Why are we trying so hard to go backwards to the 1700s?
We're actually trying to go back to the Roman Empire, a Fourth Reich, if you will.
Yeah, it's kind of scary how close they are too succeeding. When one half of the electoral process gives up on democracy, and starts trying to take power by Amy means, it's hard to fight back against that.
It's only hard to fight against it because our champions are wolves in sheep's clothing. The Democrats don't want to undermine their own power either, they just want you to think they do.
The term sounds dumb off the tongue and, you guessed it, has no actual philosophical or historical weight aside from a callback to the name for Roman emperors.
Sadly, those who are interested in regression don't access a lot of critical thinking skills, so they'll glom onto this surface level reference and see it as deep and meaningful.
THANK YOU!
YOU KNOW HOW FRUSTRATING IT IS WHEN PEOPLE KEEP TOSSING THAT PHRASE AROUND
Lol I find it infuriating as well. Ugh...
Seeking a return to an idealized mythological past...? That's so classic fascist.
Roman Empire was pro choice
You are thinking of Medieval Europe
I doubt any of the cultures that were invaded by Roman expansion were given any choice in the matter. Conservatism always has different standards for the in group versus the out group.
I mean given that there were Roman emperors that hailed from almost every territory in the empire I don’t think your understanding of Romans is very accurate.
After 212AD if you were a free man and lived in the empire then you were a Roman citizen. There was also a surprising degree of religious freedom in the empire as well.
Using modern political group labels for antiquity is silly.
It's not my understanding of Romans that is flawed, it's your understanding of freedom and choice.
My point is that they were also the in group. It’s very much a flawed perspective, referring to the whole empire as conservative makes it clear.
They were in the in-group as long as they paid taxes and followed the laws of the people in control of their lives. As long as they never disobeyed or rebelled. I urge you to look up consent before you hurt somebody.
Ok so no government has ever governed through consent in that respect so I’m not sure why that’s an important issue to bring up. No one consents to be ruled by a government, you’re just born into it in most cases and in others the one you initially didn’t consent to got replaced by yet another that wasn’t consented to.
You really are glossing over the fact that referring to a 2000 year empire as blanket conservative is ignorant and ahistorical. They were multicultural and, with glaring exceptions, tolerated alternative religions far more than most geopolitical entities through history. It’s a vast history with varying governments, both with progressive ideas for the time and regressive backslides.
Watering it down to boilerplate 21st century political terminology shows a lack of intellectual rigor in understanding this issue so I don’t think this conversation needs to continue. I wish you well.
Roman Empire was multicultural with emperors from Spain, North Africa, the Balkan’s, Syria, and others. The modern Roman obsession is all about the optics that fascists have wrapped it up in, not actual history. They were even surprisingly religiously tolerant.
They’re not actually trying to go back to that, they only want the worst traits of the empire.
Every Empire has a period of expansion and prosperity, modern-day Republicans are trying to bring back the policies that destroyed Rome, without understanding that conservatism is always the corruption that leads to fascism.
It seems just the American religious right are doing that. There just seems to be many more of them than I first imagined.
I think they're just really loud. Most people aren't like that. But since the republican party can't seem to win elections fairly anymore, they've decided to throw the rules out and go for fascism.
Didn't we get to that point by the loud ones being able to vote their chosen into office though? That's the part that surprises me, that there were enough of them to get the proper people in office to dismantle the country's democratic process.
A lot of it was a coordinated effort to gerrymander. They lost the popular vote by almost 7 million votes in both of the last two elections. There's also been a lot of foreign countries targeting misinformation and propaganda campaigns in the U.S., Russia, China, Vietnam, Iran.
And we've been buying it unfortunately. They've been attempting to sow anger on the left and the right, and make it seem like everyone is more extreme than most people are, which has furthered the divide on both sides of the political spectrum.
Unfortunately, there's also roughly 20-25% of the population who just eats this crap up, and they're the extremists now dominating national headlines.
Sadly, the electoral college is the reason we are in this mess right now.
Men who are terrified of the loss in power. They can't stand the idea that they could ever be held accountable.
I believe that's also a reason for the rise of racism we see today
People subconsciously know that their wealth (even if it's not much it's still better than that of people born in most parts of Africa or Asia) is mostly built on exploiting those people historically
Then either you have to give up some of that power and wealth if you accept that they are just as human as you or just have to draw a line and look down on them
So many innocent people have been imprisoned because of shit like blood splatter analysis and voice print analysis. Even DNA can be unreliable. And the idea that no two fingerprints are alike is a myth.
Are you exaggerating with the DNA comment? Or are you saying that it only proves someone's presence and not their actual actions?
Well this was a disgusting read. What a stupid test to determine the fate of a devastated mother.
This test would be fine if we didn't have an adversarial system for expert witnesses. A jury can be made to understand that this test can produce false positives and should not be considered definitive evidence that precludes a reasonable doubt because it is reasonable that a stillborn baby's lungs can randomly get air in them from mechanisms other than breathing. It could still be useful for weighing the other evidence in the case.
The problem comes from the fact that the defense has to hire a competing expert to explain that everything the med examiner did was bunk and the jury has to decide what expert to trust, not what the value of the information is. That's not something a jury is particularly good at doing. Beyond that, who you hire ends up costing the defense money and can be a problem for indigent defendants.
I'll give you an example from the rape/murder charge that I was on a jury for that we put a guy away for life. A test was used to determine the time between ejaculation and murder as the defendant's argument was that he had sex with but did not murder the victim. A prostatic acid phosphatase test was used to determine that the semen was deposited shortly before the murder. That is also a test that isn't well studied, particularly in my case that involved a decomposing body.
His DNA and that test alone were not enough for me to reach beyond a reasonable doubt. The timeline of her disappearance, the fact that she was found near his camp, and the fact that the ligature used to kill her was from his camp was. The test just added to a growing list, where it was no longer reasonable to have a doubt.
I have a background somewhat in the area of testing. No way I'd just take a test at face value. As a juror, are you able to get any clarity on stuff like that if you want?
Yeah, the inclusion of this test in any kind of deliberation would just muddy the waters. I don't see how that serves any goal of justice.
That's the issue I have with the justice system - it's much too loose with facts because it's designed around persuading non experts (and arguably jury selection is designed to reject people with high education or relevant background knowledge). The adversarial process gives each side an equal go at persuasion even if one side doesn't have a leg to stand on scientifically. The judge isn't in a position to disallow something that would be considered bullshit to an expert, and any qualified expert is allowed to sell out and present a biased interpretation of facts, even if 99% of their peers would disagree. More often than not, your resources determine whether or not you're right in the eyes of the law. It's bullshit.
Edit: if you're a physician on trial for malpractice, "A jury of your peers" would consist entirely of physicians in your area of practice, as they are the only people with the relevant understanding and background knowledge to evaluate whether your actions followed the standard of care or constitute malpractice. The fact that courts don't operate this way means that findings of guilt or innocence are basically a popularity/debate contest with a veneer of authenticity.
Agreed. Functionally, the laziness of the US justice system incentivizes quick and easy answers and simple findings of fact. Not much inquiry or investigation going on in your average case.
Additionally, the pool of "experts" consists primarily of people in a field who have already made the choice to sell their services to the highest bidder.
Now, of course, there are experts who jump into a courtroom because they've been righteously incensed by the subject matter at hand or want to make sure that facts and scientific conclusions are presented accurately, but in my experience, every medical "expert" I've met is a mercenary.
Edit: Your point about peers is a very good one, although I don't see courts expending resources to incentivize or force actual peers to convene for every malpractice dispute. No matter how much I wish they could.
That's a good way to put it - it's laziness. Maybe it's laziness though the burden of history where the structure of the system is cobbled together from hundreds of years of increasingly irrelevant procedures and precedent that can't be modernized with society. I'm not a legal scholar by any stretch, but the whole thing looks suspect to me.
I've heard from medical experts that appear not to be mercenaries, but my issue is that there's no way for the legal system to distinguish between a person who takes the job only when they're on the right side of an issue, and a person who will craft an argument to make their side seem right regardless of the facts. The process all seems very corrupt from the outside. It incentivizes financial conflict of interest.
I mean, context matters, I'm mostly talking about the ones employed in a civil litigation context.
I would say those approached by journalists are less likely to be in on the take.
That's what I'm talking about also. Experts who are being paid to express an opinion, but in a circumstance where their peers would hold a consensus opinion that opposes what they are stating in court. Those experts are mercenaries.
Just saw this, but yeah, definitely. I just wanted to be clear that I'm not dumping on experts in general lol I think people took offense.
And I think it's even more dangerous than that, it's not just people providing a solitary or fringe supported theory or conclusion.
Especially with a test like what was described, if you get an expert to put their thumb on the scales of an already pretty cloudy issue, it's even more effective in a case. If they're mainly doing that to help line their pockets, they'll be more likely to play fast and loose with their statements.
Have you met very many of these mercenaries?
Quite a few. It's definitely hyperbole, but in civil litigation, it's hard to get people who are actually doing research/still practicing their craft and have recent knowledge/are the real deal as they feel like they're better serving their interests by not wasting their time on a court case (which I find pretty hard to disagree with, tbh).
Edit: added the stuff about recent knowledge as there are definitely good intentioned people who will start doing this kind of work as they wind down their practice or research.
No, jurors are not allowed to ask questions. Like I said, it wasn't the lynchpin in the case(deliberations were decidedly short). It was useful to add to a much more extensive list (even more extensive than I included). That's why I don't particularly like the expert witness system the US has, like I said.
Edit: and to clarify the reasoning for the test, the defendant said he had sex with the victim several days before. The background of the test was to show there was no biological breakdown to suggest that. My memory isn't perfect on it since it was several years ago.
Why are we trying so hard to go backwards to the 1700s?
We're actually trying to go back to the Roman Empire, a Fourth Reich, if you will.
Yeah, it's kind of scary how close they are too succeeding. When one half of the electoral process gives up on democracy, and starts trying to take power by Amy means, it's hard to fight back against that.
It's only hard to fight against it because our champions are wolves in sheep's clothing. The Democrats don't want to undermine their own power either, they just want you to think they do.
They call it “Red Caesarism”
The term sounds dumb off the tongue and, you guessed it, has no actual philosophical or historical weight aside from a callback to the name for Roman emperors.
Sadly, those who are interested in regression don't access a lot of critical thinking skills, so they'll glom onto this surface level reference and see it as deep and meaningful.
THANK YOU!
YOU KNOW HOW FRUSTRATING IT IS WHEN PEOPLE KEEP TOSSING THAT PHRASE AROUND
Lol I find it infuriating as well. Ugh...
Seeking a return to an idealized mythological past...? That's so classic fascist.
Roman Empire was pro choice
You are thinking of Medieval Europe
I doubt any of the cultures that were invaded by Roman expansion were given any choice in the matter. Conservatism always has different standards for the in group versus the out group.
I mean given that there were Roman emperors that hailed from almost every territory in the empire I don’t think your understanding of Romans is very accurate.
After 212AD if you were a free man and lived in the empire then you were a Roman citizen. There was also a surprising degree of religious freedom in the empire as well.
Using modern political group labels for antiquity is silly.
It's not my understanding of Romans that is flawed, it's your understanding of freedom and choice.
My point is that they were also the in group. It’s very much a flawed perspective, referring to the whole empire as conservative makes it clear.
They were in the in-group as long as they paid taxes and followed the laws of the people in control of their lives. As long as they never disobeyed or rebelled. I urge you to look up consent before you hurt somebody.
Ok so no government has ever governed through consent in that respect so I’m not sure why that’s an important issue to bring up. No one consents to be ruled by a government, you’re just born into it in most cases and in others the one you initially didn’t consent to got replaced by yet another that wasn’t consented to.
You really are glossing over the fact that referring to a 2000 year empire as blanket conservative is ignorant and ahistorical. They were multicultural and, with glaring exceptions, tolerated alternative religions far more than most geopolitical entities through history. It’s a vast history with varying governments, both with progressive ideas for the time and regressive backslides.
Watering it down to boilerplate 21st century political terminology shows a lack of intellectual rigor in understanding this issue so I don’t think this conversation needs to continue. I wish you well.
Roman Empire was multicultural with emperors from Spain, North Africa, the Balkan’s, Syria, and others. The modern Roman obsession is all about the optics that fascists have wrapped it up in, not actual history. They were even surprisingly religiously tolerant.
They’re not actually trying to go back to that, they only want the worst traits of the empire.
Every Empire has a period of expansion and prosperity, modern-day Republicans are trying to bring back the policies that destroyed Rome, without understanding that conservatism is always the corruption that leads to fascism.
It seems just the American religious right are doing that. There just seems to be many more of them than I first imagined.
I think they're just really loud. Most people aren't like that. But since the republican party can't seem to win elections fairly anymore, they've decided to throw the rules out and go for fascism.
Didn't we get to that point by the loud ones being able to vote their chosen into office though? That's the part that surprises me, that there were enough of them to get the proper people in office to dismantle the country's democratic process.
A lot of it was a coordinated effort to gerrymander. They lost the popular vote by almost 7 million votes in both of the last two elections. There's also been a lot of foreign countries targeting misinformation and propaganda campaigns in the U.S., Russia, China, Vietnam, Iran.
And we've been buying it unfortunately. They've been attempting to sow anger on the left and the right, and make it seem like everyone is more extreme than most people are, which has furthered the divide on both sides of the political spectrum.
Unfortunately, there's also roughly 20-25% of the population who just eats this crap up, and they're the extremists now dominating national headlines.
Sadly, the electoral college is the reason we are in this mess right now.
Men who are terrified of the loss in power. They can't stand the idea that they could ever be held accountable.
I believe that's also a reason for the rise of racism we see today
People subconsciously know that their wealth (even if it's not much it's still better than that of people born in most parts of Africa or Asia) is mostly built on exploiting those people historically
Then either you have to give up some of that power and wealth if you accept that they are just as human as you or just have to draw a line and look down on them
Because religion is the root of all evil
beacause god!
Hmm, what was very powerful in the 1700s, that lost so much power nowadays...
Most "forensic science" is bullshit.
So many innocent people have been imprisoned because of shit like blood splatter analysis and voice print analysis. Even DNA can be unreliable. And the idea that no two fingerprints are alike is a myth.
Are you exaggerating with the DNA comment? Or are you saying that it only proves someone's presence and not their actual actions?
https://daily.jstor.org/forensic-dna-evidence-can-lead-wrongful-convictions/
Well this was a disgusting read. What a stupid test to determine the fate of a devastated mother.
This test would be fine if we didn't have an adversarial system for expert witnesses. A jury can be made to understand that this test can produce false positives and should not be considered definitive evidence that precludes a reasonable doubt because it is reasonable that a stillborn baby's lungs can randomly get air in them from mechanisms other than breathing. It could still be useful for weighing the other evidence in the case.
The problem comes from the fact that the defense has to hire a competing expert to explain that everything the med examiner did was bunk and the jury has to decide what expert to trust, not what the value of the information is. That's not something a jury is particularly good at doing. Beyond that, who you hire ends up costing the defense money and can be a problem for indigent defendants.
I'll give you an example from the rape/murder charge that I was on a jury for that we put a guy away for life. A test was used to determine the time between ejaculation and murder as the defendant's argument was that he had sex with but did not murder the victim. A prostatic acid phosphatase test was used to determine that the semen was deposited shortly before the murder. That is also a test that isn't well studied, particularly in my case that involved a decomposing body.
His DNA and that test alone were not enough for me to reach beyond a reasonable doubt. The timeline of her disappearance, the fact that she was found near his camp, and the fact that the ligature used to kill her was from his camp was. The test just added to a growing list, where it was no longer reasonable to have a doubt.
I have a background somewhat in the area of testing. No way I'd just take a test at face value. As a juror, are you able to get any clarity on stuff like that if you want?
Yeah, the inclusion of this test in any kind of deliberation would just muddy the waters. I don't see how that serves any goal of justice.
That's the issue I have with the justice system - it's much too loose with facts because it's designed around persuading non experts (and arguably jury selection is designed to reject people with high education or relevant background knowledge). The adversarial process gives each side an equal go at persuasion even if one side doesn't have a leg to stand on scientifically. The judge isn't in a position to disallow something that would be considered bullshit to an expert, and any qualified expert is allowed to sell out and present a biased interpretation of facts, even if 99% of their peers would disagree. More often than not, your resources determine whether or not you're right in the eyes of the law. It's bullshit.
Edit: if you're a physician on trial for malpractice, "A jury of your peers" would consist entirely of physicians in your area of practice, as they are the only people with the relevant understanding and background knowledge to evaluate whether your actions followed the standard of care or constitute malpractice. The fact that courts don't operate this way means that findings of guilt or innocence are basically a popularity/debate contest with a veneer of authenticity.
Agreed. Functionally, the laziness of the US justice system incentivizes quick and easy answers and simple findings of fact. Not much inquiry or investigation going on in your average case.
Additionally, the pool of "experts" consists primarily of people in a field who have already made the choice to sell their services to the highest bidder.
Now, of course, there are experts who jump into a courtroom because they've been righteously incensed by the subject matter at hand or want to make sure that facts and scientific conclusions are presented accurately, but in my experience, every medical "expert" I've met is a mercenary.
Edit: Your point about peers is a very good one, although I don't see courts expending resources to incentivize or force actual peers to convene for every malpractice dispute. No matter how much I wish they could.
That's a good way to put it - it's laziness. Maybe it's laziness though the burden of history where the structure of the system is cobbled together from hundreds of years of increasingly irrelevant procedures and precedent that can't be modernized with society. I'm not a legal scholar by any stretch, but the whole thing looks suspect to me.
I've heard from medical experts that appear not to be mercenaries, but my issue is that there's no way for the legal system to distinguish between a person who takes the job only when they're on the right side of an issue, and a person who will craft an argument to make their side seem right regardless of the facts. The process all seems very corrupt from the outside. It incentivizes financial conflict of interest.
I mean, context matters, I'm mostly talking about the ones employed in a civil litigation context.
I would say those approached by journalists are less likely to be in on the take.
That's what I'm talking about also. Experts who are being paid to express an opinion, but in a circumstance where their peers would hold a consensus opinion that opposes what they are stating in court. Those experts are mercenaries.
Just saw this, but yeah, definitely. I just wanted to be clear that I'm not dumping on experts in general lol I think people took offense.
And I think it's even more dangerous than that, it's not just people providing a solitary or fringe supported theory or conclusion.
Especially with a test like what was described, if you get an expert to put their thumb on the scales of an already pretty cloudy issue, it's even more effective in a case. If they're mainly doing that to help line their pockets, they'll be more likely to play fast and loose with their statements.
Have you met very many of these mercenaries?
Quite a few. It's definitely hyperbole, but in civil litigation, it's hard to get people who are actually doing research/still practicing their craft and have recent knowledge/are the real deal as they feel like they're better serving their interests by not wasting their time on a court case (which I find pretty hard to disagree with, tbh).
Edit: added the stuff about recent knowledge as there are definitely good intentioned people who will start doing this kind of work as they wind down their practice or research.
No, jurors are not allowed to ask questions. Like I said, it wasn't the lynchpin in the case(deliberations were decidedly short). It was useful to add to a much more extensive list (even more extensive than I included). That's why I don't particularly like the expert witness system the US has, like I said.
Edit: and to clarify the reasoning for the test, the defendant said he had sex with the victim several days before. The background of the test was to show there was no biological breakdown to suggest that. My memory isn't perfect on it since it was several years ago.
Here's a link to the case that gives a good overview, but realize that it doesn't have ALL the evidence we reviewed. https://www.fredericknewspost.com/news/crime\_and\_justice/courts/man-convicted-in-1996-rape-and-murder-of-frederick-girl/article\_a71161c5-f52a-5d1c-844d-0e88e3f9cae8.html
What the fuck? What/where are we living?
✨Patriarchy✨
⛪Early stage theocracy⛪
Lmao, who the fuck do you think theocracy serves?
The people at the top. The religion in question is patriarchal but the mechanism it works on doesn’t require a certain gender identity to work.