Comment by marky1991
1 year ago
This entire line of thinking just seems to be essentially advocacy for a return to that exact system. "Do what we want or we'll go back to random murder".
I wonder if the original commenter would have put the same comment if the article were "man shoots his wife and her lover on discovery of adultery"
shrug I'm not an accelerationist, I do not want to live in any more historically significant times than I already have. That said, our systems continue to fail us at basically every turn so when I see stuff like this, I'm not surprised either. If you put people in a situation where they feel they have nothing to lose, you shouldn't be surprised when they start acting that way too.
People demand justice, whether they're right to is a secondary concern, as is the methodologies they choose to seek it. Some become activists. Some become politicians. Some pick up guns.
>People demand justice, whether they're right to is a secondary concern, as is the methodologies they choose to seek it. Some become activists. Some become politicians. Some pick up guns.
That is a true, but We should discourage and condemn them picking up guns. There is a feedback loop at play
> That is a true, but We should discourage and condemn them picking up guns.
Nonsense. They will and should pick up guns if the entrenched systems no longer serve the purpose of the majority. Sure, it's not ideal.
But sometimes it's the only way to enact change. Some of the most important rights we have today were won with violence.
18 replies →
This country was founded by people picking up guns.
Yes, that's the essence of social contract theory. Which, it should be noted, is a historical falsehood, in that we're pretty sure no ancient tribe ever really started with people sitting down and saying "It is mutually beneficial if we curb our violent inclinations for the safety and security of blah blah blah"... but is a useful shorthand for the observed notion "A government lasts only as long as it provides a better alternative to picking up a 2x4 and settling your own scores for most people who support it."
"You rule because they believe," in essence.
(This is why, historically, you'll often see societies keep their pattern of government until, say, famine comes along. Because if you're going to starve to death, the likely outcome calculus on picking up a 2x4 starts to change drastically and quickly).
> I wonder if the original commenter would have put the same comment if the article were "man shoots his wife and her lover on discovery of adultery"
Why wonder if someone would make the same comment in entirely different circumstances? Why does it matter?
The distinction would be that you can still seek legal redress in court for your spouse committing adultery. It may not be the redress you want, but it would at least get you something, e.g. grounds for divorce.
Increasingly, though, people in the United States feel that the rich and powerful have become effectively insulated from the legal system, such that the common person is denied any redress. At that point, one no longer feels any reason to continue working within the legal framework, because it seems clear that the framework is not at all "equal" under the law.
Hence, when all other options feel exhausted: murder.
And, frankly, I imagine this will only continue with time, unless this country decides to actually provide some mechanism to hold people in power accountable. Like, I'm frankly surprised no one has attempted to assassinate members of the SCOTUS yet recently, given that they enjoy a lifetime appointment to make wide-impacting, scrutiny-free decisions.
> Increasingly, though, people in the United States feel that the rich and powerful have become effectively insulated from the legal system, such that the common person is denied any redress.
They're not insulated from the legal system, the problem is the public is being misled.
It works like this: The media lies to the public and tells them that a CEO or Public Figure is getting away with X, so they get some washed up lawyer to do an opinion piece on it, a politician or two co-opts it, and possibly throws in some bait about the working class being screwed over, and then the public buys the made-up story- hook, line and sinker.
Since TV Law is not the same thing as real law, the person in question is put through actual due process and the allegation or accusation turns out to be unsubstantiated. The public then feels outrage because "The man on TV said this person was a criminal and he got away!".
There are two outcomes here. Either they are insulated from the legal system (and in many cases, they absolutely are by virtue of having enough money to squash and drag out cases into oblivion), or the legal system is deficient.
Consider the Yotta/Synapse situation. Many people have lost a huge sum of money and the two companies involved are simply shrugging and saying they have no clue where it went. In many countries, either this problem would've never been allowed to occur in the first place or the government would start jailing people from the top down until someone starts to talk.
You're missing the point. The people running corporations are NOT flagrantly violating the law-as-written, with the courts just refusing to enforce it (for the most part). Rather they bend the law, often through tiny repeated violations of the law-as-written, and also through lobbying/bribing to undermine the creation of directly applicable new laws, to produce abjectly terrible outcomes that end up being de facto legal. So when the average person feels ever-more subject to the law themselves while seeing the terrible corpos continually getting pass after pass, they become ever-less invested in the general idea of the rule of law.
5 replies →
I don't know about the original commenter, but societies only work when the vast majority weigh the cost and benefit they derive from the status quo against the cost and potential benefit they incur by fighting against it, and decide that they're better off playing along.
Rightly or wrongly, we now have a situation where a lot of people believe that they no longer benefit from society, and are in fact harmed by it, while they also see a few benefit greatly. I believe this is why many people who understand the implication of that choice would still rather vote for Trump, who promises to break things, than for Harris, who would have only made minor changes.
This is not advocacy for anything. I think these people are perhaps not exactly wrong, but they don't correctly estimate the cost of breaking a democratic system, even a poorly working one.
Yes it's not advocacy for anything: It's up to everyone how they respond to their situation if they feel disenfranchised and I'm in no position to judge them one way or another.
The point is just that it's a tale as old as human civilization itself. It would be disappointing if we've not yet learnt enough from our history to avoid more change via trauma.
I don't think you understand analogies.