fishmuncher

9am? time to start drinking and play tcg live

drove out to a new store to play tonight and love the rules. keeping it simple

the fact that we witnessed this in real time and yet the world is still so silent is absolutely enraging

@lydiakauppi @constantlydumb @Kittenfish817 @pjharpy so you would like to continue to live in a society where things that are just are criminalized and you don’t want to change the law to protect actions that are justified

@marisiyaaa @constantlydumb @Kittenfish817 @pjharpy That’s not what I’m arguing at all lmao. I’m saying it was totally understandable, yet still illegal, and those things aren’t mutually exclusive, nor does that mean we need to change the definition of assault

Bluesky is mad at Taylor Lorenz for attending the WHCD and the discourse has unearthed some other TL lore

@lydiakauppi @constantlydumb @Kittenfish817 @pjharpy if you want to make an argument that the reaction was wrong bc it wasnt proportionate or whatever thats one thing. youre arguing that its right because its the law. thats fundamentally upholding legalistic basis for morality that has been and is used to abuse the most vulnerable

@marisiyaaa @constantlydumb @Kittenfish817 @pjharpy We are talking about an abstract concept, not how it plays out in reality, which is obviously very flawed. But that has nothing to do with this specific scenario. If you make first contact with someone, you’re probably catching a charge

@lydiakauppi @constantlydumb @Kittenfish817 @pjharpy yes juries famously not biased by the selection system

@marisiyaaa @constantlydumb @Kittenfish817 @pjharpy This is literally what juries are for though, what you are referring to is the job of the judicial system. We don’t change the law every time someone is charged with a crime in a grey area of the law. You can’t eliminate grey area

@constantlydumb @lydiakauppi @Kittenfish817 @pjharpy you guys would be crying about the removal of your rights in 1865 and claiming that he law is the law for a reason

@lydiakauppi @marisiyaaa @Kittenfish817 @pjharpy yea this is very well put!

@constantlydumb @lydiakauppi @Kittenfish817 @pjharpy if i’ve just been raped and someone is live-streaming my medical aid and making money off of it and is asked to stop recording and doesn’t and they get the phone knocked out of their hands. is that right or wrong?

@marisiyaaa @lydiakauppi @Kittenfish817 @pjharpy "mental danger" is not a valid reason to destroy someone's property (or assault them, or whatever). yet again another reason why we have drawn the line so clearly at real, physical danger, because who the hell knows what "mental danger" means

@lydiakauppi @constantlydumb @Kittenfish817 @pjharpy yes and the law is not always correct do you think it should be legal for slavery to be allowed only if you are incarcerated? bc thats the current law i don’t think thats acceptable and i think we should not use that as a moral default to justify the treatment of incarcerated ppl

@marisiyaaa @constantlydumb @Kittenfish817 @pjharpy An act can be reasonable, understandable, even justified, and still illegal. Sometimes we do those acts knowing and accepting the consequences, and that’s part of society. Sometimes the fact it’s worth catching the charge is part of the context. But it’s still assault

@constantlydumb @lydiakauppi @Kittenfish817 @pjharpy you clearly dont think that’s fine and i dont think it’s a core principle of a free society to record traumatized victims of terrorist attacks that had just occurred if they ask not to be filmed. i actually think a society can’t be free without human decency and that’s not decent

@marisiyaaa @lydiakauppi @Kittenfish817 @pjharpy correct, i do not want to change the right to record freely in public without having your property destroyed, I strongly believe this is a core principle of a free society. if you don't that's fine!

@constantlydumb @lydiakauppi @Kittenfish817 @pjharpy no but lorenz was violating privacy of people who’d just been victimized in a terrorist attack one of whom was partially exposed you could argue that poses a mental danger especially to people who are probably under extreme mental load and had just experienced a traumatic event

@marisiyaaa @lydiakauppi @Kittenfish817 @pjharpy right yea that's why he got charged and fined, because he wasn't in any danger

@constantlydumb @lydiakauppi @Kittenfish817 @pjharpy someone not something? great you don’t think property damage is assault we’re in agreement

@marisiyaaa @lydiakauppi @Kittenfish817 @pjharpy this is why we have placed the line at "if you or someone is in physical danger", because no matter what over enough time you will have to relitigate all of these specifics at some point

@constantlydumb @lydiakauppi @Kittenfish817 @pjharpy literally your entire argument has been antichange. a lot of issues could be diminished to oh your just offended why should we have to cater to you. i mean labor rights organizers were just offended if we give them what they want theyll just keep taking and society will collapse

@marisiyaaa @lydiakauppi @Kittenfish817 @pjharpy I'm definitely with you that things need to be able to change, but sometimes you just end up in the same place. if you empower citizens to destroy other citizens property if they are offended, the definition of offended gets blurrier and blurrier, eventually it escalates, etc

@constantlydumb @lydiakauppi @Kittenfish817 @pjharpy they were charged and fined so it seems like your precious legal system was used to hurt someone protecting a terrorism victim. once again the rights framework is not infallible and i’m arguing more for a social norm than a legal one bc i don’t agree with the current legal system

@marisiyaaa @lydiakauppi @Kittenfish817 @pjharpy no of course we shouldn't change a law for that, that'd be insane, because we believe (as a society) in the right to record freely in public! we handle special circumstances like this by not charging them! you are arguing for _less_ rights!

@constantlydumb @lydiakauppi @Kittenfish817 @pjharpy do you literally not know or is that a rhetorical question? again you’re saying that the laws shouldn’t change to account for moments where people destroy property to protect the privacy of a terrorist victim, that is ironically a conservative impulse funnily enough

@marisiyaaa @lydiakauppi @Kittenfish817 @pjharpy no, I said it's a right wing impulse, because I think lots of people have understandable moments like this. but I think it's important to not go too far the other way and start actually changing definitions to make it seem like an "ok" thing. was this person even charged?

@constantlydumb @lydiakauppi @Kittenfish817 @pjharpy also you do not understand what the terms conservative, far right, reactionary, or right wing mean. they don’t just align with things you don’t like they are actual political philosophies that you haven’t elaborated on how they correspond to my beliefs beyond “obviously”

@constantlydumb @lydiakauppi @Kittenfish817 @pjharpy we also had the right to own other people as property for a few hundred years so i think that the rights framework isnt infallible and we should work towards a society that actually respects people as people and not only as things that have rights bc some guys wrote it down

@constantlydumb @lydiakauppi @Kittenfish817 @pjharpy if i don’t consent to someone taking pictures of me partially naked because im getting medical care after being hit by a terrorist in a car and someone slaps the phone out of the hands of the person recording you think the person hitting the phone is conservative?

@marisiyaaa @lydiakauppi @Kittenfish817 @pjharpy it is what you're advocating for! even if there were a definition of assault where you can take something from someone and throw it on the ground and it didn't count, trampling the rights of others through force because you're uncomfortable is clearly conservative!

@constantlydumb @lydiakauppi @Kittenfish817 @pjharpy again not what i’m advocating for. how is it far right to not think property damage is assault? explain how it aligns with the political philosophy of a group of people who glorify private property?

@marisiyaaa @lydiakauppi @Kittenfish817 @pjharpy arguing private citizens should be able to assault other private citizens in public when they are personally upset is so laughably far-right I don't think there's much of a response here. I think the websites you are spending time on are hurting you

@constantlydumb @lydiakauppi @Kittenfish817 @pjharpy that’s not what conservative means. i guess i now have to ask what you think conservative means because you seem to think mutually understandable definitions are really important

@marisiyaaa @lydiakauppi @Kittenfish817 @pjharpy because we have agreed as a society that you cannot do violence onto other people unless you are in danger. obviously!

@constantlydumb @lydiakauppi @Kittenfish817 @pjharpy ok so cool with most laws there’s exceptions. also lmao in your ideal society you’re advocating for cops to be filmed not for their to be no cops

@marisiyaaa @lydiakauppi @Kittenfish817 @pjharpy for filming people in public without consent, you can make this argument, but the obvious response is that the people who benefit most from not being filmed in public are obviously the ones who need to be filmed the most. off duty cops don't need more excuses to be insane