrupting the sanctioned event.

Um....this was a discussion of why people would vote for Trump, not what's happening in Canada. That said, you can't expect a university to give a platform to a person who would use it to degrade and denigrate the university and it's policies. I wouldn't expect a religious school to host atheistic pro-life lectures, and I wouldn't expect publicly funded universities to host anti inclusion lectures.

Duh...your alleged "whiteness" class was not defining whiteness as inherently negative, it was this....
CSRE 136: White Identity Politics (AFRICAAM 136B, ANTHRO 136B)
Pundits proclaim that the 2016 Presidential election marks the rise of white identity politics in the United States. Drawing from the field of whiteness studies and from contemporary writings that push whiteness studies in new directions, this upper-level seminar asks, does white identity politics exist? How is a concept like white identity to be understood in relation to white nationalism, white supremacy, white privilege, and whiteness? We will survey the field of whiteness studies, scholarship on the intersection of race, class, and geography, and writings on whiteness in the United States by contemporary public thinkers, to critically interrogate the terms used to describe whiteness and white identities. Students will consider the perils and possibilities of different political practices, including abolishing whiteness or coming to terms with white identity. What is the future of whiteness? n*Enrolled students will be contacted regarding the location of the course. And it was cancelled in 2016-17. Don't be dishonest, it will change my responses.

Not sure why you made up this falsely alleged definition of racism that appears nowhere in the definitions or class descriptions you linked, but you did. Calling bullshit....Again.

Critical Race Theory (7016): This course will consider one of the newest intellectual currents within American Legal Theory -- Critical Race Theory. Emerging during the 1980s, critical race scholars made many controversial claims about law and legal education -- among them that race and racial inequality suffused American law and society, that structural racial subordination remained endemic, and that both liberal and critical legal theories marginalized the voices of racial minorities. Course readings will be taken from both classic works of Critical Race Theory and newer interventions in the field, as well as scholarship criticizing or otherwise engaging with Critical Race Theory from outside or at the margins of the field. Meeting dates: The class will meet 7:15PM to 9:15PM on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday (January 7, 8, and 9), and the following Monday and Tuesday (January 13 and 14). Elements used in grading: Class Participation, Written Assignments.

Not anti white/pro minority/white=evil....but an examination of how laws as written and enforced may (or may not) be an example of racial injustice codified in law, whether by accident or intent. Again, you misrepresent the facts to pretend a class that examines the roll of race in law is a racist class teaching whites are bad and blacks are good.

If everyone BUT Asains do poorly because they aren't offered the same opportunities to excell, then yes, we need to step in to UPGRADE the opportunities of everyone else, that doesn't translate into downgrading the opportunities Asains are offered. Derp. This bullshit is the same racist trope the anti equality side has used for years, it's just bullshit. Asians aren't penalized for being competent at math nor for being Asian....neither were whites, which was V 1.0 of that same argument.

Identity politics are on both sides, played hard by the right too, to the detriment of society.

Affirmative action got national pushback from the racist right the day it was described as a plan, and constantly since.

It seems you may be confused by morons who would tell you racism is dead, reverse racism is out of control. When white women start being lynched by black mobs and blacks get a free pass for breaking the law, come back and try again. Until then, you sound like a bully whining about getting a time out for punching a smaller kid because they're a different race and proclaiming the whole system is unfair to white kids because you had a minor consequence forced on you.

He is a vocal supporter of the gallery who has repeatedly gone on TV to defend the gallery holding white power events, a gallery who's intent is to legitimize Nazism and far right racist ideology through art and lectures. To me, that's Nazi figurehead.

The gallery leaked the identity of artists who exposed its activities to the far-right neo-Nazi website, Amerika.
This makes them not just a place that allows Nazis a platform, but an active member.

This info and more is in the links provided. Read it please.

Sorry @Buttle it seems you fell for some far right bullshit.
This video is apparently three years old.
It also hides the truth of what's happening, this is not some man on the street, he's a public figurehead of white supremacist organisations in the UK, standing in front of what amounts to their headquarters.


From Reddit-
u/kanyeguisada did the work on this three years ago - here's there very level headed account of this.

"So looking into this...
The place being protested was the LD50 gallery in Hackney, London. They and owner Lucia Diego describe themselves as "neo-reactionary" but they are in fact supporting literal fascists and white supremacists and were trying to become the organizing spot in London for such groups to give them legitimacy and attempt to convert white progressives to their cause through the art world:

In the summer, it held a “Neo-reaction conference” which included a talk by Brett Stevens, a white supremacist who has lauded the “bravery” of Anders Breivik - the Norwegian white supremacist who killed 77 people in 2011.

Mr Stevens' writing was said to be an inspiration to Breivik.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/ld50-gallery-protest-lucia-diego-donald-trump-alt-right-hackney-dalston-a7596346.html

http://www.eastlondonlines.co.uk/2017/03/video-protesters-gather-outside-dalston-art-gallery-over-controversial-exhibition/

http://www.hackneygazette.co.uk/news/politics/ld50-gallery-anti-fascist-protesters-march-through-dalston-1-4907083

https://www.hackneycitizen.co.uk/2017/02/25/ld50-gallery-protest-video-anti-fascists-clash-lone-counter-protester/

https://shutdownld50.tumblr.com/

The "free speech protestor" in this video is Daniel/DC Miller, who not only gave his name to the media, but is a public figure apparently widely known in Hackney for his support of LD50 and who holds (and tries to hold) public lectures on literal white-supremacist fascists:

https://www.facebook.com/events/100614430464838/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Evola

http://www.metamute.org/editorial/articles/it-ok-to-punch-nazi-art-gallery

http://thebaffler.com/latest/ld50-nolan

Now I'm all for free speech in the US. I think even white supremacists like the KKK have the right to speak their disgusting speech and hold rallies and people thinking otherwise should ask themselves what happens when speech they support suddenly might become considered hate speech. For instance many people on the left who support BDS/sanctions on Israel are often accused of "hate speech" simply for calling Israel an apartheid state. Free speech isn't just something the right cares about.

However, other people have the right to free speech too, and can yell right back at you and of course https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/free_speech.png. The guy in this video wasn't just some guy off the street supporting free speech rights but was actually a supporter of literal far-right white-supremacist fascism and was known to the community before this happened, so maybe hold off on the outrage about how mean the protestors were to him until you get the whole picture."

*fakenews

Newt,

This is in response to your comment on my statement about Biden needing to lose in '20.

I recently wrote this as a reply to one of my readers (I write under a number of different names in other places).:

Dear <name>,

>I took some time to absorb what you wrote. It's a lot to juggle. The Atlantic has an article in the July-August issue on the worst and best case scenario in CLO defaults. I'll read more.

I read the article you mentioned, and while it's certainly good, it also misses a very important point that explains the mess we're in: the collapse of Lehman and Bear-Stearns, while catastrophic in their own ways, were not the nightmare that caused the Fed to freak out in 2008 -- AIG was. Had AIG gone under and the counterparty default contracts triggered, we'd be on the barter system right now. We came within hours of not having an economy in the western world. The $700b ($.7t) the Fed coughed up to stop this from happening calmed the panic, but did nothing to resolve the underlying issues. These issues continued to compound during the 2011-2020 stock run-up and now we're at the point where the Fed is throwing trillions of dollars at every piece of bad debt they can find just to keep the whole thing from imploding into an economic black hole. It is important to note that in September '19, the credit markets started freezing because of the debt that was already on the books then, -before- CV-19 started rolling, and it took $3t just to get them unlocked again. Absolutely nothing has gotten better since then, and I would argue things have gotten dangerously worse.

In an odd coincidence, the NYT ran an article today about the looming bankruptcy crisis. They're calling for 30-60 days before things start imploding, but I'll stick to my estimate of ~90 days. There's some talk about extending the $600 benefits (we'll see) and chatter about another stimulus check, but that's kicking the can as well as telegraphing how bad things really are. When the Republicans are getting behind free money, you know we're in some uncharted territory. For all intents and purposes, Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) -- the reason the Fed is backstopping debt and printing money like crazy -- is the hill the US economy will live or die on. Should the US dollar come unpegged as the world's de facto currency or should inflation begin (and there's already worrying signs this is happening), that's game over.

Please don't take anything I say as the Word of God; please do your own research and come to your own conclusions. Everything I've said is an opinion based on my education, experience and way of thinking. Your mileage may vary.

Here is the article I mentioned: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/18/business/corporate-bankruptcy-coronavirus.html -- might be paywalled, but clear your cookies for the NYT and you should be able to read it.


>Frankly, it's the physical danger in my area of the States that concerns me. There are the guns and bullying. During some BLM demonstrations in the Midwest, locals were standing around with semi-automatics. I drive a Prius for the fuel efficiency. Pick up trucks enjoy tailgating, trying to intimidate me. This behavior isn't going to change with a change of President but will get worse is we don't change. This ideological push to takeover the country instead of ruling by compromise started around the same time we came to the US in 1981, Reagan's first year. I was so shocked when I heard talk radio for the first time; this wasn't the country I had left in the 1970s.


And now we come to the giant pile of sweaty dynamite that's just waiting for the right shock to set it off. I could give you a prolonged lecture about how this all started in 1978 with California's Proposition 13, or how David Stockman's tragically prescient warnings were blatantly ignored, but Haynes Johnson does a far better job at this than I ever could in his 1991 book "Sleepwalking Through History", as does Kevin Phillips in 2006's "American Theocracy". Honestly, at this point, the prelude is academic. The reality of the situation is that a large swath of adult Americans are appalling ill-educated, innumerate and devoid of even the most basic critical-thinking skills. These people are now locked out of the Information Economy. They lack the most basic skills required to compete in the 21st century job market and thus will watch their standard of living sink into the abyss. These people are not blind to this fact because they're living with the reality of their situation every single day. They're totally without hope, cut off from all avenues of control over their own lives and they feel utterly abandoned by the very people who're supposed to be helping them. The reason you're seeing bullying and behavior like that is because these same people are totally removed from any avenues of recourse and the only people they can take their anger out on are people like you and me. Their anger is being stoked on a daily basis. FOX News and the GOP are experts at this and have a host of boogeymen to keep the anger from being pointed their way: ANTIFA, BLM (black Americans have always made a perfect target), "coastal elites" and, of course, Liberals.

Trump's election was a warning, not an outlier. Trump was the primal scream of these people and Liberals and the Democrats as a whole chose not to listen because they found the sound so abhorrent. The rage will only get worse and the number of people enveloped by this rage will only grow as economic conditions worsen. At this point, it no longer matters who wins in '20. Winning the election will be like winning the deed to the World Trade Center one second after the first jet hit. The damage has already been done and no steps are being taken to repair it; if anything, people are actively making it worse either through ideological blindness, deliberate malfeasance or outright stupidity. It took almost 50 years to get to this point and the endemic issues will not be undone in a single generation, much less a single election. Until the people who voted for Trump feel a sense of real hope, a sense of control over their lives and a genuine expectation of recourse for their grievances, they will keep right on voting for Trump, or people like him.

My unfortunate suspicion is that this country will rip itself to shreds long before those reforms are enacted.

Side note: the fundamental difference between the United States and Europe is that European history has forced the nations of Europe to live with the consequences of their actions. Not so the United States. Europe has suffered for her sins. Not so the United States. The two bloodiest wars in human history were fought on European soil. Not so the United States. The United States has never faced true suffering, nor has it ever had to live with the ramifications of its own actions. Both these facts are about to change and a nation whose character is built on a mythology of individual action and violence is going to have to face reality. The people of this nation are not prepared for this and they will not like it.

Second side note: many people are erroneously comparing the current situation to the Wiemar Republic. This is a lack of historical understanding. A more apt comparison would be to Spain in late 1935.


>As for re-opening, we could have gotten some control if the "leader" had simply donned a mask and used realistic thinking. People could go back to work more safely, wash hands, stay a certain distance. But his hubris led the way, so now we'll have a roller coaster for months and years that will affect the economy even more. France is a good comparison because they were unprepared also, having slashed the public healthcare budget for the last twenty years. But when they laid down the rules, troops patrolled the streets to be sure they were followed. So far, they've flattened the curve (for now), and used different economic incentives, such as paying part of employees' salaries to keep them employed.

At this point, the pace of re-opening is a difference between very bad and much worse. Had $3t been used to pay the yearly salary of every American, we could have saved lives and the economy, but we didn't. The history of 2020 will be littered with "what-ifs". However, the first thing you learn when studying history is that what-ifs are useless because things are what they are and you can't change that. It's already obvious we're going into a second wave. If previous pandemics are any indication of what's to come, this second wave will be many times worse than the first. The wait for a vaccine is indeterminate, but if we're going for herd immunity, ~70% of Americans will need to catch the virus. To date, ~1.5% have. If the US population is ~330 million, ~230 million will need to catch the virus. Call the mortality rate 2%, that means ~4.6 million Americans will die. That's a lot of dead Americans and grieving families.

Take care,

(my actual name)

Just a anecdotal based response: Left my 3 year old, who was asleep buckled in his seat (which he cannot undo), in the car on an overcast day, 68 degrees out, doors locked. I left a second cell phone on monitor, so I could hear him if he woke up. Went in to a strip mall store 50 yards away from the car.
I hear him wake up, so I come out to check on him, and there's some man, apparently having banged on the window to wake him up, looking at me like I was trying to kill him. Apparently took my license plat and called child services, who eventually called me, my wife, my parents, and did a full investigation. I had almost the same experience, but I'm white and privileged so did not get arrested or have my children removed. I'm confident it could have been a lot worse if I was near the poverty line. I also received a similar lecture:
"We recognize that temperature and weather were ok, but do you recognize how unsafe it was to leave him unsupervised?"
"No, I don't. What could have happened? He was secure and unable to come out of the chair, the doors were locked, and he was monitored"
"Well some one could have smashed the window and taken him"
"Really? A stranger abduction, from a locked car, in broad daylight?"
"Well, what about if the police were called, and you were arrested in front of him. Wouldn't that be traumatic?"

And there they are right. And there you have it - the real danger is not any ACTUAL danger, it's our own fear. FDR had it right.

Actually, I'm selling their audience short. When real scientists present the real data dispassionately, I think the average person gets quickly confused and tunes out. Those that dumb it down enough to be understood invariably underrepresent or outright misrepresent the problems. With so many unscientific voices out there trying to out shout the real data for their own purposes, real scientists fudging the data is near criminal because it's only more ammunition for deniers.

Yes, if you or I heard them lecture, we would likely hear that and even more, but the average, unscientific American would hear "taking in more energy than is leaving" as a good thing, free energy. If they explained the mechanisms involved, their eyes would glaze over as they just wished someone would tell them it's all lies so they could ignore what they can't understand fully. These people are, imo, the majority in the U.S.. They are why we need emotional delivery of simplified science from a charismatic young woman who knows her stuff.
Edit: For example, I had read the published summaries of the recent U.N. report saying we had 12 years to be carbon neutral to stay below 1.5degree rise, they were far from clear that this was only a 50% chance of achieving that minimal temperature rise, or that we only had 8 years of current emission levels to have a 66% chance, still bad odds. I understood they were also using horrendous models for ice melt and other factors to reach those optimistic numbers, and didn't take feedback loops we already see in action into account, nor did they make allowances for feedbacks we don't know about yet. The average reader only got 12 years to conserve before we are locked into 1.5 degree. They don't even know that's when known feedback loops are expected to outpace human inputs, making it exponentially harder if not impossible to turn around, or that 1.5 degree rise by 2050 likely means closer to 3 degree by 2100, and higher afterwards.

Mating habits for European swallows?! How did we get from the relationship of climatology and sociology to discussing the red light district?

@newtboy,

"Ok, but don't discount the factual arguments because they are presented with passion. Ignore the emotion and focus on verifying or debunking the facts presented. Because someone on Fox presents their denial argument flatly and dispassionately doesn't make it more correct."

Obviously agreed, exactly what I was saying.

"if the facts are presented clearly and in totality, which she does better than most if not all professional scientific lecturers....sadly"

I think here you are selling scientific lecturers short, or at the least including folks I wouldn't consider scientific at all in the group.

When I think scientific lecturer, I think an actual scientific researcher giving a lecture related to their field of expertise. That even excludes scientific researchers giving lectures outside their field of expertise. I've seen how badly interdisciplinary study types can misjudge their own knowledge of a field. In the hard sciences they can get rooted out faster, but in softer sciences and humanities it's easier for them to keep finding a niche that hides their ignorance.

If you get the CERES team to give a talk on the global energy budget, they will give a lecture a thousand times more complete and accurate, than you, I or Greta ever could. They will confirm the planet is taking in more energy than is leaving. They will confirm their data is corroborated between satellite and ocean heat content measurements. They can say with authority how much energy is being gained, and can even confirm it largely corresponds to what we'd expect from the increased CO2 contributions. If you asked, they would even also admit that the uncertainties on the measured imbalance are larger than the imbalance itself.

Ask them about mating habits for European swallows and you, I or Gretta might well know better than them.

Ok, but don't discount the factual arguments because they are presented with passion. Ignore the emotion and focus on verifying or debunking the facts presented. Because someone on Fox presents their denial argument flatly and dispassionately doesn't make it more correct.

Yes, I agree, but the point was getting people to listen, read, and fully examine the facts rather than accept the, also emotional, arguments without fact or with incorrect, cherry picked, or misrepresented facts that dominate the discussion on both sides, but mostly on the denier side since facts and data do not support them.

That line isn't blurred, it's been pressure washed away. The emotional arguments are nearly all that's out there, the facts are so misrepresented by both sides...oddly both sides minimizing the problem, the right to ignore it for profit, the left to not overwhelm those wanting to make progress by admitting it's too late.
Note, she mentions the thoroughly reported study that said we must stop emissions in 12 (now 10?) years to stay below 1.5c rise actually said we must make that sacrifice to have a 50% chance at that (and goes on to explain why even that is outrageously optimistic since it doesn't take feedbacks and other factors into account and relies on future generations to make not only the sacrifices we aren't willing to make, but also to clean up/sequester the emissions we continue to emit at faster rates daily).
I have zero problem with the emotion of the delivery if the facts are presented clearly and in totality, which she does better than most if not all professional scientific lecturers....sadly.

good video but a rather important thing he missed is, that many governments DO pay brasil to maintain the rainforest-

"Norway has followed Germany in suspending donations to the Brazilian government’s Amazon Fund after a surge in deforestation in the South American rainforest. The move has triggered a caustic attack from the country’s rightwing president.


Bolsonaro rejects 'Captain Chainsaw' label as data shows deforestation 'exploded'
Read more
Jair Bolsonaro, whose move to meddle in the environmental organisation’s governance led to Norway’s decision, reacted by suggesting that Europe was not in a position to lecture his administration.

“Isn’t Norway that country that kills whales up there in the north pole?”, the Brazilian president said. “Take that money and help Angela Merkel reforest Germany.”

After weeks of tense negotiations with Norway and Germany, the Bolsonaro government unilaterally closed the Amazon Fund’s steering committee on Thursday. The fund has been central to international efforts to curb deforestation although its impact is contested.

Brazil’s environment minister, Ricardo Salles, said the Amazon Fund had been suspended while its rules were under discussion.

In response, Ola Elvestuen, his Norwegian counterpart, said an expected payment of about $33.27m (£27.36m) would not take place as Brazil had, in effect, broken the terms of its deal. Norway has been the fund’s biggest donor, and has given about $1.2bn (£985m) over the past decade.

“He cannot do that without Norway and Germany’s agreement,” Elvestuen said. “What Brazil has shown is that it no longer wants to stop deforestation.”

This week Berlin had said it would withhold an expected payment of about $39m. Norway and Germany questioned an initial proposal from the Brazilian government for the fund’s steering committee to be reduced in size, and had warned against any weakening of the structures of the fund.

Grave concerns about the rate of deforestation since Bolsonaro took power have been repeatedly voiced by the Norwegian government and others.

According to Brazil’s National Institute for Space Research, the government agency that monitors deforestation, the rate increased by 278% in the year to July, resulting in the destruction of about 870 square miles."

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/aug/16/norway-halts-amazon-fund-donation-dispute-brazil-deforestation-jair-bolsonaro


while I do agree that for 3rd world ex colonies it is extremely tiresome to hear lectures about ecology from the US and Europe, who tore up the planet to achieve their status and continue to consume far more than 3rd world people do, Bolsonaro is dead wrong here and sadly it has to be said this is what the democracy and capitalism produce: shortsighted win-now, defer the costs decisions.

- Beta times 5V. And I will solve that to beta. Okay, it is...
*Board crashes*
- WOW! phew... Do we have that on video? Awesome! Oh shit!
- Wow... Okay, I will once again clean the blackboard and then we'll continue. Just look at it like that, that the blackboard will finally be repaired. That's awesome.
*Cleans Blackboard*
- Alright, everybody calmed down, myself not so much.
Somebody else: Did something happen to you?
- No, No... but it is... yeah. Just write for today: Our lecturer nearly got killed today. I'm just happy I went to the toilet before the lecture or I would have shit my pants.

Just because he said thermodynamics at the start, it reminded me of a story my friend told me, while he was in university taking engineering.

One day a prof was lecturing about thermodynamics and he accidentally said thermogoddammits and the class just lost it and the prof turned red. They used the word thermogoddammits for the rest of the semester, much to the consternation of the prof.

"It's exactly what he said, they're both unacceptable, and he's trying to define the spectrum. "
But the spectrum already exists. It's already enshrined in law for a start. I don't need Maher to lecture me about it.

"Yes, if some dude broke my leg, yes I would appreciate that they didn't murder me. "
Of course. You'd probably still report them to the police for assault though?

"Please admit, it's at least imprecise to have a one-size-fits-all justice system. "
I have. Several times.

"If and when people are being sentenced to death and/or extreme prison terms, yeah, let's talk about proportionate response."

"The sentence for these crimes is different and that's correct."

"If Aziz Ansari ends up sharing a cell with Harvey Weinstein, I will 100% stand up and say "hang the fuck on, those two are NOT equivalent". "

"Believe it or not, I've been in a sexual encounter where I've been forced to ..."
What happened to you wasn't rape, agreed, but it wasn't far off. If the roles were reversed and you had sneakily taken off a condom, in some jurisdictions that WOULD be rape.

"I don't think it's crazy to not want her to lose her job, and not want to file criminal charges against her, --- and this is key --- because even though something happened that was non consensual, I don't consider what happened rape, and I would NEVER equate what happened to me to what happened to all of Weinstein's victims because they fall on opposite ends of the spectrum.

Neither one was okay, and one is worse than the other."

Why does it matter that it wasn't rape? It was still a violation of trust and one that could have had lifelong consequences for you.

If she did that to you, who's to say she won't do it again to someone else?

Again, I go back to the assault metaphor. Even if an assailant doesn't murder you, they're still a violent aggressor and a potential danger to others.

Or even at a lower degree still, if someone treats you badly or swindles you, are you not entitled to warn others?

If what happened to you happened to me, I would warn anyone I knew about that kind of behaviour.