Comment on Jury unanimously acquits Churchill statue spray-painter
FishFace@piefed.social 1 week agoTo hear from people who write convincingly
Comment on Jury unanimously acquits Churchill statue spray-painter
FishFace@piefed.social 1 week agoTo hear from people who write convincingly
Zensate@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Ah yes, to hear your own opinion through someone else’s mouth. Echochamber ventriloquism.
FishFace@piefed.social 1 week ago
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.
Zensate@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Don’t confuse your capacity to understand with other people’s capacity to explain.
FishFace@piefed.social 1 week ago
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.