6 ms·

I find it really strange a company can pursue criminal cases against an individual. I don't really care for activists but it just seems asymmetric. You can't af

I find it really strange a company can pursue criminal cases against an individual. I don't really care for activists but it just seems asymmetric. You can't after all pursue criminal charges against a company. I don't think it's allowed in my country. A company would need to raise the complaint to the state (say at the police station) and the public prosecutors would decide what to do with it.

sweetheart 5y ago
> I don't really care for activists I've never heard anyone express this opinion before. Can you explain why? Like, _any_ activism?
- Arnt 5y ago
  I'm someone else who doesn't really care for activists. Like I don't really care for you, and the law shouldn't either. The reason that so many statues depict justice with a blindfold is that the law shouldn't care whether you're an activist or anyone else — the law applies equally to us all. OP seems to be someone who cares about blind justice. "Symmetric" isn't the word I would choose, but I think you see how it has nothing to do with activism and everything to do with fairness and equality before the law.
  - croon 5y ago
    I care for activists, and still think everyone should be equal in the eyes of the law. They're not mutually exclusive, which I assume is why GP asked. Activists usually oppose forces with an outsized legal sway which puts the activists in huge risks of being unfairly treated, as we know the law isn't as blind as it should be. It's not that they should recieve special treatment, but merely that both the law and us observers should be extra vigilant that justice is indeed served.
  - pydry 5y ago
    >the law applies equally to us all In theory. Yet Julian Assange is in prison for journalism and Prince Andrew isn't in prison for raping a child. If the system didnt need to be kept honest we wouldnt need activists.
- bendbro 5y ago
  I also don't really care for activists. Talking to an activist about absolutely anything is like having to tell a vegan you eat meat. It's not worth the bother unless you're already neck deep in that world.
  - agentgumshoe 5y ago
    And if some future ruler decided that meat is to be banned, what would you think of activists opposing that? Or is it the idea of the stereotyped hippy/conspiracy theorist whacko as the 'activist' you oppose?
    - sweetheart 5y ago
      I'm surprised there isn't more shame in admitting that one doesn't like activists. It has unbelievable "why don't they just eat cake?" feeling to it.
      - bendbro 5y ago
        > I'm surprised there isn't more shame in admitting that one doesn't like activists. I'm sure most hope it will be a cancellable offense in the near future. My opposing goal is to inject skepticism into people's perception of activists. > It has unbelievable "why don't they just eat cake?" feeling to it. That's sweet of you to say, thanks.
        sweetheart 5y ago
        Well you have to admit it doesn’t sound great, right? Without activists, bad things don’t go away. I’m not gonna list things because we can both think of some terrible things that were brought to light, ended, or significantly reduced thanks to activists. Sure, there are activists who I would argue are trying to make the world worse, or activists who can be offensive, or just plain bad at being an activist. But what I hear when people say “I don’t like activists” is “I’m fine with the way things are”, which sounds bad because “the way things are” can be so, so horrific for so many people and animals. (I’m on of those vegan animal rights activists you hate so much ;)
- timwaagh 5y ago
  I'm generalising, but for me it's the attitude that tends to come with it.
- matsemann 5y ago
  It's mostly said by those benefiting from status quo.
londons_explore 5y ago
I think it makes sense... It is only a judge in a court who can decide if a crime has occurred. If the police or other state authorities decide not to take a crime to court, that doesn't mean one hasn't occurred. That's why anybody has a right to take anyone else to court for the court to decide. It means that you don't need fair and unbiased police or prosecutors - because anyone else could (theoretically) do their work for them if they decline to.

sweetheart 5y ago

> I don't really care for activists I've never heard anyone express this opinion before. Can you explain why? Like, _any_ activism?

Arnt 5y ago
I'm someone else who doesn't really care for activists. Like I don't really care for you, and the law shouldn't either. The reason that so many statues depict justice with a blindfold is that the law shouldn't care whether you're an activist or anyone else — the law applies equally to us all. OP seems to be someone who cares about blind justice. "Symmetric" isn't the word I would choose, but I think you see how it has nothing to do with activism and everything to do with fairness and equality before the law.
- croon 5y ago
  I care for activists, and still think everyone should be equal in the eyes of the law. They're not mutually exclusive, which I assume is why GP asked. Activists usually oppose forces with an outsized legal sway which puts the activists in huge risks of being unfairly treated, as we know the law isn't as blind as it should be. It's not that they should recieve special treatment, but merely that both the law and us observers should be extra vigilant that justice is indeed served.
- pydry 5y ago
  >the law applies equally to us all In theory. Yet Julian Assange is in prison for journalism and Prince Andrew isn't in prison for raping a child. If the system didnt need to be kept honest we wouldnt need activists.
bendbro 5y ago
I also don't really care for activists. Talking to an activist about absolutely anything is like having to tell a vegan you eat meat. It's not worth the bother unless you're already neck deep in that world.
- agentgumshoe 5y ago
  And if some future ruler decided that meat is to be banned, what would you think of activists opposing that? Or is it the idea of the stereotyped hippy/conspiracy theorist whacko as the 'activist' you oppose?
  - sweetheart 5y ago
    I'm surprised there isn't more shame in admitting that one doesn't like activists. It has unbelievable "why don't they just eat cake?" feeling to it.
    - bendbro 5y ago
      > I'm surprised there isn't more shame in admitting that one doesn't like activists. I'm sure most hope it will be a cancellable offense in the near future. My opposing goal is to inject skepticism into people's perception of activists. > It has unbelievable "why don't they just eat cake?" feeling to it. That's sweet of you to say, thanks.
      - sweetheart 5y ago
        Well you have to admit it doesn’t sound great, right? Without activists, bad things don’t go away. I’m not gonna list things because we can both think of some terrible things that were brought to light, ended, or significantly reduced thanks to activists. Sure, there are activists who I would argue are trying to make the world worse, or activists who can be offensive, or just plain bad at being an activist. But what I hear when people say “I don’t like activists” is “I’m fine with the way things are”, which sounds bad because “the way things are” can be so, so horrific for so many people and animals. (I’m on of those vegan animal rights activists you hate so much ;)
timwaagh 5y ago
I'm generalising, but for me it's the attitude that tends to come with it.
matsemann 5y ago
It's mostly said by those benefiting from status quo.

londons_explore 5y ago

I think it makes sense... It is only a judge in a court who can decide if a crime has occurred. If the police or other state authorities decide not to take a crime to court, that doesn't mean one hasn't occurred. That's why anybody has a right to take anyone else to court for the court to decide. It means that you don't need fair and unbiased police or prosecutors - because anyone else could (theoretically) do their work for them if they decline to.