• xmunk@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    5 months ago

    The fear (a rational fear, I think) is that if they didn’t, they’d potentially have an armed rebellion to deal with. Yea, it’s shitty for this asshat to get gift after fucking gift but if there was any appearance of him being targeted he’d never fucking shut up about it.

    I’m done with their bullshit and I feel, for democracy’s sake, we should just seize all the family assets to discourage future ass hattery and deal with the consequences now… but I also do appreciate my relatives not living in a war zone.

    • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      28
      ·
      5 months ago

      If the rule of law leads terrorists to attack institutions, then we need to stop those terrorists with force. We should not bend over backwards to avoid angering the terrorists.

      • xmunk@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        5 months ago

        I think you’re being too black and white. The purpose of all this society shit isn’t to have laws that are justly applied - it’s to (ideally, late stage capitalism is fucking is here) provide the best life we can to as many people as we can. Being murdered, robbed or a bundle of other things fucking sucks so we use the law to guarantee (again, suckinh at this right now) safety and stability.

        If someone did a little asshattery I don’t want to start a civil war - as a parallel, if someone runs a red light and we could either let them go unpunished or start a high speed chase, I’m going to favor the former. There is a line somewhere, there is some amount of petty treason someone could commit and some quantity of armed fanatics backing them where I’d say “we should just not risk it.”

        Basically, sometimes it’s optimal to be non-confrontational even if it feels shitty.