Nicky (They/Them)

IF YOU'RE UNEMPLOYED IT'S NOT BECAUSE THERE ISNT ANY WORK JUST LOOK AROUND: A HOUSING SHORTAGE, CRIME, POLLUTION; WE NEED BETTER SCHOOLS AND PARKS. WHATEVER OUR NEEDS, THEY ALL REQUIRE WORK. AND AS LONG AS WE HAVE UNSATISFIED NEEDS, THERE'S WORK TO BE DONE. SO ASK YOURSELE, WHAT KIND OF WORLD HAS WORK BUT NO JOBS. IT'S A WORLD WHERE WORK IS NOT RELATED TO SATISFYING OUR NEEDS, WORLD WHERE WORK IS ONLY RELATED TO SATISFYING THE PROFIT NEEDS OF BUSINESS. THIS COUNTRY WAS NOT BUILT BY THE HUGE CORPORATIONS OR GOVERNMENT BUREAUCRACIES. IT WAS BUILT BY PEOPLE WHO WORK. AND, IT IS WORKING PEOPLE WHO SHOULD CONTROL THE WORK TO BE DONE. YET, AS LONG AS EMPLOYMENT IS TIED TO SOMEBODY ELSE'S PROFITS, THE WORK WONT GET DONE.

the Black Panthers were right

Further concessions:

I have a raised bed (3ft), have a fan pointed at the door (for air circulation without getting cold), and use a CPAP that’s up higher than my bed.

Room is 12x12. He vapes in a larger community room next door, 13x13ish.

We can focus on rehabilitation, increase social safety net, ensure better education, reduce childhood trauma, build resort like prisons, etc.. But at the end of the day, Ted Bundy has to go somewhere.

US convicts enemies of the state with same mechanism of corruption on terrorism charges.

22 years on death row on average in the US. China’s timeline is 7 days by law.

Countries will defend themselves or fade away to foreign funded insurrections.

All systems are bad options and should be a last resort. No high horse needed here picking between the two.

Communist societies had to wrestle control from capitalist and colonial systems in blood because that’s what those systems demand.

Do I endorse them? No. But it is naive to see China’s use of death penalty for drug traffickers and not make the connection to destabilization through weaponized opium.

But this is the second time I’ve been on this topic in a week. First was China announcing death penalty for sex crimes against children in a socialist subreddit and now in terms of a socialist pointing out another case of someone who cannot participate in society safely.

Prisons are a blight on society and using them as a go to solution without the same level of scrutiny we had for the death penalty is actively obtuse.

It’s torture and death for both outcomes just different ratios.

Not really sure about the last semantic objection in that thread but in case people following it want to know my point: it’s a no win situation.

Some criminals commit crimes so often and/or ergergious they can’t participate in society. Humans need society, more or less, for quality of life.

Please go to bed. I promise arguing with me isn’t worth it lol. I’ll still be around if you pick it up again.

We have already established that difference.

If someone spent 24 years in prison with non human conditions and was exonerated of conviction, do you think 6 remaining years of life, albeit free, after having all resources and connections in your life decimated is moral?

For those curious, I’m talking about this study that’s often cited: www.urban.org/sites/defaul...

So is life in prison moral when the death penalty is not?

If they’re unquestionably guilty, the permanency of death is irrelevant. If there’s a chance they’re not, both are permanently damaging to life and human rights.

This is unevenly applying conditions. If a person is definitively guilty we have to look at life imprison and death penalty the same. Cherry picking conditions doesn’t service your point.

Deleted and reposted to fix wording.

Not quite. The study it’s founded on is based on self selection bias. If you average cost of all cases the death penalty is sought (which is how the state funds prosecutors win or lose) the cost on average is lower than life because of scale. Litigation is more expensive but not 8 extra years.

Convictions for death penalties in the US have insanely high requirements. Reducing that standard has implications for how many people are convicted.

How often do you think people were wrongfully executed in such a slow and expensive litigation process?

Right, there are differences but error for life imprisonment is still pretty fucking unfair.

States have mostly abandoned the death penalty but when it was more common, it usually took 22 years after their last conviction for execution. Average lifespan in prison is 30 years.

Sounds like you’re clarifying intention and I appreciate that.

Is life in prison moral? It has many of the same problems you outlined above. US industrial prison conditions are frequently not fit for humans.

I’m assuming we’d both prefer rehabilitation whenever effective.

Do you mind expanding on the second sentence?

Obviously this a nuanced issue but you’re using a pretty large blanket statement here so I want to make sure that’s the intention. In no circumstances, yes?

To clarify, I get death threats on social media from random cowards because of my gender and sexuality. No debate, no controversial take they disagree with (other than me continuing to live). They ban evade and try to dox and intimidate me other ways.

That’s serious and the law protects me.

I disagree they’re serious. It’s bluesky.

Ad hominem does nothing to strengthen an argument so I just point it out when others use it to see if we can move past. If they don’t, it’s not worth my time.

If they brigade, my time and energy is better spent blocking and/or reporting to stop momentum.

My recommendation is still the same. Upset or not there’s nothing to for you to gain here.

Obviously, you’re entitled to your original and clarified opinions and I disagree with both but I commented on your reply because I couldn’t tell if you were arguing in bad faith as an outsider.

I appreciate the apology. I don’t know who Gabe is. A mutual commented on your post.

I recommend considering the energy you’re putting into this and what you get out of it. Why does it upset you if people you don’t know and never will call you things you think are false?

Why would I care to do that with such a patronizing response?

You may want to reflect on your tone and that nobody is entitled to someone else’s body regardless of context.

Are you intentionally misreading what they said?

They’re comparing you to people who excuse non judicial unreasonable crimes in lieu of cheating. They’re saying you’re inconsistently applying two wrongs make a right because you endorse unreasonable punishments for relationship slights.

I’ve never felt so seen in a comic before “Urban Sickos”.

So you’re the only fey entity involved?

…are they cursed? Best fries but their children are part fry in exchange?

How are they the best?

Liberals mourn politicians crossing the aisle on legislation because it means they have to work with the left instead of conservatives.

This is why it’s unhelpful to talk about them on a spectrum. They’re all just centrists. R’s just found a consistent extremist base that likes cruelty.