3 ms·

We enshrine these in our public justice system; it needs to be spread to private companies as well. If I've come to appreciate anything-among many things-in th

by dvtrn 8y ago

We enshrine these in our public justice system; it needs to be spread to private companies as well. If I've come to appreciate anything-among many things-in the last few years of this cultural evolution full of "social justice" debate, discussion and forums-it's that there are pockets of the social fabric who seem very eager to suspend elements of the public justice system or eagerness to put a moratorium on certain 'memes' inherent to our system of adjudicating wrong deemed absolutely necessary or otherwise considered baked in, incontrovertible features of Western "justice" (because fairness, equanimity, better 100 guilty go free than 1 innocent go to jail etc) in just about every realm that isn't a court room where they would beholden to certain burdens and requirements to satisfy other 'memes' inherent to our system of adjudicating wrong. Edit: I really wish the people who have such an issue trying to explore and openly discuss these ideas (even if you personally disagree with them) would step forward and actually offer a counter response versus driveby downvotes of myself and wutbrodo who replied here-and other comments here in the thread trying to actually explore the issue on a level that isn't surface level, shooting from the hip reactions. Barely fresh for 20 minutes and we're both nearly greyed out.

wutbrodo 8y ago
This is just called rejecting liberalism, which is happening across the left-right political spectrum. It's exhausting to see how common medieval arguments about the way society should be run have become. That isn't to say that Enlightenment liberalism is unquestionably correct, but the conversation has shifted such that the hoi polloi have started to reject liberalism without having even done the basic work to consider the pitfalls and the counter-arguments to those pitfalls (you will, of course, find more radical strains of thought that reject liberalism, and while I disagree with them, I don't have the same problem, in that they tend to be sincerely held and supported). To be clear, I don't mean "hoi polloi" to refer to some caricature of an uneducated lower class. It was probably five years ago that I had an argument with someone on an internal board at Google, wherein he claimed the presumption of innocence was irrelevant, since it was a legal constraint by which we weren't bound. Again, not saying that its incontrovertibly correct, but the guy had no concept of why it existed in the justice system and whether those principles were generalizable.

by dvtrn 8y ago

wutbrodo 8y ago

This is just called rejecting liberalism, which is happening across the left-right political spectrum. It's exhausting to see how common medieval arguments about the way society should be run have become. That isn't to say that Enlightenment liberalism is unquestionably correct, but the conversation has shifted such that the hoi polloi have started to reject liberalism without having even done the basic work to consider the pitfalls and the counter-arguments to those pitfalls (you will, of course, find more radical strains of thought that reject liberalism, and while I disagree with them, I don't have the same problem, in that they tend to be sincerely held and supported). To be clear, I don't mean "hoi polloi" to refer to some caricature of an uneducated lower class. It was probably five years ago that I had an argument with someone on an internal board at Google, wherein he claimed the presumption of innocence was irrelevant, since it was a legal constraint by which we weren't bound. Again, not saying that its incontrovertibly correct, but the guy had no concept of why it existed in the justice system and whether those principles were generalizable.