Pretty much, because when you really nail down what you’re protesting about, you want exemptions from the law for people you like, which is just bonkers frankly.
Any time you simplify someone else’s argument to “things you don’t like” or “people you like”, then you’re deliberately ignoring their reasoning for liking/disliking it. Hand waving it away as bonkers feelings is intellectually dishonest.
So in this case, if you like somebody who does the thing, and want anyone who does that to be exempted… then you just want the law to be different. And we have a few ways of accomplishing that.
Thank you for coming out and saying it instead of continuing to pretend that there can be some protest you might consider valid under any circumstances.
It involves 12 people falsely stating that a defendant is not guilty despite their belief that they are guilty. How is that not a perversion of the court process?
Pretty much, because when you really nail down what you’re protesting about, you want exemptions from the law for people you like, which is just bonkers frankly.
Any time you simplify someone else’s argument to “things you don’t like” or “people you like”, then you’re deliberately ignoring their reasoning for liking/disliking it. Hand waving it away as bonkers feelings is intellectually dishonest.
So in this case, if you like somebody who does the thing, and want anyone who does that to be exempted… then you just want the law to be different. And we have a few ways of accomplishing that.
How do you want the law to be different? Murdering CEOs ought to be permissible?
Exactly, ask them something like that instead.
Easy on the leather there chief… You wouldn’t want to damage daddy’s jackboot too much
So witty.
Thank you for coming out and saying it instead of continuing to pretend that there can be some protest you might consider valid under any circumstances.
Was I pretending?
I really just want people to think about what they actually want. Lemmy doesn’t have much self awareness on this issue.
You can’t complain about Trump not facing justice but simultaneously want Luigi to walk.
Luigi is a hero, but he needs to face trial and should be convicted if there is sufficient evidence.
Only if you can’t tell the difference between blatant corruption and jury nullification.
Jury nullification is corruption.
It involves 12 people falsely stating that a defendant is not guilty despite their belief that they are guilty. How is that not a perversion of the court process?