>>520770814
the left belief is that "a jury of peers" means all actual legal judgments are not based in precedence or interpretation of law but on popularity among a random selection of a crowd. in the words of an ancom i was reading the other day, "the jury retains a right to nullification"
that this completely erases the point of "the spirit of the law" and any "rules-based order" we hear so much about i don't know why they subsequently complain about millionaires finding tax loopholes or trump not going to jail for paperwork crimes, because it's the same basic principle: all law is just a negotiation of social dynamics which is just a function of power, whether it be in the hands of owning capital or enough bodies. where do they think the power of a jury in this legal system derives from? vibes?

along those lines please see pic related. hey, he's telling me i am obligated to make a subjective determination of moral/metaphysical implications about observing reality, rather than just sticking to objective scope. do you really think he cares about my subjective judgment, or do you think he believes the social inherently demands conformity? with that, do you think "empathy" means demanding that conformity, or is it in the expectation of only making demands along objective lines because it understands that subjectivity won't be reconcilable? if he disputes that i'd be happy to prove otherwise with some monstrous chudposting about what i really feel here (i can't do it there because of terms of service). the dead thai children or tarrant's art always come in handy there
(this is one of my pet's adjacents, i don't know why he's following me or even engaging like this because he certainly isn't confused about where i stand, at least i hope)