this post was submitted on 25 Nov 2023
751 points (97.2% liked)

News

23367 readers
2804 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 466 points 1 year ago (16 children)

I don't feel bad for the guy, but I don't celebrate this sort of vigilante justice, either. Prisoners should be safe from other prisoners. Prison is not meant to be torture, and recidivism is a massive problem in the United States. Chauvin will have 20 years to contemplate his crimes, and treating him and every other prisoner will only reinforce their criminal proclivities.

[–] [email protected] 248 points 1 year ago (2 children)

American prisons ARE meant for torture. Don't get it twisted.

If they were for rehabilitation or treatment, then we would see to that, societally. But we don't.

This is a small piece of why our justice system is so absolutely fucked.

[–] [email protected] 97 points 1 year ago (8 children)

American prisons ARE meant for torture. Don’t get it twisted.

naw. not really. Prisons are meant to provide cheap domestic labor to the corporations running them. it's all profits.

[–] [email protected] 98 points 1 year ago

Well both those things can be true.

[–] [email protected] 50 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Never forget, it’s actually legal to enslave prisoners according to the 13th Amendment.

[–] [email protected] 36 points 1 year ago

yup. And there is a reason why laws are written to disproportionately affect certain groups- like how crack cocaine gets more jail time than powder, or marijuana convictions...

[–] [email protected] 22 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

That's a part of it, yes. It's the slavery loophole in the 13th amendment.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Less of a loophole, more of an intended feature

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Loopholes are things intentionally built into structures with the purpose of allowing something through. I find it weird so many people think loopholes aren't something intentional.

[–] starman2112 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I'm having a lot of trouble finding a source that backs up this position. Everything I'm reading says that loopholes are typically oversights, not intentional inclusions.

That being said, the 13th amendment's allowance for prisoner slavery is not a loophole at all, it's an explicit allowance. Loopholes are not explicit, that's kinda the whole point of them. It's a bit like saying that the standard deduction on your taxes is a loophole. It's just an explicitly defined feature.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

While that, in fact, does happen, when a large portion of loopholes benefit corporations are written by people employed, or otherwise invested in, those corporations you would have to be lying to yourself, or ignorant of the situation, to believe loopholes are generally unintended.

https://publicintegrity.org/politics/state-politics/copy-paste-legislate/you-elected-them-to-write-new-laws-theyre-letting-corporations-do-it-instead/

The above is one example of how this is done. Bills are written to model what the industry wants to get out of legislation. Then they use LLMs to construct legislation after being trained on those models. They then collude to push these bills to as many places as possible, greasing palms the whole way. Sometimes these are just out-right legislation for the purposes of enriching the industry, more often though they are bills written with carefully designed language to allow for specific technicalities, or for stipulations of compliance to be so vague as to be unenforceable, or to use a bunch of jargon and complex linguistics to make a law read one way to the laymen, but another to the professionals that will actually be interacting with these laws.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 year ago

The torture is just a fringe benefit in the cops' eyes.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago

FWIW the vast majority of prisons in the US are not corporate run (>90%), but those majority government-run prisons still provide a lot of free/cheap manufacturing labor to private companies.

The government itself is to blame, not just private prisons.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago

Cheap domestic labor isn't torture?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)
[–] HerbalGamer 5 points 1 year ago

lesser of two evils

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

13th amendment

[–] [email protected] 44 points 1 year ago (3 children)

i think you’re responding to a normative statement by making a descriptive statement.

for those unaware, here’s a quick explanation from wikipedia: a normative statement is “meant to talk about the world as it should be”, while a descriptive statement is “meant to describe the world as it is”.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 year ago

If we could read we would be very upset.

[–] HerbalGamer 12 points 1 year ago (2 children)
[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

i wasn’t trying to talk about grammar at all, i was only trying to focus only on the meaning of what was said. but i probably could’ve made my point more clearly, so ill try to do that now.

here’s an “example”: one person says “things should be done this way” and the other person says “well things aren’t being done that way”. these two statements aren’t in opposition to each other. in fact, it’s perfectly possible both people agree with each other. maybe things aren’t being done a certain way, and they should be done differently.

the terms “normative” and “descriptive” might seem overly complicated to someone who hasn’t seen them before (they did the first time i saw them), but i thought i’d use them because they’re useful concepts to keep in mind. they’ve helped me communicate and resolve conflicts in my own life. i’ve been both people in the example above, and it’s helpful to be able to know when it’s happening.

[–] starman2112 2 points 1 year ago

The most based discourse nazi, singlehandedly preventing what could become a 30 comment deep argument where both sides fully misunderstand the other

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Lemmy cannot read one word of your comment

[–] starman2112 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Edit I'm fuckin stupid, leaving this comment up as a monument to my illiteracy

Making a comment like this about basic conversation and debate concepts is like driving and saying you can't read the speed limit signs. Like, maybe you should avoid actively participating altogether until you're actually able to

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Huh? My point was many Lemmy users very commonly reply to someone's descriptive comment with a normative complaint, and freak out when it's clarified.

[–] starman2112 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Wow I misread Lemmy as literally, I fuckered that one up bad lmao

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

i made the same mistake you did the first time i read their comment. your confusion helped me too!

[–] Habahnow 68 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So much this man. Guy was an asshole, but he and everyone else should be safe in prison.

[–] [email protected] 24 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Let's start with making everyone else safe, then.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago

No disagreements here.

[–] [email protected] 34 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Very glad this is currently the top comment. I was worried I’d run into a comment thread cheering for violence that simply shouldn’t have happened.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago

The idea of "not killing" and "I wish he was dead" can't seem live in most people's head. I think he's human waste, he should be dead, and I wouldn't have lamented his death. BUT!!! I don't want him to die and I don't want someone to kill him.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 1 year ago

Yeah dude is a piece of shit, but it's a bit disheartening seeing people cheer on stuff like this.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

but I don’t celebrate this sort of vigilante justice, either

We don't know what happened. He might have ran his mouth and found out he wasn't a protected class anymore.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That doesn't really change anything.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It does a little bit, I think.

Yes, our prisons should be safe for those who are confined within them. I agree with that, and that less people should be confined in the first place.

But there is a qualitative difference between "he was stabbed due to being a cop (or due to being THAT cop)" vs "He got into an altercation that resulted in him being stabbed, but which could have happened to anyone."

I think the kneejerk assumption is that he was targeted, which is worse IMO.

Not that I shed a single tear for the fate of Derek Chauvin, mind you.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

How is "that could've happened to anyone" any better?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Would you rather be in an unsafe environment where you are taking the same risks as anyone else by being there, or an unsafe environment where you are likely to be specifically and personally targeted for being you?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

You'll have to ask someone who said either was acceptable.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago

I agree with your broad sentiment that prisoners should feel safe in prison. However, this specific instance, I call (delayed) karma.

load more comments (9 replies)