this post was submitted on 27 Aug 2023
238 points (100.0% liked)

chapotraphouse

13509 readers
1392 users here now

Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.

No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer

Vaush posts go in the_dunk_tank

Dunk posts in general go in the_dunk_tank, not here

Don't post low-hanging fruit here after it gets removed from the_dunk_tank

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Egon@hexbear.net 46 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Lmao the legal perspective isn't important at all. The law isn't some infallible deity, it's a dude in a gown, and the whole trial made it obvious who the judge was siding with. Behaving as if the legal perspective is in any way objective - or really relevant - is silly. It's also circular logic "the law decided he was innocent, so therefore the law was right". Had the law decided he was guilty the law would've been right too.

For the same reason it's not crucial to understand gun laws. They aren't upheld by impartial arbiters. Laws are tools of oppression wielded by the hegemonic power.

Why is a respectful dialogue crucial? You keep using this word as if it means anything in and of itself. I see no reason to be polite to someone that thinks it's cool and good to travel miles and miles with the purpose of murdering political adversaries.

Why is it you think constructive conversation is some sort of right? If you cannot handle statements like "I think all slavers should be killed", then I don't want to have a polite conversation with you, and there is most certainly nothing constructive that can come from it.

Also you might want to try to form your own thoughts for once, rather than have some silly chatbot tell you what to think.

[–] PandaBearGreen@hexbear.net 21 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's hilarious when people act like legality is somehow the real world or just in any sense.

[–] Evilsandwichman@hexbear.net 5 points 1 year ago

Reminds me of an adviser to Trump who suggested drone bombing refugees before they reached the US because they wouldn't be protected by the constitution at that point.