United Kingdom
General community for news/discussion in the UK.
Less serious posts should go in !casualuk@feddit.uk or !andfinally@feddit.uk
More serious politics should go in !uk_politics@feddit.uk.
Try not to spam the same link to multiple feddit.uk communities.
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric news, and should be either a link to a reputable source, or a text post on this community.
Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.
If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread.
Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.
Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.
view the rest of the comments
Seems to be what you're saying
Yes, because our system isn't designed for justice. The police doesn't try to find the truth, they just try to find someone to charge. The defender doesn't try to find the truth, but to escape conviction for his client, likewise with the prosecutor. The judge is there to follow the letter of the law as well as possible, there is nobody that cares about justice.
The very idea that you need a prosecutor and a defender makes no sense if you think about it. At sociey that wanted justice would just have a bunch of independant experts colaborate to find the truth and sentence based on that.
The idea that the process of justice must be carried out like a competition in which both sides are trying to trip each other up and trying to win at any cost through manipulation and omission with no regards to truth or justice means that the system has no interest in either.
Edgy. There are standard arguments for why an adversarial legal system tends to achieve good outcomes. I'm not really interested in digging up standard arguments though so I guess we'll leave it here.
Sure, there are many arguments for many bad ideas, but the statistics don't lie. A hostile police force, an adversarial legal system, only leads to miscarriages of justice.
It's just an extension of capitalism; if you can get away with it your actions are legitimized regardless of what you did. It's the paradigm of the End justifying the means.
So pur system is designed for miscarriage of justice and so as such cannot be said to result in miscarriages of justice because we do not care about justice in the first place.
You are not arguing in a way that will convince me. Please leave me alone if that's the only way you know how.
It's literally an online discussion forum. Why are you here then?
To hear from people who write convincingly
Ah yes, to hear your own opinion through someone else's mouth. Echochamber ventriloquism.
No. What I expect is that if someone is coming at something from a wildly different perspective than the status quo - for example, "judges shouldn't be allowed to prevent juries from hearing anything from a defendant," then they be able to present literally any argument for that. I've had dozens of replies in this thread that either could not do that or could not articulate why that was not their perspective.
Instead, they want to take it as read that the status quo is wrong. The status quo could very well be wrong but everyone who has come to that conclusion through actual reason rather than unexamined emotion can say why. Of the dozens of replies I think only one person demonstrated that ability.
Don't confuse your capacity to understand with other people's capacity to explain.
No individual really has any way to discern the two, from their own perspective. Except in retrospect, anyway. One can only guess, based on an assessment of one's own general intelligence and linguistic facility. Which obviously is not something you, an internet stranger, have any access to.
It's actually pretty simple, if you're superior to everyone else you're living in a delusion created to couch your own inferiority complex.
Luckily that's not what I believe. But people in this particular thread have been incredibly disappointing
And it just so happens to confirm how much smarter you are.
If I'm saying that people are disappointing then it means they're less than my expectation and thus not confirming anything.
In contrast, you confirm the expectations I have developed of you in particular with each successive reply.
Yes, it's classic Donning-krueger.
Anything that would disprove your confirmation bias is simply filtered out.
Which is it - "Donning"-Kruger or confirmation bias? And why are you still talking to me if you think I'm incapable of changing my mind? Lmao.
You obviously haven't observed enough of me to justify this judgement, and hence there's no evidence I can offer you to convince you you're wrong. So with you having long abandoned any attempt to argue your case and instead just browbeating me, I certainly don't find any compelling reason to continue talking to you. Bye.
If we interact again, try to imagine yourself in the shoes of someone who doesn't hold your opinions, and shape your argument to convince that person.
Donning-Kruger means a permanent confirmation bias, so it's both.
If we do talk again, I'll try to put myself in the shoes of someone who is euphoric. Not because of any phony god's blessings. But because he is enlightened by his own intelligence.