LongMember69 @ LongMember69 @lemmy.world

Posts

1

Comments

10

Joined

2 yr. ago

False equivalency.

People in Diddy’s camp are making a naked ploy to baselessly undermine the credibility of the prosecution - presumably because Diddy is cooked - and we’ve got some folks here lapping it up.

That is him saying the lawyer said something that should never be said by a lawyer.

Yes. Implying the prosecution is racially motivated with no evidence to support it, doing so by calling them a “six pack of white women” is indeed inappropriate. Add onto that the particulars at play here? I’m with the judge, pretty outrageous.

This judge could have said the same to any lawyer in any case.

Yeah, but they didn’t.

Would it have been appropriate then? If it wasnt Diddy’s case?

Depends on the case.

1. He stands accused, not convicted, which may not matter to you but it should

Correct. By over 100 people, many of whom were minors when they were allegedly sexually abused.

Me defending the lawyer’s ability to make comments on the racial politics of the situation really has nothing to do with Diddy in any way,

I agree with your argument in the abstract, but given the nature of the case I don’t think I’d be choosing to carry water here.

a judge who is uncomfortable with the fact that there are valid criticisms to be had surrounding race and the courts.

Or, have you considered it could be that the judge is familiar with the circumstances of the case, and in this instance finds the defense’s argument unsubstantiated, gross, and totally inappropriate?

They are.

They’re pretending that Diddy’s defense team’s unsubstantiated innuendo of racial bias is a valid point worth entertaining. It’s not.

It’s a desperate attempt at deflecting that trivializes the real issues in the legal system that you note.

Im not trying to defend Diddy, but…

Buddy, he stands accused of sexually assaulting over 100 people including drugging and gang-raping children. You don’t need to play devil’s advocate for the defense here.

Inspired by https://sh.itjust.works/post/22373624

How does that function in practice? Does the government now hold an active management stake in all these entities?

Seize (that is, nationalize) the largest 100 corporations.

I understand the case for nationalizing key social infrastructure and utilities, but what is the justification for seizing the largest 100 corporations? Also why 100 specifically?

I’ve gotta give you kudos:

I see you all over these comment sections like it’s your full time job and you consistently have the absolute worst takes. Brain rot GOAT