The headline image doesn't really illustrate what a human piece of shit looks like.
this post was submitted on 24 Jun 2024
54 points (98.2% liked)
politics
19096 readers
3228 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I love when people unfamiliar with the legal system think it works like computer code or something. It has weird particulars that it gets hung up on sometimes, but common sense is also an integral part of the process in a way that’s sometimes surprising to people who are trying to abuse it.
“No no, this is a totally different lawsuit which I suddenly realized I wanted to file against the defendant at the exact same time I dropped the other! The two have nothing to do with each other.”
“Your honor that’s clearly bullshit. Motion to dismiss.”
“Granted, clearly bullshit, you are correct. Were you looking for attorneys’ fees or damages? Or file a countersuit?”
“I was, your honor. All three.”
I get as frustrated as anyone else at the often glacial pace of justice. I've been told that it's all in a good cause, that slow means careful and the best chance at just outcomes.
While I mostly believe this, my doubts stem from the fact that "justice" seems to be awfully stern and quick when the accused is poor, or a minority, and seems to only really becomes slow and careful when the rich, and especially the rich white, are accused. And the rich get to live in "house arrest" while the system cautiously, and protractedly, protects their rights. I have a difficult time reconciling that.
PS, I know you're talking about Crowder, not the public. It just got me thinking.
Yep. It’s a pretty reasonable system, with both sides doing their aggressive best to win and justice as the result, all the way up until the prosecution gets basically unlimited resources and the defendant whether guilty or innocent gets a public defender who read their case and 4 others on the bus on the way to the courthouse. At that point it becomes pretty much not reasonable any more.
Or like Alex Jones.
"No no! I'm really broke. I owe mommy and daddy a bunch of money that didn't hit the books until the shit was hitting the fan. That company should get any money owed first."
"LOL get fucked son!" - the court.
Yeah, there’s a certain type of person that will try the world’s most obvious ruse, assuming it’s just something the court has never encountered before and they could never see through this whole mastermind ploy, or if they do, you can just yell and they’ll probably get scared and they’ll let you do it anyway. And then they seem sort of confused and hurt and offended if it doesn’t work out that way.
There are a lot of things that are fucked as pertains to the court system, especially the way it treats poor defendants and the systems of neo-segregation it routes them into when they do get in trouble, but the concept and a not insignificant amount of the application is actually pretty fuckin on point.
The actions taken by Steven Crowder appear to be those of your typical piss baby. I think we need some anti-piss baby legislation on the books to prevent such regrettable behavior in the future.
FYI: I'm stealing your slang. Piss baby is, for some reason, a hilariously accurate description.
Steal with confidence, like-minded Internet friend, for that's how I got it.
NLRB edge is great if you like to nerd out on those sort of labor policy things. It has one of the only email newsletters that I actually read every time. Matt does good work. Check out the People's Policy Project.