3 ms·

Your analysis completely ignores power structures inside the US. Try to oppose the prison industry, in reality not theory, and get back to me. This is a fight I

by acomar 8y ago

Your analysis completely ignores power structures inside the US. Try to oppose the prison industry, in reality not theory, and get back to me. This is a fight I'm actively involved in. I'm literally an activist and trying to end this mistreatment. You're wrong, but the reason you're wrong isn't your intent. It's the way people assume you're right and ignore the darker sides of capitalism. The truth is that it doesn't matter what the public supports or doesn't. Prisoner slavery exists because it makes people money and it will continue to exist until it does not.

gammateam 8y ago
I've offered perspectives to many causes that weren't considered by the people most invested in their cause. I've offered perspectives to John Jay College of Criminal Justice on what arguments they should attempt in the courts, even though that approach was uncharted territory. I'm not a lawyer. I also don't care what the public thinks, I care about influence and outcomes that I like, and the public is VERY far removed from that process except in circumstances where the public coincidentally was already aligned with influential interests. Thats why I start with simple questions such as "can this reach consensus necessary", that "consensus" can come from a Federal District Judge in Guam for all I care. Sometimes "consensus" is "we - the government - don't find it prudent to appeal this case" such as you saw with the stop and frisk federal appeals case in NYC. I know the lawyers that came up the Citizens United arguments on some arbitrary first amendment grounds just because they could. Guess what, they ALWAYS go for first amendment. They practically pick the judges to hear their cases too. And when I look at the 13th Amendment and power structures inside the US, I think there is plenty of room to get closer to the outcome you are interested in.

by acomar 8y ago

gammateam 8y ago

I've offered perspectives to many causes that weren't considered by the people most invested in their cause. I've offered perspectives to John Jay College of Criminal Justice on what arguments they should attempt in the courts, even though that approach was uncharted territory. I'm not a lawyer. I also don't care what the public thinks, I care about influence and outcomes that I like, and the public is VERY far removed from that process except in circumstances where the public coincidentally was already aligned with influential interests. Thats why I start with simple questions such as "can this reach consensus necessary", that "consensus" can come from a Federal District Judge in Guam for all I care. Sometimes "consensus" is "we - the government - don't find it prudent to appeal this case" such as you saw with the stop and frisk federal appeals case in NYC. I know the lawyers that came up the Citizens United arguments on some arbitrary first amendment grounds just because they could. Guess what, they ALWAYS go for first amendment. They practically pick the judges to hear their cases too. And when I look at the 13th Amendment and power structures inside the US, I think there is plenty of room to get closer to the outcome you are interested in.