lemm.ee

3 points

5 months ago

Because going all the way takes us back to caveman society.

No system is perfect, and no system is equal, and most importantly, people in a system will adapt to take advantage of the system. That’s why it’s useless to go “all the way”, the system is there to keep us from just clubbing each other over the head whenever we feel wronged. It’s much better that we have a dynamic and living system that can respond to loopholes and attempts to thwart it. Incremental change is the way the system should react.

It is a challenging question though. How do you afford the “little man” their right to appeal rulings, without giving the “big man” unlimited leeway to appeal and delay justice?

report

[ - ]

masquenox@lemmy.world

-1 points

5 months ago

Because going all the way takes us back to caveman society.

Where did you get this? At the local Fascist Fortune Cookie store? Hollywood, maybe?

Where is your evidence of this?

How do you afford the “little man” their right to appeal rulings, without giving the “big man” unlimited leeway to appeal and delay justice?

If you are unwilling to do away with the very systems that are designed to protect and enable the “big men” the answer is simple - you can’t.

report

[ - ]

3 points

5 months ago

Oh, I must be a fascist because I think that going all the way back means going to a time before organized society and a structured code of law? Is that really where your mind jumps to when someone disagrees with you? Oh, this person must be a fucking fascist because they think differently than I!

Ad-hominems aside. How far back is “far back” enough for you that we could build a more just and equitable system? We talking Bill of Rights? Magna Carta? 10 commandments?

report

[ - ]

masquenox@lemmy.world

-1 points

5 months ago

organized society and a structured code of law?

Where is the evidence that led you to conflate these two?

Oh, this person must be a fucking fascist because they think differently than I!

What else am I supposed to do when people regurgite fascist narratives? Assume the person doing the regurgitating is not beholden to fascist views?

I assume this is the first time you’ve been exposed to the fact that “Law & Order” narratives have always been the narrative espoused by the fascist element inherent to the liberal nation state long before Mussolini even gave fascism a name?

report

[ - ]

2 points

5 months ago

What else am I supposed to do when people regurgite fascist narratives?

I have yet to see a fascist argue that every justice system has inherent inequality, and that the only way to fix it is to have a dynamic and living system than can respond to the changes in society around it. I don’t think that is a fascist view. Fascist by definition put all authority in an immutable entity that rules with an iron fist with the sole purpose of benefiting one particular group of people.

You might consider reading up on it a bit before you go start spreading it over everything that doesn’t agree with your somehow very narrow yet ephemeral definition of a just society. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

Regardless, any talk at this point is unproductive unless you are willing to specify what in your mind, was the most recent equitable justice system in human history. You won’t though, because you haven’t thought about it that much, which is why you were offended by my caveman assertion.

report

[ - ]

masquenox@lemmy.world

0 points

5 months ago

inherent inequality,

As dictated by whom? You?

I don’t think that is a fascist view.

You think that endorsing the violence through which the many is subjugated for the safety and security of the few is not fascist?

Fascist by definition

Fascism doesn’t have a definition, liberal. It isn’t - and has never been - a consistent ideology that enables definition.

Am I to assume that your understanding of fascism is as flawed, naive and downright cartoonish as the one your fellow liberals on here ceaselessly demonstrate? Aaaaand…

You might consider reading up on… https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

…I’ll take that as a yes.

Regardless, any talk at this point is unproductive

What is the point of talking alternatives with those who has a vested interest in maintaining the violence of the status quo?

which is why you were offended by my caveman assertion.

Is that what offended me? It had nothing to do with your appeal to right-wing ahistoricity?

report

[ - ]

1 point

5 months ago

Wow, you put a lot of time and effort in to useless drivel.

inherent inequality,

As dictated by whom? You?

A system does not need someone to dictate inequality, there are plenty of naturally existing system that produce inequal results. I don’t have to dictate shit to notice an inequitable system.

I don’t think that is a fascist view.

You think that endorsing the violence through which the many is subjugated for the safety and security of the few is not fascist?

Textbook strawman there. At no point have I argued that a justice system should subjugate the many for the benefit of the few.

Fascist by definition

Fascism doesn’t have a definition, liberal. It isn’t - and has never been - a consistent ideology that enables definition.

This may be news to you, but words have meaning, otherwise you can peanut butter your knuckle wolfsbane.

Am I to assume that your understanding of fascism is as flawed, naive and downright cartoonish as the one your fellow liberals on here ceaselessly demonstrate? Aaaaand…

Please, source your definiton for Fascism. I cited an established repository of knowledge, so far your only basis for the meaning of the word exists in the vapor between your ears.

Regardless, any talk at this point is unproductive

What is the point of talking alternatives with those who has a vested interest in maintaining the violence of the status quo?

This is a reiteration of an already refuted strawman, and supporting evidence for my assertion on the productivity of the “dialogue”.

which is why you were offended by my caveman assertion.

Is that what offended me? It had nothing to do with your appeal to right-wing ahistoricity?

Didn’t you just accuse me of being liberal twice in the same fucking post?

Now, if you have any intention to seriously debate about justice system reform, please espouse your ideas on the last equitable social code that any segment of humanity has operated under in history. Otherwise, you’ll have written a lot of pointless drivel, again, without actually adding anything to the conversation.

report