khepri

joined 2 years ago
[–] khepri 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Absolutely right. "Impartial" doesn't mean you've never heard of the person, or never seen them on the news, or don't live near them, or have no opinion of them, or haven't heard or believe things about what they've done. It means just what you said, that whoever is picked will be able to listen to the evidence presented by both sides and make a decision based on that evidence. Apparently a huge number of people believe this is functionally impossible for humans to do, which is pretty sad if you've let your politics overwhelm your reason to such a degree that you think no one else can be objective either.

It's a classic shithead defense to try and tell a judge "the paper did a piece on my crimes and everyone read it, so I can't get a fair trial!!" Well guess what, that never works, for anyone, ever. There is no such thing as "too famous" for justice, there is no such thing as "too infamous" for justice. And there is no such thing as "the vast majority of people in NY and DC and GA hate me so badly because of who I am and what I've done that no one in those states can be allowed to judge me for my acts."

[–] khepri 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Thankfully we put career criminals, well-known in their communities, who people have heard of, on trial all the time. Could you imagine if "I'm too famous as a dirtbag to be tried by a jury of my peers" was a defense?

[–] khepri 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

And I'm sure that's true to your personal experience. But I hope you'll accept that for millions of Americans, we feel like one side wants to criminalize our very existence and way of life, and one side does not. Corruption aside, which I can agree is rampant across the spectrum, one side is openly questioning whether entire groups of people should be allowed to live out their lives enjoying the same freedoms as the rest of us, and that, for me, is important.

[–] khepri 7 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

It's my right to have my personal computer display what I want it to display. It's my right set my device to reject internet traffic I don't want to receive. It's my right to instruct my machine to download the data I want, and refuse to download the data I don't want. If you make something publicly available online, then the public can consume that or refuse that, in part or in whole, as and when they wish. If a company or a browser wants to try and interfere with that, then they've chosen their fate.

[–] khepri 5 points 2 years ago

Yeah, even most of the judges he appointed, who he no doubt hoped would be in his pocket forever, seem to recognize that supporting Trump, the way he'd like to be supported, in an actual legal proceeding, would be weapons-grade stupid for them. Trump has an outside chance at another 4 years, maybe, whereas these judges are on the bench for life in most cases, and most of them get that they'll have to be able to operate in future administrations rather than burn their careers for this dumbdumb the way he gets his lawyers to do.

[–] khepri 12 points 2 years ago (5 children)

Can't argue with that, but it's a bit like saying that the surface of the Sun and a day at the beach are both hot. Like, I can't argue with you because of how you stated it, but there are matters of degrees in both cases.

[–] khepri 33 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

well looks like this is going to get pretty bad...How is it the responsibility of platforms to take care of your children for you? It's not school, it's not daycare, it's the internet. Does the electric company have some moral or legal obligation to keep your children from jamming a fork in the outlet? Does a public beach need staff on hand to keep children from digging dangerously large sand tunnels that could collapse? Is it up to the water company to provide your child with special means of not flooding your basement? If we need this for some reason, why don't we need to force manufacturers to create cars that won't start for under-16's, windows in high buildings that you have to be 18 to open, or headphones that won't get too loud unless you enter your date of birth? This is some Footloose-level bullshit and I just do not get it I guess.

[–] khepri 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

We should all take this textbook example of sock puppetry to heart. I'm sorry, but there just aren't "progressive leftist types" who are also "it's the working class, straight, middle-aged white men who are the oppressed minority" types. Like point me to one thing progressive about anything in this comment if that's who you are. Point me to one thing you said other than "I'm a lib, promise!" that couldn't have come straight out of Jordan Peterson's or Scott Adam's whiny ass mouths. Get outta here with that bad faith "I'm liberal but all the trans and black and female people are mean to me and don't listen and don't want me around" boohoo nonsense

[–] khepri 6 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

I'll tell you what there's not, is a Mr. Moneybags investor at the top of the pyramid saying "I forbid you (admin) to act in any way that damages my future earnings." So without that guy in the picture, yeah, you could say there's nothing "stopping" the creators of an instance from deleting it. There's no one there to sue them for lost earnings because some precious monetizable content was removed. But is threat of lawsuits and bankruptcy to force content to stay up forever and ever really better than just letting individual admins of individual instances have total control? Just like any social media, what you post here doesn't "belong" to you anymore, you don't have some special right for it to stay up on the platform, it belongs to the site, and they can remove it, or the entire site, if they want to.

[–] khepri 43 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

And the idea that debating these people does anything other than platform and broadcast their sickness is destroying both social media and the news. We don't need to both-sides every issue and pretend that it's a debate, when it's people who view certain others as sub-human vs people who don't. Whether certain groups should exist or have the same rights as the rest of us is not a debate topic and we need to stop treating it like it is.

[–] khepri 18 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Sometimes. Other times that's just what they want, to be given a voice and to waste your time and to feel legitimized by the engagement. It's 100% fine to be intolerant of intolerance, it's the only thing that holds a tolerant society together.

[–] khepri 3 points 2 years ago

They are, and I love to peek in on them every time the GOP or Trump steps in some shit, the amount of denial, whataboutism, "brigaded!", infighting, and deleted comments is just so so tasty. Seriously if you need a good chuckle today check out the thread on that leaked audio where he waves war plans around to impress a biographer saying "This is secret. Look, look at it. I could have declassified, but now I can't."

view more: ‹ prev next ›