What a fucking embarrassment

Honest question, how important is reading theory? Won’t we need to build our numbers beyond where it’s reasonable to expect everyone to have read theory? Especially given that much of it is written in an academic rather than a narrative way. Obviously there should be those in the movement who are versed in theory, but shouldn’t the movement be open to as many as possible? And assigning homework as soon as they want to join seems like a good way to discourage engagement.

I agree. What’s the plan?

To build on what @xmunk said, the other old man did not stand a chance this year and only won 2020 because of Covid

Bernie disagrees with you

I actually voted for the other genocider on the ballot as well as my state did. I’m just trying to get you to place blame where it belongs instead on people voting their conscious.

If “tankies” were such an important factor maybe the campaign should’ve done literally anything to get their vote

Stfu, the dems did this by pandering to the right. Excellent way to drive voter apathy.

Living in a place where winter used to mean lots of snow and regularly hitting below 0°F but now is mostly rain. Hearing the phrase “at least it isn’t snow” on a 95°F day makes me want to punch them. Same for complaining about winter weather when it’s so much more mild than it used to be. Fuck global warming and fuck everyone who’s happy about its warmer weather.

I have no way of knowing if any of that is true

Yes, protecting people is always the first priority, otherwise there just wouldn’t be a justice system. That doesn’t mean punishing people for wrongdoings.

Yes, I think hierarchy is bad in general, it defines people as not equal. You can’t have a hierarchy of equal members. It has lead to those higher up thinking the laws for us don’t fully apply to them, either because we’re less than human or because they’re more than human. Even the hierarchy of parents has turned children into property instead of, again, people who need help. It might even be why people are more tolerant of shitty behavior, because they don’t feel high up enough in the hierarchy to be able to do anything about it.

Part of the critique of that phrase is its seeming dismissal of context and nuance. Authoritarianism isn’t really a system of thought, but even without mentioning that, you’re going to have a tough time drawing hard lines around behavior without infringing on valid personal freedoms. Though, in general, seeing how your beliefs map onto different ideas is a good way to interrogate yourself and try to determine if you should keep that belief as is. If an idea of yours seems to tie in with a system of thought you’re opposed to, maybe ask yourself why that is and what aspects you identify with versus the aspects you can do without.

You commented twice and apparently I attached my response to the one you deleted so I wanted repost that response with the context that the other comment included the phrase “an evil man”

Of course protecting the public is the first priority, otherwise there just wouldn’t be a justice system. But your willingness to label a person as evil keeps you open to calling whole groups of people evil (like say immigrants). That actually invites evil to yourself and society because ‘prison is for evil people, I’m not in prison so I must not be evil’ when in reality everyone is capable of evil and should always be guarding against those thoughts, not dismissing them as impossibilities.>

You definitely have some good ideas about an alternative system, but you also have some nonsense in that first paragraph.

The idea of someone deserving punishment is inherently dehumanizing. It’s not possible to punish someone unless they are beneath you. Thinking another human is lesser than you defines them as less than human.

Hard lines of behavior? That’s just what laws are, like we currently have. Yes, look at where we are now with the centuries long mentality of people deserving punishment. The rich and powerful are not subjected to the law in the same way because, to use your words, “authoritarian systems especially are prone to being taken over by groups with special interests, whoch not only guts their effectiveness but completely revrses their intended goals if they were noble ones.” Seriously though, “hard lines of behavior” is an extremely authoritarian phrase.

There are no “evil people” there are only evil actions. Every single person has the capacity for evil. We’re going to be stuck where we’re at until we collectively recognize that truth.

Yeah, making election day a national holiday doesn’t help those of us who don’t get most holidays off.

Of course protecting the public is the first priority, otherwise there just wouldn’t be a justice system. But your willingness to label a person as evil keeps you open to calling whole groups of people evil (like say immigrants). That actually invites evil to yourself and society because ‘prison is for evil people, I’m not in prison so I must not be evil’ when in reality everyone is capable of evil and should always be guarding against those thoughts, not dismissing them as impossibilities.

In line with the rest of my paragraph, labeling them as bad people who deserve bad things is very authoritarian and dehumanizing. That’s the type of rhetoric someone like Trump uses. The more comfortable society is with that rhetoric the more susceptible we are to a fascist takeover.

You seem unable to separate rehabilitation / treatment for mental health from medical interventions and drugs.

What I’m arguing is that punishment is not justice. No person should have the right to dole out punishments to another. To think otherwise betrays a very authoritarian mindset.

I don’t have a 500 page document detailing a new version of our justice system, partly because, as you correctly stated, there isn’t a one size fits all solution. But I know whatever system that is should be focused on empathy and compassion, not making people pay for their misdeeds.

But even if I completely agreed with what you’re saying, I would still think it’s gross to cheer for anyone being sent to “an atrocity that needs to be dismantled and replaced”, especially if it’s for the rest of their lives.

I don’t know why you think there’s more autonomy in a mental institution than prison, or why you keep bringing up forcing drugs and surgery on people like that’s the only way to help people with mental health issues. Your stance is still not making sense from a moral standpoint.

Edit: just want to note that the first sentence of the comment above wasn’t there when reply was written

Why do you think it’s immoral to involuntarily institutionalize but moral to lock them in a jail cell?