| |
| ▲ | wickedsickeune an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | You are correct that two wrongs don't make a right, but I think that it is obvious that the threat was not real, only symbolic. Therefore it wasn't "wrong". Meanwhile the original, not prosecuted threat message, was real. It's clear that it shows both vindictiveness and unwillingness to protect certain people. | |
| ▲ | sword_smith 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Sure. If you accept that we give up on equality before the law, one might be prosecutable and the other not. Some of us prefer not to give up on that though. | | |
| ▲ | bawolff 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | You dont have to give up equality under the law, you just have to accept that there is a lot more that goes into a prosecution than the act. Were witnesses cooperative and credible, what was the intent, what was context. I dont know the specifics of this case. Maybe there was a miscarriage of justice. But just the fact the acts are the same doesn't show that. There is a lot more factors to consider. | | |
| ▲ | sword_smith 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Your obfuscation carries no argumentative weight, as the uncertainty your obfuscation attempts to introduce might as well be used in the reverse: maybe the guy who made the original threat (that was not prosecuted) had a criminal record involving violent crimes whereas Lars' text obviously should be taken in the political, non-violent, activist context that is his modus operandi. | | |
| ▲ | protocolture 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Correct | |
| ▲ | teiferer 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > might as well be used in the reverse I don't think they would reject that. In fact, you are arguing their point: It's the context that matters, not just the act. Without knowing the context it's not valid to presume a particular scenario. Not sure how that's "obfuscation". | | |
| ▲ | spwa4 27 minutes ago | parent [-] | | It's obfuscation because you're leaving out that this is an openly political fight of an in-power leftist politician against an "extreme-right" party (of course, they're well to the left of the US democrat party). The underlying problem is that a LOT of public servants are very scared what will happen if the party who keeps getting threatened gets elected, which is a real possibility. So, they're using all sorts of underhanded tactics to try to prevent it. In a way, it's a fight about public servants trying to keep their job safe. It's political because they all owe their jobs to a particular coalition that's been in power for ages and ages. Oh and it's a fight about muslim immigration and the influence of that in and on society. So ... That's why it's obfuscation. You're leaving important things out. |
|
| |
| ▲ | vintermann 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > what was the intent, what was context. The intent and context are obviously better for the one who's clearly sending the "threat" as a political statement against selective enforcement. > I dont know the specifics of this case. Maybe there was a miscarriage of justice. But just the fact the acts are the same doesn't show that. There is a lot more factors to consider ... and you're willing to give the benefit of doubt to those with power here. You are aware you're making that implicit statement, right? |
|
| |
| ▲ | arjie 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Indeed, that’s why selective prosecution is an effective weapon. The consequences are asymmetric and demonstrating selectivity is impossible without exposing oneself to the downside. It’s definitely a stable incumbent regime tactic. | | |
|
