this post was submitted on 07 Jan 2024
591 points (97.4% liked)

politics

19233 readers
2358 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

Just being honest here, I don't care what you think.

This empty answer just leads me to believe it’s based on a gut feeling

I said it was a gut feeling that they got more light sentences than we would like AND that I don't (entirely, I do a little) blame the judges for that. So you're right to believe what I said was a gut feeling was a gut feeling. (being quite literal, since you seem to need that, I used the words "I'd guess"). This is largely how court works. Here's a quick high-level on mitigating circumstances, in case you think for some reason I'm making that part up, too.

rather than any objective, educated analysis.

Not exactly sure why you would come to that conclusion. Are you having reddit flashbacks or something?

I don’t mean it as an attack, just expressing how it should be interpreted by an objective, rational observer.

With all due respect, demanding evidence or proof from everything anyone says in a civil discourse is absolutely an attack. I said absolutely nothing that was inflammatory or problematic, or that might lead one to question the ernestnest of my testimony.

Are you acquianted philosophical principles of credulity (Swinburg, Reid?)? It is entirely reasonable to expect one's testimony to be treated as credible if:

  1. They have nothing personal to gain
  2. They and you have no direct stake in the discussion
  3. Nothing they said directly contradicts reality as you know it.

Solipsism is absurd. Incredulity towards everything is absurd.

So why exactly do you find my explanation of my experiences incredible? What do I have to gain? What do you have to lose?

EDIT: The irony is that you seem to agree with much of what I said anyway. So why are you hitting me with over-the-top cynicism?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago

With all due respect, demanding evidence or proof from everything anyone says in a civil discourse is absolutely an attack.

I'm not demanding anything. I asked if anyone had an objective analysis to compare it to what happens generally. By your own admission, you are just going with your gut, and I'm explaining why your gut means nothing to me.

If you feel attacked, that's your own doing, not mine.