/townhall/ - Townhall

>>11879
>Do you consider it justice to jail individuals for crimes they haven't committed, simply because you disagree with their politics?
I would imagine that exactly nobody does. It can be politically convenient, sure. But justice? Of course not.

[citation needed]

>>11879
If I were against humans being put in prison, including solitary confinement, for political reasons (or corruption, error, prejudice), I could not be very much in favor of state power.

And I can't legally be very much against state power.

>>11881
Although I haven't been following the news very closely.

https://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/ny-qanon-shaman-jacob-chansley-early-prison-release-20230330-5zlkukkcgrhrdn7fo3dsntzuri-story.html

Chansley has expressed remorse for his terrible crimes. He has reversed his political opinions and now opposes Donald Trump, supporting the impeachment efforts against the leader. He regrets being lied to. It should also be noted that he spent a long period in solitary confinement that I personally think was unreasonable, given the negative health aspects of such treatment. However, it perhaps was ethically justified due to circumstances not publicly reported (while I doubt this).

I laud this and support early release. Other former far right extremists need to be given clear off-ramps to be integrated into regular life. I genuinely and sincerely wish him the best.

>>11884
Whether Chansley changed his mind regarding his reasoning is irrelevant to whether he was trespassing or obstructing an official proceeding, which is what he was charged and convicted of.

>>11889
As a matter of objective fact the same as how 2 plus 2 is 4, he was guilty, he was morally a bad person, he became sorry, he now aims to be a good person, and thus he is free.

I'm very glad at all this.

Generally, imprisonment tends to make neo-Nazi types harden their beliefs. And they aim to do more evil. This is an exception that I enjoy seeing.

>>11890
Agreeing to a plea deal when exculpatory evidence is being withheld by the prosecution does not change the fact of whether the crime was committed; and in this case, we can see that no crime was committed by this individual - else "obstruction of an official proceeding" would be levied at all of the officers who helped him through the building since they facilitated his actions and made no attempt to stop him.  Threatening someone with a ridiculous amount of time in order to force a guilty plea, even from innocent individuals, is a common tactic in the judicial system, and a common means by which innocent individuals find themselves behind bars.  In many cases, we may have no direct proof of their innocence, but this is a case where we do, and it was withheld from the defense thanks to prosecutorial misconduct.  And while he may be a "morally bad person," it is not over the alleged crimes he didn't commit.  Whether he is sorry for anything after the fact is thus irrelevant.  Whether he feels his candidate of choice abandoned him is irrelevant.  However, I'm also very glad at all of this, since it demonstrates the corruption at various levels and demonstrates that the US is now a banana republic.

>>11891
Every single sentence that you said is factually incorrect to a degree that I'm honestly sort of amazed at your disconnect to objective reality.

He did those things. He was charged. He was guilty. He's now out. Facts don't care about your feelings. Everything that should've happened... did.

Are you psychologically not able to accept criticism of either Donald Trump or of any of his supporters due to naked ideological tribalism? I'm asking this genuinely. I'm kind of dumbfounded at this level of wrongness.

>>11891
Also, this is a case of somebody who was arrested in the attempt of enforcing corruption and attempting to replace American democracy with a banana republic.

Your weirdly Orwellian take that the far right ultranationalist using political violence to install a dictatorship along with his fellow blackshirts is somehow a victim in this situation is... interesting.

>>11893
He obstructed nothing.  His actions had no bearing on any official proceeding.  He went where he was allowed to go by Capitol Polirce.  He was even allowed to leave of his own recognizance because Capitol Police determined he had broken no laws.  He was not detained at the Capitol.  He wasn't arrested until after the fact, and even then, it wasn't clear what he was being arrested for.  Justice, amirite?
He plead guilty.  Yet he was not guilty.  Just as many others plead guilty despite not being guilty, for the reasons I mentioned.
I said nothing of Donald Trump.  Try again.

>>11894
There's no indication that he did that or supported doing that, as evidenced by his own Speech.
He did not use political violence.  he wasn't even engaged in "fiery but mostly peaceful" protest.  Not even "mostly peaceful" protest.  He was in fact, peaceful.

>>11895
You can keep saying things that have been made up, but it's not going to convince people not in your bubble, to be honest.

Do you flatly yourself believe that political violence in support of your ideology is justified?

If so, are those of other ideologies so justified?

>>11897
>>11898
Not at all!  Hence why Chansley was innocent, as he engaged in no political violence.  Nor was he charged with political violence, i.e. terrorism.

Do you want to talk about those who do engage in political violence?  Since you want to make this tribal, we could talk about left wing organizations committing actual violence all day if you like.  I hear there's a case down in Kentucky where a mostly peaceful individual just put 6 in the ground.

>>11893
>>11894
>>11897
>>11898

/townhall/ is a forum for discussion, not a lengthy series of personal attacks.  You've done nothing to debate anything said by Fabulous Hedgehog, you've just called them wrong and then berated them.  Spread out over several posts.  Please refrain from this if you continue to use the board.

>>11880
>It can be politically convenient, sure. But justice? Of course not.
Do you think the political convenience should outweigh justice?  sometimes/never?

>>11882
>If I were against humans being put in prison, including solitary confinement, for political reasons (or corruption, error, prejudice), I could not be very much in favor of state power.
>And I can't legally be very much against state power.
I'm not sure I follow your reasoning here.  You can legally oppose state power.  Of course, you can choose not to.

>>11899
He was guilty. He engaged in political violence. And that's ethically bad. It's really horrifying to me that you're somehow alright with seeing victims being harmed if that violent act in narrative terms agrees with your political viewpoints.

Facts don't care about your feelings. You're literally defending a violent criminal who reformed. Who condemns Trump. Who is sorry. Who got released due to his turning over a new leaf. I'm kind of speechless. Why can't you praise him for being so moral? Why aren't you happy for him? Why don't you care about his well-being? He'll, he was the political type that literally fought for people like me to be exterminated before he got imprisoned. .. and I care about him.

And, fundamentally, why is it only morally wrong to commit acts of violence depending on the identities of the victims as well as the perpetrators?

What's so incorrect about opposing political violence on principle?

This I just don't get.

As for the actions in Kentucky, that was done by an individual for reasons outside of politics in a fashion that has no connection to any larger group or movement. I'm aware that the right-wing at the moment views this mass shooting as the collective moral fault of all gay and transgender people since that pair of labels was the identity of the shooter, thus requiring penance of shame on those groups as a whole, but I reject that tribalism. Similarly, Chansley, the subject of this chat, is a white man. All white people are not to blame for his actions. Same as all men.

Collectivism is wrong. A white male criminal is a criminal. A black female criminal, say, is a criminal. Why is the right-wing so obsessed with identities?

Anyways, it's all patently ludicrous as a moral justification because multiple wrongs don't make a right. Look at the New Black Panther Party radical activist who due to Marxist based black nationalism committed a mass shooting in Dallas, Texas a few years back, using a Black Lives Matter rally as escape cover. He was evil. That political violence was evil. And it was done for left-wing reasons. Yet it very clearly doesn't make the racist attacks against black people in the American south later on justified because of the right-wing ideology of 'an eye for an eye'. Political violence is wrong regardless of tribe no matter how much the right-wing claims otherwise. Come on.

>>11900
They're lying about objective factual reality at the exact same level of saying that the Earth is flat, that the Holocaust didn't happen, that the Moon is made of cheese, and so on. Not sure what you're expecting out of me. And they're also apparently trying to justify the actions of a violent criminal to hurt people like me based on beliefs, which is something I obviously aren't going to be happy about.

>>11902
>He was guilty.
He plead guilty.  He committed no crime.
>He engaged in political violence.
What violence did he commit, exactly?
>And that's ethically bad.
If he did, I would agree with you.  However, there is zero evidence that he was violent.  There is in fact much evidence that he wasn't violent.
>It's horrifying to me that you're somehow alright to see people being harmed if it agrees with your viewpoints.
I feel no empathy for the imaginary people harmed by this individual in some alternate dimension that you're referring to.

>Facts don't care about your feelings.
I agree.  Thankfully the facts seem to be on my side.
>You're literally defending a violent criminal who reformed. Who condemns Trump. Who is sorry. I'm kind of speechless. Why can't you praise him for being so moral?
Violent?  What act of violence did he commit?  Criminal - sure.  He is a criminal by virtue of having plead guilty of a crime he didn't commit, so I can't exactly fault him for that.  Condemning Trump is irrelevant.  Trump himself is irrelevant.  Denouncing Trump does not define morality, so he receives no praise from me for doing so.

>And, fundamentally, why is it only morally wrong to commit acts of violence depending on the identities of the victims as well as the perpetrators?
Well, first off, we aren't talking about an act of violence, so this is irrelevant.  But in the abstract, you are correct, and thus we shouldn't be condemning people we disagree with for crimes they didn't actually commit, regardless of their politics.

>What's so incorrect about opposing political violence on principle?
Nothing.  I hope you oppose political violence as well.

>As for the actions in Kentucky, that was done by an individual for reasons outside of politics in a fashion that has no connection to any larger group or movement.
It appears to be a direct response to the legislation recently passed in Kentucky.
>I'm aware that the right-wing at the moment views this mass shooting as the collective moral fault of all gay and transgender people since that was the identity of the shooter, thus requiring penance of shame on those groups as a whole, but I reject that tribalism.
I do as well.  I am merely pointing out the hypocrisy.
>Similarly, Chansley, the subject of this chat, is a white man. All white people are not to blame for his actions. Same as all men. Collectivism is wrong.
We agree!  Hazzah!

>Anyways, it's all patently ludicrous as a moral justification because multiple wrongs don't make a right. Look at the New Black Panther Party activist who due to Marxist based black nationalism committed a mass shooting in Dallas, Texas a few years using a Black Lives Matter rally as escape cover. He was evil. That political violence was evil. It very clearly doesn't make the racist attacks against black people in the American south later on justified because of the right-wing ideology of 'an eye for an eye'. Political violence is wrong regardless of tribe no matter how much the right-wing claims otherwise.
We agree!  Hazzah!

>>11900
>They're lying about objective factual reality at the exact same level of saying that the Earth is flat, that the Holocaust didn't happen, that the Moon is made of cheese, and so on. Not sure what you're expecting out of me.
You can watch the videos of Chansley for yourself.

>>11903
Suppose for the sake of argument that political tribalism wins out in America totally, and the response to a black criminal doing something wrong is mass harm against black people. And of a transgender criminal... same against transgender people.

I believe this political practice would end up with everybody dying and civilization destroyed.

Am I wrong?

I guess I'll say as an addendum about the Kentucky tragedy that I can as a victim of child abuse both physical and psychological be at a level of emotional empathy. I've sympathy for the shooter to an extent. In his attempt to achieve catharsis as well as somehow attain a sort of perceived fairness, he met violence with violence and reenacted his trauma by swapping roles: doing the evil once again to more victims who were bystanders. I get this at a profund level.

It's still wrong. Ethically. Morally. Legally. I'll say that even in the case of a child discovering a firearm in the house and shooting an abuser in the act... that's still premeditated murder. We need higher principles than just what emotions say.

The cycle of harm done to children causing more harm done by those same children when they're older is a tricky social problem with, alas, no clear-cut answer.

>>11904
>Suppose for the sake of argument that political tribalism wins out in America totally, ...
>I believe this political practice would end up with everybody dying and civilization destroyed.
>Am I wrong?
Civilization as we know it would end.  We would end up in a situation like one of the various totalitarian government of the modern era or of various pre-modern governments throughout the ages.

>>11905
Just be aware, this same justification can be used in any direction by anyone for any reason.  It is the basis of terrorism.

>>11906
I mean if Americans exterminated the widely held cultural belief that childhood suffering and maltreatment is actually a positive social good because it promotes learning and enhances moral character, and then in contrast everybody adopted the opposing social belief that people should be altruistic and merciful at all ages... there would be much, much, much, much, much fewer Kentucky tragedies.

>>11908
I'm not sure what you mean by child suffering and maltreatment, so I'm not really sure what you mean by this.
If the surviving children in Kentucky "suffered" and were "maltreated" by the shooter's insufficient altruism and mercy, it would suggest that you can expect some tragic aftershocks in about 10 years targeting individuals in the shooter's camp.  The pendulum swings both ways.

>>11911
Practically, people as adults would consider rape, murder, torture, kidnapping, and the like as adults to be more immoral, abnormal, and unethical if they weren't instructed as children to view all that as not so bad.

If you hate clowns, don't build a circus.

>>11913
It's been a while since I was a child, so maybe things are different now, but I don't recall being instructed that rape, murder, torture, kidnapping, and the like are "not so bad."

>>11914
I'm being more negative than is justified, frankly, but I'd like to point out that in the aforementioned state of Texas about 1 in 9 to 1 in 10 individuals will be sexually abused before turning 18.

If you don't believe me, there's that cited plus some context at: https://www.cactx.org/child-abuse-in-texas

I mean if I was on a military mission flying high in some massive airplane about to head out yet got told one in nine parachutes didn't open, I wouldn't jump out of that airplane.

I'd view those odds as a fundamental failure. Or at least would be pissed off. Yeah.

Wouldn't you be too?

>>11915
Well that's pretty terrible.

>>11916
I'm not sure I agree with the metaphor, but I get what you're saying.

I think it's also important to be clear about causality here.

Hatred of people due to their religious beliefs preceded the creation of the U.S. as an independent nation. Antisemitism in particular is so old as an inherent concept that it appears to be maybe something that came around about the time of the invention of writing. And it's all always gone in different directions all at once.

The narrative that what happened in Kentucky in broader context is some ideological outburst based on a recent political movement, one that's supposedly about 'gender ideology' against Christians such that Christians must retaliate against other religious faiths to attain vengeance... it's wrong. It's beyond wrong. Christian violence against those who aren't Christian is old as the hills. Same as violence against Christians.

And transgender people being open and free is the same way, with this being perceived as a religious affront to some for millenia. Indigenous peoples of the Americas had inherent concepts of morality generally, let alone aspects of fender identity and biological sex, very alien to colonists centuries ago. General religious history is blood-spattered. Pagans killing each other. Jews killing each other. Christians killing each other. And those tribes against outsiders.

This doesn't make the Kentucky shooting any less horrid. It's just a matter of understanding. Pogroms. The Holocaust. Witch-burning campaigns. The Inqusitions. It's all human nature, alas.

Selective outrage is wrong. So is selective numbness. Every dead child is a tragedy.

>>11901
I made an error, yes.  I am not a lawyer so am not licensed to know whether something is legal.  I generally perceive free speech was never intended to support lawlessness, though.  Although not being a lawyer, I'd guess the general idea is: don't very much oppose state power.

>>11879

Don't look now but soneone wrote "gullible" on your ceiling

>>11879
>Is preserving the narrative surrounding January 6th more important than the rights of an individual?
No.
No narrative is.

>Do you consider it justice to jail individuals for crimes they haven't committed, simply because you disagree with their politics?
Certainly not, no.

>>11942
Considering there's video publicly available showing capitol police guiding this guy along through the building, opening doors for him and everything, I feel it's not an unsafe conclusion to reach.

>>11944
Considering that he and his lawyer are specifically calling that narrative incorrect I feel that it requires more evidence than a minute worth of cable news outrage fodder.

>>11879
From https://time.com/6267335/jan-6-qanon-shaman-jacob-chansley-released-early-prison/ :
>Albert Watkins, the attorney who handled Chansley’s plea and sentencing, tells TIME that the new footage did not play any role in his former client’s release. “Absolutely no,” he says. “I have seen no indication of any filings related to the new footage. There are no docket entries indicating the same.”

>>11946
Irrespective of their statements, direct video evidence is objective.
People lie.
Evidence doesn't.

>>11958

Yes, and selectively cherry picking evidence is one of many ways people lie to other people.

>>11959
I agree. Which is why I certainly wouldn't dismiss video evidence just because someone says something else.