Remix.run Logo
creddit a day ago

I don't know maybe just be worried instead about being on the side of justice and what is right and not be so worried if that side has people you don't like on it.

chii a day ago | parent | next [-]

a lot of people determine what is right by who is on that side - the right side is the group that they identify with, and the wrong side is the group they dislike.

And you get the hilarious (if not sad) situations often, where the exact same actions is wrong if committed by one group, and right if done by some other group.

lowercased 21 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Maybe I dislike a party because they're wrong, not that I think they're wrong becuase I dislike them? I usually don't have any reason to like or dislike a party until I see behaviour.

a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]
[deleted]
snapcaster 21 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

That's not hilarious or sad. It's valid to oppose your enemies and support your allies. It takes a certain kind of educated liberal bubble to think that is "hilarious"

jdlshore 20 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Some people think that justice should be blind, and that’s long been an ideal in the US.

sethaurus 18 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It's a matter of integrity. Support or oppose whoever you like, but if you change your principles based on the person in question, then you don't have principles at all.

GoblinSlayer 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Why not, people are different and principles can account for that. It might mean that your alignment isn't fully lawful.

Dylan16807 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Support your allies, yes.

Think everything they do is right? Hell no.

And every once in a while you need to check if your list of allies should change.

PunchyHamster 19 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It leads to keeping the bad people on your "side" just because they share some of the values

> It takes a certain kind of educated liberal bubble to think that is "hilarious"

No, the hilarious part is that the "educated liberal bubble" will do exactly that thing, and then wonder why everyone else is seeing them as crazies; because they'd rather side with bad actors on their side purely because other side is attacking them, no matter the reason.

And of course, not only them. It's natural human herd behavior. And it leads to absolutely terrible end results

The crime is the crime. No matter the leaning of the criminal

Eisenstein 20 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

What happens is that it takes the form of attributing bad things to enemies and good things to allies, such that you are blind to where your allies are not your allies. If your allies are acting opposed to your interests but you like them because they signal to you as an in group, then you are being fooled by them. Thus, it is good to actually evaluate things on their merits once in a while.

convolvatron 20 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

doesn't that undermine the entire reason to have laws? if they are really just excuse to punish our enemies and reward our friends, why even bother with the pretense of a trial?

GoblinSlayer an hour ago | parent [-]

Laws protect interests of the ruling class. If interests are insufficient reason, then what is sufficient?

beepbooptheory 18 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Its "valid" to do anything in this context weirdo, it isnt like a veridical thing!

"It is valid to love my mom, even when she makes me clean my room. This is the thing liberals will never understand."

Don't you have some "cathedral" you gotta go neckbeard on about somewhere else? Perhaps a divorce court hearing?

naasking 20 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> not be so worried if that side has people you don't like on it.

I think the point is that they don't like Sony music because they are so often on the wrong side, this time included.

throwaway894345 a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Presumably the parent’s objection to ISPs and copyright cartels is precisely that they are so frequently (and to such a large degree) unjust. FWIW, I don’t think the parent’s objection was subtle about that point, I’m frankly not sure how it was overlooked.

creddit 19 hours ago | parent [-]

Frankly, I don't see how you can't parse that their point, as written, is "I'm on the side of bad guy A because bad guy B is worse than bad guy A" which is completely orthogonal to "A is in the right and B is in the wrong".

jonny_eh 8 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I said "allow it". It was mainly about my feelings. I can feel what I want. It also just so happens that Cox was in the right and Sony Music was in the wrong.

BizarroLand 17 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

If you look at the whole scenario, this will mean that Cox won't pass $1 billion dollars of punitive fines off to their customers, because, after all, the customers generate the money.

In reality, this would have made their innocent customers pay for the crimes of their guilty customers and made both Sony, and in the long run, Cox richer, because once paying an extra $5/month becomes normalized, then there's no way they're going to go back down in price just because the fine is paid off, any more than the government will ever stop charging tolls on a toll bridge that was paid for by tolls no matter how many times the cost of the toll bridge is paid off.

throwaway894345 17 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Because I'm a native English speaker and "worse" is definitely not orthogonal to "in the wrong".

jumpman_miya a day ago | parent | prev [-]

[dead]