5 ms·

Thank god this rubbish isn't how the legal system functions in any civilized country.

by csallen 6y ago

AnthonyMouse 6y ago
Who is talking about the legal system? This is the political system.
- csallen 6y ago
  The political system doesn't work like this either. All governments and political bodies are capable of dealing with multiple issues simultaneously. As far as I'm aware, none will deny you your rights or restitution just because "hey look, some people who look like you have done bad things, too."
  - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
    > All governments and political bodies are capable of dealing with multiple issues simultaneously. If that were true there would be equally prominent protests and proposed legislation on both issues simultaneously. > As far as I'm aware, none will deny you your rights or restitution just because "hey look you've done bad things, too." You're talking about the legal system again.
    - csallen 6y ago
      In what way does being capable of considering multiple issues simultaneously require protest for all of these issues, or equal prominence for all of these issues? I have no idea what point you're trying to make, really.
      - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
        > In what way does being capable of considering multiple issues simultaneously require protest for all of these issues, or equal prominence for all of these issues? Because that's what considering means. It takes more than just declaring that something is under consideration while not really paying attention to it or doing anything about it. We don't actually consider all issues at once equally. That's why it makes sense to question their relative importance.
        csallen 6y ago
        You're assuming that care for every issue is expressed in the same way, and also that whether or not something makes front page news or gets people riled up is a fair measure of how much they care, as opposed to a measure of simply how flashy or exciting that issue is.
        AnthonyMouse 6y ago
        > that whether or not something makes front page news or gets people riled up is a fair measure of how much they care That seems like a pretty good metric for whether the political system is grappling with something. What metric are you proposing as an alternative? Does it show a different result?
        csallen 6y ago
        The political system is always grappling with lots of things simultaneously. Some of those things will always be getting more publicity and arousing more anger than others at any point in time, but so what? That doesn't necessarily mean anyone's moving the needle on those issues to a higher degree than on other issues.
        xg15 6y ago
        I'd put it like this: The insitutionalized legal and political system can address lots of things simultaneously. The public attention (news cycle etc) has strong limits how many topics it can consider simultaneously. The focus of public attention is also important because it influences the political system (democracy and all). Currently the focus is on systemic racism and police violence. Trying to move focus to violence between blacks would absolutely take resources away from fighting racism (which is often the intention of those bringing up the topic).
        antepodius 6y ago
        What are the numbers? Ten times as many black people die from black-on-black homocide as police killings? Even if it were just twice as many- I think it would be reasonable to wonder, if you were being utilitarian, what approach would save the most lives. An uncharitable reading of your comment might interpret that fighting racism is so relatively important it's worth sacrifing some net black lives for it.

Thank god this rubbish isn't how the legal system functions in any civilized country.

AnthonyMouse 6y ago

Who is talking about the legal system? This is the political system.

csallen 6y ago
The political system doesn't work like this either. All governments and political bodies are capable of dealing with multiple issues simultaneously. As far as I'm aware, none will deny you your rights or restitution just because "hey look, some people who look like you have done bad things, too."
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago
  > All governments and political bodies are capable of dealing with multiple issues simultaneously. If that were true there would be equally prominent protests and proposed legislation on both issues simultaneously. > As far as I'm aware, none will deny you your rights or restitution just because "hey look you've done bad things, too." You're talking about the legal system again.
  - csallen 6y ago
    In what way does being capable of considering multiple issues simultaneously require protest for all of these issues, or equal prominence for all of these issues? I have no idea what point you're trying to make, really.
    - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
      > In what way does being capable of considering multiple issues simultaneously require protest for all of these issues, or equal prominence for all of these issues? Because that's what considering means. It takes more than just declaring that something is under consideration while not really paying attention to it or doing anything about it. We don't actually consider all issues at once equally. That's why it makes sense to question their relative importance.
      - csallen 6y ago
        You're assuming that care for every issue is expressed in the same way, and also that whether or not something makes front page news or gets people riled up is a fair measure of how much they care, as opposed to a measure of simply how flashy or exciting that issue is.
        AnthonyMouse 6y ago
        > that whether or not something makes front page news or gets people riled up is a fair measure of how much they care That seems like a pretty good metric for whether the political system is grappling with something. What metric are you proposing as an alternative? Does it show a different result?
        csallen 6y ago
        The political system is always grappling with lots of things simultaneously. Some of those things will always be getting more publicity and arousing more anger than others at any point in time, but so what? That doesn't necessarily mean anyone's moving the needle on those issues to a higher degree than on other issues.
        xg15 6y ago
        I'd put it like this: The insitutionalized legal and political system can address lots of things simultaneously. The public attention (news cycle etc) has strong limits how many topics it can consider simultaneously. The focus of public attention is also important because it influences the political system (democracy and all). Currently the focus is on systemic racism and police violence. Trying to move focus to violence between blacks would absolutely take resources away from fighting racism (which is often the intention of those bringing up the topic).
        antepodius 6y ago
        What are the numbers? Ten times as many black people die from black-on-black homocide as police killings? Even if it were just twice as many- I think it would be reasonable to wonder, if you were being utilitarian, what approach would save the most lives. An uncharitable reading of your comment might interpret that fighting racism is so relatively important it's worth sacrifing some net black lives for it.