prole

joined 9 months ago
[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 2 weeks ago

Holy Christ... If true, this would be so much darker and more evil than I ever expected from these people.

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (3 children)

Language is extremely powerful. This is all part of the erasure (an integral part btw).

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 2 weeks ago

I remember reading recently that it's gotten better (haven't tried myself so don't hold me to it). I can say that Wayland in general has come a long way since I switched to Linux ~2 years ago

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 2 weeks ago

Give your balls a tug

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 2 weeks ago

Ok... But is that really "jury nullification"? The word "nullify" implies that they are disagreeing with the law, so they choose not to enforce it. That can only go one way in this situation.

Also, the judge would have to agree, as they have the authority to forego the jury verdict from guilty to not guilty (but not vice versa).

It's by no means a perfect system, but what is?

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 2 weeks ago

Boy are cloacas so much more than just a butt...

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

DDG search is garbage, I'm sorry... Whenever I switch to a browser that defaults to it, I'm reminded why I always switch it back to Google (unfortunately). Even Yandex is better, and that's prob Russian spyware.

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 16 points 2 weeks ago (16 children)

There is nothing political about acknowledging peoples' existence.

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 41 points 2 weeks ago (14 children)

Tankies are annoying, but they're not on the same level as fascists.

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

You can disagree with laws, but that feels like a terrible reason to nullify a legitimate guilty decision.

And what if the law is "trans people cannot exist"?

That too far-fetched for you (it really shouldn't be at this point but whatever), then what if you were on a jury in the south during Jim Crow?

It's about disagreeing with patently unjust laws.

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (4 children)

That goes both ways, people can convict without evidence

This doesn't seem right... My understanding of jury nullification is that it ends with the charges being dismissed. I didn't think it went both ways. Like, I don't think a jury can say, "we know there isn't evidence that this person is guilty, but we want to put them away anyway."

view more: ‹ prev next ›