....maybe in bennys world they would be? I see many (more) summary executions in his future.

(October 2, 2022 at 12:08 am)arewethereyet Wrote:

(October 1, 2022 at 11:55 pm)bennyboy Wrote: I don't normally talk to myself, but if I did-- yeah, i'd say that we should treat criminals as criminals without regard to race-- because considering race when deciding how to handle criminals is racist.

Ideally, trials would be done blind-- maybe by microphone only.  But I don't see how police could do that, unless we all wear burqas.

Trials aren't carried out by police.

That's what I'm saying.

(October 2, 2022 at 12:05 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: You do realize that laws and rights aren't just for law abiders..I presume?  Think it through.  If laws and rights don't apply to lawbreakers...on what basis are we trying and jailing them, again?

The theory that "corrupted" people might do bad shit?  Hard pass.

Yes, they grew up without any moral example, and are now drug addicted.  They have very little agency with regard to becoming healthy, productive members of society.

(October 2, 2022 at 12:11 am)bennyboy Wrote:

(October 2, 2022 at 12:08 am)arewethereyet Wrote: Trials aren't carried out by police.

That's what I'm saying.

You are saying it poorly.

(October 2, 2022 at 12:13 am)bennyboy Wrote:

(October 2, 2022 at 12:05 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: You do realize that laws and rights aren't just for law abiders..I presume?  Think it through.  If laws and rights don't apply to lawbreakers...on what basis are we trying and jailing them, again?

The theory that "corrupted" people might do bad shit?  Hard pass.

Yes, they grew up without any moral example, and are now drug addicted.  They have very little agency with regard to becoming healthy, productive members of society.

Yeah, that's definitely the problem with Those People. 

Nothing a little rights abrogation couldn't fix, a few extrajudicial killings here and there.  Then again...that doesn't seem to be working in the us at present.  Might need to work on your theory and your solution.

(October 2, 2022 at 12:37 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote:

(October 2, 2022 at 12:13 am)bennyboy Wrote: Yes, they grew up without any moral example, and are now drug addicted.  They have very little agency with regard to becoming healthy, productive members of society.

Yeah, that's definitely the problem with Those People. 

Nothing a little rights abrogation couldn't fix, a few extrajudicial killings here and there.  Then again...that doesn't seem to be working in the us at present.  Might need to work on your theory and your solution.

You are jerking off to your own words, because I didn't say that. . . did I?

(October 2, 2022 at 12:16 am)arewethereyet Wrote:

(October 2, 2022 at 12:11 am)bennyboy Wrote: That's what I'm saying.

You are saying it poorly.

Maybe.  Let me look at that:

bennyboy Wrote:Ideally, trials would be done blind-- maybe by microphone only. But I don't see how police could do that.

I guess it IS ambiguous, as it sounds like I mean trials would be done by police. But that's not what I meant, so let me restate.

I meant that you could avoid racism in court by making the trials blind-- to the judges / lawyers / maybe jury. Why does anyone need to see a defendant other than to develop prejudicial feelings based on appearance? It might be better to use ID numbers instead of names, to disquise voice or to limit transmission to text transcriptions.

But you can't avoid racism in the field, because there's no such thing as blind policing-- unless people are completely concealed by a burqa.

We do that to terrorists sometime. It isn't to protect their identity.....or to provide open justice. There are a host of practical issues with a secret defendant as well..but I can't see any of it bothering a person advocating for rights abrogation.

I think I prefer the way where I get to look my accuser straight in the face and call them a fucking liar. Howsabout you? See, I figure appealing to you is bound to be more useful than trying to elicit even an ounce of common sense concern for anyone else. So...do you think that maybe you have a right to know who your police forces have in custody, and why? Do you think you might want someone...anyone...to know that you are in custody, and what for? In case your obvious lack of a moral example growing up leaves you similarly corrupted, ofc? I mean, every time one of You People pops your head out you're worse than before..and if that's not corruption what could be?

If no, so be it, but I can tell you how hooding defendants in us trials would go. Whole bunch of black guys convicted with hoods on their faces by people who never had to muster up the courage to face the man they condemned, who didn't even know who it -was- they condemned. No reason to wait until we sentence them to death, amiright? We'd run out of them eventually, though, and then you'd have to wonder if some accelerationist or eliminationist like me was eyeballing you for a good old fashioned headsock and anonymous trial. Rolling those dice?

Boru

(October 2, 2022 at 2:41 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: We do that to terrorists sometime.  It isn't to protect their identity.....or to provide open justice.  There are a host of practical issues with a secret defendant as well..but I can't see any of it bothering a person advocating for rights abrogation.

I think I prefer the way where I get to look my accuser straight in the face and call them a fucking liar.  Howsabout you?  See, I figure appealing to you is bound to be more useful than trying to elicit even an ounce of common sense concern for anyone else.  So...do you think that maybe you have a right to know who your police forces have in custody, and why?  Do you think you might want someone...anyone...to know that you are in custody, and what for?  In case your obvious lack of a moral example growing up leaves you similarly corrupted, ofc?  I mean, every time one of You People pops your head out you're worse than before..and if that's not corruption what could be?

If no, so be it, but I can tell you how hooding defendants in us trials would go.  Whole bunch of black guys convicted with hoods on their faces by people who never had to muster up the courage to face the man they condemned, who didn't even know who it -was- they condemned.  No reason to wait until we sentence them to death, amiright?  We'd run out of them eventually, though, and then you'd have to wonder if some accelerationist or eliminationist like me was eyeballing you for a good old fashioned headsock and anonymous trial.  Rolling those dice?

We've watched this movie before, haven't we?

Given that the justice system is intrinsically racist, since black people are overrepresented, then how would YOU operationalize a reduction in racism?

I'm saying that if those involved in producing a verdict or the sentences don't KNOW the race of the suspect, then they will be unable, consciously or unconsciously, to be racist toward them.

But we both know that it wouldn't matter-- because the cops will continue dragging in a disproportionate number of black people-- not because they're fucked up from growing up poor and being influenced by drugs and shitty schools, mind you, but because cops are evil racists.

So we can chant "Be. . . less. . . racist!" but I'd like to know how you'd operationalize that.  What steps, exactly, would you like to see happen to recitfy the situation?

The last time we watched this movie, you wouldn't produce pragmatic steps.  It ended with "Duh-- don't be racist, of course!"  I think there might have been a few head-slaps memes peppered in for extra entertainment.

But times change.  Let's brainstorm, here.  Rather than fighting for prisoners (aka black people) to vote, I'd fight for a system where they never get to a place where it even needs to be an issue.