3 ms·

>Whats obvious here is that an incarcerated person only has the options that the carceral state permits to them. Yes, thank you for the tautology. You'll note

>Whats obvious here is that an incarcerated person only has the options that the carceral state permits to them. Yes, thank you for the tautology. You'll note that this was exactly my question: does the state make such exceptions? If you don't know, that's perfectly fine, but respectfully, your apparent mistrust of authority is hardly interesting to internet strangers. We're more interested in any factual elements you might have. Please, if you have any information specific to this case that we've overlooked, feel free to share. If not, hopefully someone else does!

chordalkeyboard 6y ago
> Yes, thank you for the tautology. You'll note that this was exactly my question: does the state make such exceptions? Why would they? > I'm a bit perplexed by your responses -- it seems like you either have information you aren't sharing, or like this subject make you impassioned. I’m sorry if I come across negatively. I am impassioned about this. People who are locked up have no recognized rights. They are at the mercy of the guards. Not the legislature, not the prison system, the guards.
wyattpeak 6y ago
Rather than the parent's comment coming across as mistrustful, yours comes across as apologetic for authority. The idea that someone in authority, on being reminded that they're wrong, will turn around and do what's being asked by their subject is contrary to virtually every study on authority and, indeed, daily experience. This entire discussion is in response to an article highlighting the prison system's refusal to update a system to provide inmates with their guaranteed rights. Of course the state, in principle, makes such exceptions. The question is whether those exceptions are respected. And especially in light of the context in which we're debating (the article), yours and not the parent's seems the extraordinary claim.

chordalkeyboard 6y ago

> Yes, thank you for the tautology. You'll note that this was exactly my question: does the state make such exceptions? Why would they? > I'm a bit perplexed by your responses -- it seems like you either have information you aren't sharing, or like this subject make you impassioned. I’m sorry if I come across negatively. I am impassioned about this. People who are locked up have no recognized rights. They are at the mercy of the guards. Not the legislature, not the prison system, the guards.

wyattpeak 6y ago

Rather than the parent's comment coming across as mistrustful, yours comes across as apologetic for authority. The idea that someone in authority, on being reminded that they're wrong, will turn around and do what's being asked by their subject is contrary to virtually every study on authority and, indeed, daily experience. This entire discussion is in response to an article highlighting the prison system's refusal to update a system to provide inmates with their guaranteed rights. Of course the state, in principle, makes such exceptions. The question is whether those exceptions are respected. And especially in light of the context in which we're debating (the article), yours and not the parent's seems the extraordinary claim.