This.Anyone saying 'why punish people, what's the point?' should be asked what's the point of punishing Islamic terrorist, neo nazis, kkk, alt right shooters or any scum of the earth.
This.Anyone saying 'why punish people, what's the point?' should be asked what's the point of punishing Islamic terrorist, neo nazis, kkk, alt right shooters or any scum of the earth.
Justice.So what is the point?
You realize that most of the requests for softer sentencing from the liberals is directed at non-violent crimes? Particularly "victimless" ones like drug use and prostitution? Treating a pothead differently than someone who is a proven danger to the community is just common sense.Justice.
Let the guilty be punished, let the good be rewarded. And let the innocent go free. The world is cruel, unfair, and horrible. Rich and powerful get to do what they want, while the poor suffer what they must. The strong torment and abuse the weak. There is no karma. No one to watch out for us. If there is a god... he is either absent, apathetic, or evil.
Well, now its up to us to set the scales right. To be the force of karma and justice and fairness.
Which is why I absolutely despise "liberals" calling for softer sentencing and citing quotes about how punishing people doesn't work, and how we should instead to rehabilitative sentencing. Ask them if we should punish the Ku klux klan, Alt right shooters, and other politically incorrect people, and watch them change their tune.
Wait.You realize that most of the requests for softer sentencing from the liberals is directed at non-violent crimes? Particularly "victimless" ones like drug use and prostitution? Treating a pothead differently than someone who is a proven danger to the community is just common sense.
Conversely you'll usually see then call for harsher punishments on crimes that do great "harm" without violence, particularly white collar crimes and corporate malfeasance.
Because those are the ones who are easy to catch and punish publicly so people can see how "tough on crime" you are.Wait.
I thought tough on crime meant tougher on murderers, rapists, and the current menagerie of bad guys.
Why is it directed at prostitutes and potheads?
Which makes for easier electoral campaigns in countries where judges are elected.Because those are the ones who are easy to catch and punish publicly so people can see how "tough on crime" you are.
And prosecutors. Don't forget that.Which makes for easier electoral campaigns in countries where judges are elected.
And some of the police.And prosecutors. Don't forget that.
What are you going to do, given them extra-long life sentences? Or are we talking about flaying them alive while hanging them from the rafters of the county courthouse here?Wait.
I thought tough on crime meant tougher on murderers, rapists, and the current menagerie of bad guys.
Let the guilty be punished, let the good be rewarded. And let the innocent go free. The world is cruel, unfair, and horrible. Rich and powerful get to do what they want, while the poor suffer what they must. The strong torment and abuse the weak. There is no karma.
That's stupid.Because those are the ones who are easy to catch and punish publicly so people can see how "tough on crime" you are.
Speaking of justice systems, how is Singapore?What are you going to do, given them extra-long life sentences? Or are we talking about flaying them alive while hanging them from the rafters of the county courthouse here?
The biggest problem with all tough-on-crime talk is that the US justice system is terrible at actually processing who did or did not commit a crime. It's nice to talk about justice in a hypothetical universe, but in reality your punishments are frequently applied to the innocent.
See, you say things like this while being completely oblivious to the fact that the criminal justice system is one of the methods by which the strong torment and abuse the weak. Being "tough on crime" doesn't help to hold the rich and powerful accountable for their crimes, nor it does it stop the poor from suffering what they must; if anything it makes the problem worse. If you incentivize punishment, more people will be punished, regardless of whether or not they did anything wrong. When the application of justice is part of the problem, applying justice harder doesn't fix anything.
Still condoning slavery, why do you ask?Speaking of justice systems, how is Singapore?
I was born there.Still condoning slavery, why do you ask?
Singapore has a problem with abuse of migrant workers, particularly domestic workers, which includes things like employers taking their passports from them so they literally cannot leave.I was born there.
Slavery?
Woah. Condone? Ain't that a bit too strong?Singapore has a problem with abuse of migrant workers, particularly domestic workers, which includes things like employers taking their passports from them so they literally cannot leave.
In that case, why bother doing it at all?The biggest problem with all tough-on-crime talk is that the US justice system is terrible at actually processing who did or did not commit a crime. It's nice to talk about justice in a hypothetical universe, but in reality your punishments are frequently applied to the innocent.
See, you say things like this while being completely oblivious to the fact that the criminal justice system is one of the methods by which the strong torment and abuse the weak. Being "tough on crime" doesn't help to hold the rich and powerful accountable for their crimes, nor it does it stop the poor from suffering what they must; if anything it makes the problem worse. If you incentivize punishment, more people will be punished, regardless of whether or not they did anything wrong. When the application of justice is part of the problem, applying justice harder doesn't fix anything.
Got a quote for that?Most crimes come down to poor living conditions or mental disorders.
Got a quote for that?
And how much is 'poor living conditions' and how much is 'I'm robbing a bank, but I'm poor, so its ok'.
Is not the problem.....I point to the black community for proof of the poor living conditions thing. Extremely high rate of single mothers correlates almost directly with the high crime rates. For mental disorders:
I mean, I'm staggered at the idea there is still poverty and homelessness in America. For fuck's sake, you guys are the current ruling empire. Your military might can take on the rest of the world singlehandedly. You hit the jackpot in geography and luck, a dozen times.
Why can't you fix this?
Khmer Rouge. I point this out only because I'm so used to seeing people writing rouge when they mean rogue and this is the first time I've seen the reverse. Also, they were weird even by Maoist standards. Other than being communists they were incredibly right wing by all other standards. Racist, Nationalist, Anti-Intellectual, attempting autarky (always assume a government that tries for this is insane), heavy emphasis on ruralism and traditional values, contempt for urban workers (the actual proletariat as described by Marx), supported by the US, class based system (how Marxist?) that determined marriages, heavy focus on the nuclear family, distrust of higher education, de-emphasis on education in general, etc...Maybe I spent too much time on SV but...
Communism is bullshit.
I mean, really, the system that communists espouse themselves are unworkable, and when these are pointed out, they go into tirades about 'internalised capitalism' and 'bullshit human nature' and 'it won't happen'. They don't really answer your question. When pointed out about the Khmer Rogue and Venezuela and the Soviet Union were horrible, they explain it away as 'not being true communism'.
Newsflash. If there hasn't been any "true" communist state, its even worse for you. Lots and lots of things were good on paper, and when put to practice, it became horrible. If you have no working models, no good examples, and no actual things you can point to for your own claims.
They claim that communism will be better than capitalism. Where's the proof? They claim that communism will deal with environmentalism and climate change better than capitalism. Where's the proof?
Seriously, why do they believe anyone should take them seriously, when they themselves have no good examples of their own ideology, and cannot even make it coherent?
Pol Pot was basically a Naz Bol in action.Khmer Rouge. I point this out only because I'm so used to seeing people writing rouge when they mean rogue and this is the first time I've seen the reverse. Also, they were weird even by Maoist standards. Other than being communists they were incredibly right wing by all other standards. Racist, Nationalist, Anti-Intellectual, attempting autarky (always assume a government that tries for this is insane), heavy emphasis on ruralism and traditional values, contempt for urban workers (the actual proletariat as described by Marx), supported by the US, class based system (how Marxist?) that determined marriages, heavy focus on the nuclear family, distrust of higher education, de-emphasis on education in general, etc...
Basically, other than economic collectivism it was literally the opposite of Marxism in every way imaginable. You can argue about some of the regimes, but the Khmer Rouge were so bad at communism, they got US support.