You haven’t had a problem because your politics align with .world - it’s a good match. You’re allowed criticism within a set of safe boundaries that do not challenge power. If you start talking about not voting for Democrats, though, they get a lot more hostile.
Not really? My politics align with the ones in my country. Our right wingers are essentially Democrats, and I didn’t vote for those. I also support criticism of the Democrats for being spineless and complicit, for example.
What I’ve noticed, though, is that the “challenging of power” as it often manifests is misrepresenting things like their role of Democrats in the Palestinian genocide. They’re usually in the form of uncompromising shrieks, calling everyone in the vicinity a Nazi.
No, that’s exactly where things break down, because I’m not saying any of those things but some people here, especially .mls, always bring it up as if it’s some new thought.
I’m saying they are complicit, but they are not the ones firing the guns. They are enablers. I’m not lifting any blame because they have blood on their hands, but I also don’t like exaggerating.
And what’s more, it’s that a lot of these same people somehow blame Biden frequently and incessantly, even though Trump’s administration is doing exactly the same.
Fascinating. You realize no one thinks this way, right? There’s a reason for that.
If you facilitate the murder weapon and then protect the murderer from consequences so they can keep killing, you are just as guilty of murder as if you held the gun yourself. That’s how felony murder charges work. If there’s a shootout during a robbery and someone dies, the getaway driver still gets a murder charge despite not holding one of the guns. Where’s the exaggeration?
I think this way, and I think it’s valid. I don’t need to base my thinking on the US legal system when I don’t even live there. Why does it always circle back to you guys? Why should I base anything on a corrupt country’s laws or any laws at all? Shouldn’t that be the other way around?
If I give a gun to someone and they kill someone knowing their intent beforehand, I’m guilty by association. Why is that not enough? Because you feel the need to satisfy some legal criteria to severely punish the people you dislike? I find thar a bit weird rather than stating what really happened. Let the courts handle the legal stuff. I don’t care what that is as long as a fair trial and punishment is observed.
I gave the example of felony murder to show that this isn’t just some exaggerated, non-standard way to judge crimes. It’s not just a US thing, it comes from common law. There’s similar law in Australia and Canada as well, and though it’s no longer practiced officially in the UK there’s the concept of “joint enterprise” whereby being involved in a murder still imputes criminal liability with similar legal outcomes.
It’s not a world-wide way to conceive of crime, but it’s pretty normal. Hardly an exaggeration.
Besides, is it so unreasonable to apply legal standards from the US to Parties within the US?
If I give a gun to someone and they kill someone knowing their intent beforehand, I’m guilty by association. Why is that not enough?
Because if you didn’t give them a gun, they wouldn’t have been able to kill as many people.
If the number of people they can kill on their own is X, and the number of people they can kill with your help is X+1, then you killed that +1 even if you didn’t pull the trigger. They only died because you helped, which means you killed them
If you knowingly help plan and facilitate a murder by your actions, you are a murderer. This is how most people view murder.
You’re the odd one out. I just think you should know that.
You haven’t had a problem because your politics align with .world - it’s a good match. You’re allowed criticism within a set of safe boundaries that do not challenge power. If you start talking about not voting for Democrats, though, they get a lot more hostile.
Not really? My politics align with the ones in my country. Our right wingers are essentially Democrats, and I didn’t vote for those. I also support criticism of the Democrats for being spineless and complicit, for example.
What I’ve noticed, though, is that the “challenging of power” as it often manifests is misrepresenting things like their role of Democrats in the Palestinian genocide. They’re usually in the form of uncompromising shrieks, calling everyone in the vicinity a Nazi.
Democrats have a really important role in supporting the Palestinian genocide, what are you even talking about?
Do you think Biden was actually working tirelessly for a ceasefire? Come on. It’s a bipartisan project!
No, that’s exactly where things break down, because I’m not saying any of those things but some people here, especially .mls, always bring it up as if it’s some new thought.
I’m saying they are complicit, but they are not the ones firing the guns. They are enablers. I’m not lifting any blame because they have blood on their hands, but I also don’t like exaggerating.
And what’s more, it’s that a lot of these same people somehow blame Biden frequently and incessantly, even though Trump’s administration is doing exactly the same.
Would you say the same thing about Republicans and Trump? They’re not the ones firing the guns either.
Absolutely. I don’t understand this trend of overstating or exaggerating. There’s no need when they’ve done enough as it is.
Same goes for other things, like lying about the harms of meat when advocating for vegetarianism. There’s plenty to point out without the need to lie.
Fascinating. You realize no one thinks this way, right? There’s a reason for that.
If you facilitate the murder weapon and then protect the murderer from consequences so they can keep killing, you are just as guilty of murder as if you held the gun yourself. That’s how felony murder charges work. If there’s a shootout during a robbery and someone dies, the getaway driver still gets a murder charge despite not holding one of the guns. Where’s the exaggeration?
Calm down, I’m only sharing my ideas.
I think this way, and I think it’s valid. I don’t need to base my thinking on the US legal system when I don’t even live there. Why does it always circle back to you guys? Why should I base anything on a corrupt country’s laws or any laws at all? Shouldn’t that be the other way around?
If I give a gun to someone and they kill someone knowing their intent beforehand, I’m guilty by association. Why is that not enough? Because you feel the need to satisfy some legal criteria to severely punish the people you dislike? I find thar a bit weird rather than stating what really happened. Let the courts handle the legal stuff. I don’t care what that is as long as a fair trial and punishment is observed.
Calm down? I have no idea what you mean.
I gave the example of felony murder to show that this isn’t just some exaggerated, non-standard way to judge crimes. It’s not just a US thing, it comes from common law. There’s similar law in Australia and Canada as well, and though it’s no longer practiced officially in the UK there’s the concept of “joint enterprise” whereby being involved in a murder still imputes criminal liability with similar legal outcomes.
It’s not a world-wide way to conceive of crime, but it’s pretty normal. Hardly an exaggeration.
Besides, is it so unreasonable to apply legal standards from the US to Parties within the US?
Because if you didn’t give them a gun, they wouldn’t have been able to kill as many people.
If the number of people they can kill on their own is X, and the number of people they can kill with your help is X+1, then you killed that +1 even if you didn’t pull the trigger. They only died because you helped, which means you killed them
If you knowingly help plan and facilitate a murder by your actions, you are a murderer. This is how most people view murder.
You’re the odd one out. I just think you should know that.