I have no way of knowing if any of that is true

Yes, protecting people is always the first priority, otherwise there just wouldn’t be a justice system. That doesn’t mean punishing people for wrongdoings.

Yes, I think hierarchy is bad in general, it defines people as not equal. You can’t have a hierarchy of equal members. It has lead to those higher up thinking the laws for us don’t fully apply to them, either because we’re less than human or because they’re more than human. Even the hierarchy of parents has turned children into property instead of, again, people who need help. It might even be why people are more tolerant of shitty behavior, because they don’t feel high up enough in the hierarchy to be able to do anything about it.

Part of the critique of that phrase is its seeming dismissal of context and nuance. Authoritarianism isn’t really a system of thought, but even without mentioning that, you’re going to have a tough time drawing hard lines around behavior without infringing on valid personal freedoms. Though, in general, seeing how your beliefs map onto different ideas is a good way to interrogate yourself and try to determine if you should keep that belief as is. If an idea of yours seems to tie in with a system of thought you’re opposed to, maybe ask yourself why that is and what aspects you identify with versus the aspects you can do without.

You commented twice and apparently I attached my response to the one you deleted so I wanted repost that response with the context that the other comment included the phrase “an evil man”

Of course protecting the public is the first priority, otherwise there just wouldn’t be a justice system. But your willingness to label a person as evil keeps you open to calling whole groups of people evil (like say immigrants). That actually invites evil to yourself and society because ‘prison is for evil people, I’m not in prison so I must not be evil’ when in reality everyone is capable of evil and should always be guarding against those thoughts, not dismissing them as impossibilities.>

You definitely have some good ideas about an alternative system, but you also have some nonsense in that first paragraph.

The idea of someone deserving punishment is inherently dehumanizing. It’s not possible to punish someone unless they are beneath you. Thinking another human is lesser than you defines them as less than human.

Hard lines of behavior? That’s just what laws are, like we currently have. Yes, look at where we are now with the centuries long mentality of people deserving punishment. The rich and powerful are not subjected to the law in the same way because, to use your words, “authoritarian systems especially are prone to being taken over by groups with special interests, whoch not only guts their effectiveness but completely revrses their intended goals if they were noble ones.” Seriously though, “hard lines of behavior” is an extremely authoritarian phrase.

There are no “evil people” there are only evil actions. Every single person has the capacity for evil. We’re going to be stuck where we’re at until we collectively recognize that truth.

Of course protecting the public is the first priority, otherwise there just wouldn’t be a justice system. But your willingness to label a person as evil keeps you open to calling whole groups of people evil (like say immigrants). That actually invites evil to yourself and society because ‘prison is for evil people, I’m not in prison so I must not be evil’ when in reality everyone is capable of evil and should always be guarding against those thoughts, not dismissing them as impossibilities.

In line with the rest of my paragraph, labeling them as bad people who deserve bad things is very authoritarian and dehumanizing. That’s the type of rhetoric someone like Trump uses. The more comfortable society is with that rhetoric the more susceptible we are to a fascist takeover.

You seem unable to separate rehabilitation / treatment for mental health from medical interventions and drugs.

What I’m arguing is that punishment is not justice. No person should have the right to dole out punishments to another. To think otherwise betrays a very authoritarian mindset.

I don’t have a 500 page document detailing a new version of our justice system, partly because, as you correctly stated, there isn’t a one size fits all solution. But I know whatever system that is should be focused on empathy and compassion, not making people pay for their misdeeds.

But even if I completely agreed with what you’re saying, I would still think it’s gross to cheer for anyone being sent to “an atrocity that needs to be dismantled and replaced”, especially if it’s for the rest of their lives.

I don’t know why you think there’s more autonomy in a mental institution than prison, or why you keep bringing up forcing drugs and surgery on people like that’s the only way to help people with mental health issues. Your stance is still not making sense from a moral standpoint.

Edit: just want to note that the first sentence of the comment above wasn’t there when reply was written

Why do you think it’s immoral to involuntarily institutionalize but moral to lock them in a jail cell?

The comments here are pretty gross. This guy needs help, instead you’re happy to send him to the corrupt American prison system for the rest of his life. Please stop bootlicking and start caring for people.

The criticism is that a large portion of voters wouldn’t support her if she wasn’t running against someone like Trump. I know that criticism has at least some substance because it applies to me.

Edit: more specifically her campaign is using Trump as a bogeyman more than she’s running on actual policy.

I think I understood the first paragraph before your comment but thank you for the clarification. And I do generally agree with your second paragraph as well. I do think it’s a bit reductive and is often used to draw attention from the more substantial reasons.

Also deciding people are nuts is a great way to alienate and isolate them which will only entrench those ideas and can further radicalize them.

1. As a leftist that totally hates Trump, I am voting for Harris because it’s not strategic for me to do otherwise. I still have the ability to recognize that the dems are doing their damndest to uphold a broken status quo that is actively harming everyone, especially children in Palestine.

2. Why shouldn’t they paint the entire GOP as a threat when they are the party America’s Hitler? The reason we have Trump in the first place is because the DNC wanted a bogeyman to get Hilary in in 2016, quickly found source from 2016. They shouldn’t be trying to court Republicans, they should be trying to motivate people with real progress. The reason Hilary lost was because people are sick of establishment politicians and she was the embodiment of that establishment.

People are sick and tired of having 2 bad choices and nothing else.

I think I understood their sarcasm. They think I’m engaging in misogynistic tendencies and do actually think Trump voters are “nuts”.

Super healthy and helpful mindset /s

Are downvoters disagreeing even though the biggest slogan to come out of the DNC was “we are not going back” (plus the point of the stunt this article is about)? Or do they think any criticism whatsoever of democrats is bad? This shouldn’t be a controversial take.

She’s running against arguably the worst candidate in American history and it’s still a dead heat, what does that tell you?

Duke Nukem for PS3

I wish I could understand German. Because the video seems fun and yeah that’s a pretty odd setting for a show that large.

Nah, killing oil barons would be much more productive