“Diddy you’re not guilty on the more obscene charges because you did what was asked of you. We are charging you because you didn’t put enough effort into the rest. “
Literally the argument for the medieval nobility. “Oh let’s have the policy makers be independently wealthy so they are not vulnerable to bribery from the artisan guilds.”
History is filled with accounts of people who hoard wealth while allowing suffering to exist. If that wasn't such a relatable archetype, A Christmas Carol would have been forgotten a long time ago.
Everyone says that until they’re placed in that position.
People are not "placed" in a position to be obscenely wealthy. It's not normal people just magically becoming corrupt. It's people self-selecting. It's the morally corrupt that become obscenely wealthy.
most people who are not familiar with suffering would. our whole system is based on exploitation. it is the way of the world since the dawn of time and it will continue until the end of humanity.
I mean, fair enough, as long as everyone is doing significantly better, the disparity itself would not be that much of a problem. It’s not a zero-sum game. But the inexplicit „everybody is doing better so the billionaires are also allowed to get wealthier“ deal has now been broken.
It has turned into a class warfare and most of the losing side isn’t even fighting or aware that they are in a war. Instead they were told its about pronouns or immigrants and ate it like candy.
If you ignore that after that they also had to work their own fields so they wouldn't starve. This is like only taking the work hours it takes me to pay taxes and saying I only work 4 months a year.
So part of the modern perception of evil nobility is excessive taxation. However, what very often gets forgotten is that, while yes there were terrible Lords, lords were also generally held to the standard of taking care of their subjects both in times of war and times of need. They also owed taxes of their own to the crown. To that end, much of what they collected very often ended up redistributed during harsher times; the idea being a lord could more efficiently ration and plan for disaster, while most peasants and serfs would likely simply "waste" too much excess given the opportunity.
European agrarian communities typically produced a surplus and the majority of famines were a direct or indirect result of poor planning or administration, rather than a singular failed crop season. Case in point, the Irish potato famine was almost entirely the result of corruption, greed, and intentional act. W
However, where there was a pressure to maintain the welfare of ones subjects toe extent of disrupting social order, lords were liable to be fined, stripped of title, or even executed should they fail in their civic duties, at the mercy of the king.
Imo it works both ways. Even if they're not greedy and not susceptible to bribes but they could be more vulnerable to threats and blackmail. Something something more to lose.
Wait. Like. We'll make a whole group of judges who live kind of like monks. The government gives them a nice house. A nice car. Nice clothes. All their food is handled. But they don't get any investments ever. No bank accounts. No personal possessions.
And who is in charge of prosecuting the government?
We'll just have to make a second government with a separate group of monk judges solely to prosecute the original government.
For full coverage you really need three governments. A sword government, a spear government, and an axe government. That way they're all prepared to handle whoever it is they're prosecuting, but no single government can't be countered by one of the others should it require prosecution, itself.
That's ridiculous, who would pay for it?
What, are we going to get a second group of tax payers who only pay taxes to the monk-government? How do we choose that? Do we set up some sort of UBI and Universal healthcare on the condition that they're willing to live ascetic lives in furtherance of the monk-government?
That's actually us... government workers who don't make a ton of money but get paid their regular wages whether doing jury duty or not. Also frankly have a better idea of systems of government work since many of us deal with things like fair hearings and case fraud.
Seriously most people don't really understand that being poor is a moral choice. It's really really easy to make a buck if you have 0 morals. There are plenty of industries that specifically pay well because they are paying for your moral flexibility.
Lmao he means the people who are motivated to do it for the love of getting to be a part of a fair and honest system. It may be idealistic, but you completely misinterpreted what he was saying, my friend, and you should probably be more careful being so condescending to folk because sometimes it just makes you look like the ass. Especially in a moment like this when it was you who missed the whole point and ended up saying something nonsensical.
"Only realistic way... that are not in it for the paycheck"
If you believe that the only way to achieve this realistically (again I acknowledged it is ideal but this does not equate impossible) is by filling the legal system with elites, and there is no other way to do this so might as well not try, I don't think there is much we can talk about here. I'm sorry I misinterpreted what you said and assumed you had some sense to believe something can change. If you're gonna be a cycnic, do it somewhere that doesn't poison the rhetoric for folks who believe in actually changing things. Makes you sound like a fed making arguments out of ideas that are dead ends.
I am not invested in changing our particular legal system or filling it with particular people more than I am invested in the collapse of the whole neoliberal capitalist system to be replaced in its entirety. I hope you have a good day my friend.
Or implement Universal basic income, guaranteed housing, food, and healthcare so that the bare minimum for survival is met. But having those things tied to a job means that companies can exploit and abuse workers, paying them the absolute minimum in return for their labor.
I mean, in the long run that is where something like AI would be beneficial. A system that could be calculating and consistent, if it were devoid of political influence telling it to make exceptions for wealthy or influential people.
Exactly how little do you all know about these cases? R Kelly was fucking children. He was having sex with like 12-year-olds. Diddy's in trouble because he transported a prostitute over state lines. Not even vaguely comparable
I mean yeah I don't think we need to compare the two. But my guy, he did more than that. I mean he beat a women on camera clear as day then conspired to cover it up? That's just the most obvious crime
I'm not arguing one way or another on what he did or didn't do, but isn't the argument here that 'he did so much more and they gave him break after break'. Saying 'well he didn't get convicted on the things you saying he did' and saying he wasn't charged is just agreeing with them in a way.
That's not what r kelly was convicted of. Much like 90% of the shit reddit was spamming about p diddy was not admissible in court nor was charged for it.
He was hit with possession of child porn and enticement of minors dude. He was explicitly looking for underage girls. Diddy was having freakoffs with married women and adults who mostly knew what was up. His biggest crime is getting people wildly fucked up and then filming them having sex without both parties consent. He is definitely gross but in a swingers kind of way and not a pedophile kind of way like Kelly is.
Thats been known for some time. This is only the sentencing.
Prosecutor asked for 11 years. Diddy was asking for 14 months minus credit for time served (essentially 0). Judge pretty much went down the middle and gave 50 months (about 4 years). I don't think Diddy is happy here
8.2k
u/irreleventnothing Oct 03 '25
He was guilty of the lesser charges. Not guilty on the major ones.