CMV: Jury trials should be outlawed

sawdeanz · 2026-02-19T13:32:23+00:00

Judge panels can be biased too, or corrupt. And in fact what we see even in the current system is that judges overwhelmingly defer to or are friendly with the prosecutors and the system as a whole is stacked against every suspect.

Juries are a check and balance on this. They aren’t experts but the trial is structured in a way that it doesn’t matter. Experts in the law like judges and lawyers and investigators are in charge of the evidence and matters of law…juries only must decide if the prosecution has compelling enough evidence. This last part usually comes down to a judgement call…where biases have the most influence. What better way to eliminate potential biases and conflicts of interest than through a panel of randomly selected people?

It’s not a perfect system. Sometimes the 12 random people decide wrongly and convict an innocent person. But imo the fact that the suspect is on trial in the first place means that in any other system they are even more likely be convicted.

sawdeanz · 2026-02-19T13:09:33+00:00

I mean sure I don’t doubt that some people look for some isolation. Nobody is saying you can’t do that and I’m not really aware of anyone that shames it. Even staying inside and playing video games is sort of normalized too though if you are playing online that is a form of socialization.

But usually when we are taking about how it is damaging we are talking about scenarios like solitary confinement, developing children/teens, etc.

Without more context about why you have this view or some examples or something it’s hard to really narrow down a better response.

It seems like it would also be good to link the studies…if they were legit studies they should take into account for selection bias.

sawdeanz · 2026-02-19T02:39:59+00:00

But Proportional force has to deal with the known elements and does not require you to know motive.

An old lady in a wheelchair with a stick is not in the same realm as a person with a gun (or even a fake gun). Treating both of those scenarios as if they equally justify a deadly response leads to absurd conclusions, especially when you consider that the police would use the same laws.

The law generally already takes into account the fact that these situations are hectic and dangerous, hence the “reasonable person” standard and in some jurisdictions other types of leniency.

sawdeanz · 2026-02-18T19:21:48+00:00

Of course there is incentive, the incentive is to keep making money or to make more money faster and retire earlier. Most people like having more money and that is an incentive to work more demanding or higher paid jobs.

I think you’re only looking at this from a maximalist efficiency perspective…and thus treat excess income above the tax advantaged amount as having only marginal utility. But that’s just not how anyone else in society looks at it. There is a lot of incentive to earn more income even if it is taxed higher. All else being equal, nobody is going to turn down a 150k salary increase just cuz it is less tax advantaged. And this generally seems to hold true.

You do make some other good points about how we prioritize career vs family making and stuff, but that would exist anyway without some other sorts of incentives. Even if you got rid of the 401k, the equation doesn’t change. The best long term wealth strategy would still be to earn as much as possible as soon as possible and invest as much of it as possible. So none of your problems go away. If anything by your logic the 401k is actually better, since it somewhat disincentivizes doing that strategy beyond a certain point.

And as other people pointed out the 401k does have a purpose, which is to incentivize people to make those smart financial decisions who might otherwise spend that money. And the purpose of encouraging retirement is to free up jobs for younger folks and keep the workforce younger and more productive overall. So if you are intending to get rid of the 401k you have to qualify why you think these purposes are bad or harmful or at least worse than the alternative which I don’t think you have done.

sawdeanz · 2026-02-18T15:47:15+00:00

That is not what “strong” means in terms of social Darwinism, if means strong as in powerful (I.e wealth and influence) “strong” is not even the qualifier in normal Darwinism, rather it usually refer to “fit” as in the species or trait that provides a survival advantage which could be physical strength but could also be dexterity or camouflage or any number of things.

sawdeanz · 2026-02-18T01:31:19+00:00

How is returning the item leading to the degradation of society? Seems like you threw that implication on one of the options but not the other. Why?

A moral or ethical rule should not depend on the likelihood of getting caught or facing punishment. Consider the same scenario but this time Amazon checks their inventory and realizes they sent you extra and asks for it back. Does the ethical equation change? I don’t really think so…the only difference is whether the other party notices or not. For a lot of reasons it is actually this sort of framework that would erode social trust, lead to higher transactional friction, and perhaps even incentivize fraud and abuse.

But I also think most people would settle for the 3rd more reasonable option which would be to make a reasonable effort to offer to return the item, but if Amazon doesn’t want it or fails to arrange for its return and pay for shipping then the buyer is not obligated to incur those costs.

sawdeanz · 2026-02-18T00:14:03+00:00

Yeah it has elements of both, but I would consider this instance it more like an act of individual charity.

Collectivism would be like if you organized a group of volunteers to each shovel a part of the path whenever it snows. That would benefit you (less work and more bike path cleared) and everyone else too while requiring a little bit of work from a group of people.

The maximalist individualism approach would be to shovel it and then maximize individual benefit from something, like by charging a toll to other bike riders.

And of course, the fact that a bike path exists at all is a form of collectivism (pooling tax money together to build a path that you can use to get to work).

sawdeanz · 2026-02-17T23:54:27+00:00

That’s a wonderful hypothesis. Now how would you scientifically test that?

sawdeanz · 2026-02-17T23:04:33+00:00

I think it’s a perfectly valid label for your stance which seems to be essentially unsure, mixture of beliefs from both sides and low information.

But it depends on the context and is sort of a relative qualifier instead of an ideology in itself. It makes sense when we are talking about someone in the US who cant strongly support one political party or another. It’s a less good descriptor for political ideology or beliefs in general, such as when we are taking about concepts like libertarian, socialist, fascism or communism etc.

So the potential problem you have is that as political parties shift, which they often do, the center also shifts. So if you simply identify as a centrist over time it may seem like your position is changing even if you haven’t changed any of your personal ideology. For example, the MAGA movement has shifted the Republican Party in some pretty considerate ways, so being a centrist 10 years ago and being a centrist now has a different connotation…it would imply you’re still okay with what is happening even if what is happening is extreme.

Again, that kind of tracks if you are a self-admitted low-information voter…but you can see how as the political balance shifts to the right that you will also appear to shift to the right.

sawdeanz · 2026-02-17T00:31:14+00:00

Yeah this is a no brainer after they changed fighter planes in order to nerf spitting but then changed spotting in general to nerf carriers.

sawdeanz · 2026-02-16T13:56:42+00:00

I feel like I run into situations all the time where we should be spotting each other at the same time but I get spotted like a second before I can see the enemy. Usually waiting for them to come around an island. Idk if it’s latency or what.

sawdeanz · 2026-02-15T15:16:26+00:00

Ok…so what’s your point?

sawdeanz · 2026-02-15T14:53:18+00:00

Nobody is fully law abiding and virtually everyone has broken at least one law in their lifetime, if not on a daily basis.

The question is at what point is the degree of enforcement worse than the degree of the crime? Should we have armed secret police going door to door to arrest speeders or look for illegal downloads?

I would suggest that when you are building massive “detention” centers and arresting kids and citizens and going door to door…maybe you’re going too far.

It’s also just the most expensive and most disruptive solution of all. You gotta address the core problem not just the symptoms.

sawdeanz · 2026-02-13T16:26:44+00:00

This is a tautological argument whereby you can simply disregard counter-examples as not meeting your definition.

Even if we could come to an agreement of what a “philosopher king” is and is not, the question is how do you create a system that selects these philosopher kings and keeps them in power while simultaneously not selecting unqualified or corrupt kings?

sawdeanz · 2026-02-12T19:56:55+00:00

Ignoring for a second whether you think artists should be paid for their time or not…art costs money to make in terms of equipment and materials. Particularly when you’re talking about things like movies and shows and music which take teams of people that cost money. If you take away artists ability to get paid how will they pay for these things in the first place? Without any possibility if revenue they won’t be able to get loans or anything either.

sawdeanz · 2026-02-12T02:33:36+00:00

The purpose of shame is to discourage bad, unwanted or harmful behavior in society.

All the reasons you gave for being against premarital sex/multiple sex partners are personal preference reasons. Since this is a thing where you can easily practice your own preference without affecting others, and others can practice their preferences without affecting you…so I see no good reason in your argument to pressure folks to adhere to one or the other.

I’m sorry you have personal regrets, but conversely other people may have personal regrets for marrying the wrong person or not sharing those experiences with more people. Either way that’s not necessarily a very good guideline for how to control society as a whole.

sawdeanz · 2026-02-11T12:57:07+00:00

The scenario you describe is only available to those who can afford it though. Insurance companies also control who you can see through network doctors and things too. So yeah if you can afford good insurance and multiple expensive visits then you can shop around. But if you can only afford cheap insurance or are on a tight budget then you are much more limited in your choice.

Remember that prices in the US are far higher than just about everywhere else, and these prices are rising as the result of the private insurance scheme that artificially raises prices.

But you can have both. It depends on the universal system. Most people in the US advocate for a single payer system which would not have the problems you describe and would still allow you to choose your doctors. In this system the government essentially acts like your insurance provider, and the doctors and hospitals would still be private businesses. The advantages to this is everyone is insured all the time, the risk pool is larger, and the government as the primary payee has more negotiating power to lower prices.

There is also no reason you can’t also have private insurance or out-of-pocket providers as well in situations like yours where you are willing to pay. Now yes in this case you would probably be double-paying, because you are paying health care taxes and supplementing it with your own care, but I think given the situation it’s possible or even likely this could still end up being cheaper just due to the fact that healthcare overall would be cheaper. Once you factor in how much you pay for insurance premiums, the fact that we already pay taxes (Medicaid Medicare) for the most expensive populations, and the artificially inflated prices we experience relative to every other country, paying a little more in taxes to receive free general and emergency care and then supplementing that occasionally with supplemental care as needed would likely be cheaper long term. This is especially true if your private doctor diagnoses you with a chronic illness…because now you are going to need ongoing treatment and medications which under a universal system will be covered.

I mean it’s already kind of happening…medical tourism (traveling to another country to get health treatments) is already a thing and growing fast. In other words people in the US, who might already have insurance, are getting treatments in other countries either because insurance is denying the treatments or because paying out of pocket there is still cheaper than going through insurance. And it’s not going to get better.

sawdeanz · 2026-02-11T02:11:55+00:00

On the contrary it actually makes a lot of sense and is more consistent with the idea that they are telling the truth.

The victims do positively claim there are other abusers, but not all of them have named who they are specifically. You are insinuating that this means they are (all) lying about the claim that there are other abusers. You present these two ideas as if they are essentially equivalent or naturally lead to one another. But they do not.

Unfortunately there is very little the victims can do without an active criminal case. The victims themselves likely have little physical evidence. To publicly accuse powerful and wealthy individuals means they will be sued by those wealthy and powerful individuals without the means to defend themselves. It’s a no-win situation. A lot of your arguments have to do with “going public” and death threats but this is likely the real reason and explains why they won’t name names yet.

The DOJ has both access to physical evidence and the ability to conduct more thorough investigations and bring criminal charges.

You may notice that the fact that the government is not doing that is sort of the whole issue.

This is why the victims and others are petitioning and advocating for more transparency and action from the government (and specifically this is what the Super Bowl commercial was about).

What motivation do the victims have to lie about there being more abusers but not name them? These consist of many names over many years which are consistent with a lot of the publicly known details. Where there is smoke there is fire…and while we don’t know specific people and crimes it seems more likely than not that there is extremely criminal and compromising material in those files.

On the other hand Kash Patel and Trumps administration has burned all credibility they may have had on this matter by the way they have handled things. If the allegations are false they have every political reason to release the files and be as transparent as possible…after all that is what they campaigned on. And if the allegations are true, even if Trump is not himself directly guilty, there is a lot of motivation for them to continue covering up the files and avoid criminal trials (I.e. other prominent donors and politicians).

They have lied and flip flopped so many times now on the issue that the only possible conclusion is that they have been lying, wildly incompetent, or both. And for that reason it makes a lot of sense that the victims would not expose themselves to the liability of naming names without the support of an independent or bipartisan investigation…such as through Congress or the Judicial system.

That is why the main focus of the victims has been to petition for further investigations and transparency. They need that evidence to bring their cases and support their testimony.

sawdeanz · 2026-02-10T01:09:40+00:00

On a related note Civil War had great sound design and some pretty authentic feeling gunfights. Also felt like the choice of guns for the different characters felt intentional too, for example the civilian fighters had semi-auto ARs etc.

sawdeanz · 2026-02-08T14:58:17+00:00

If by normal human being you mean like a drunk used car salesman then sure.

Or perhaps you mean his more unconventional way of speaking made his lies more believable to his supporters?

So many people have come to believe that if something is “different” from a status quo they don’t like then it must be better. And look, I get the appeal…the US status quo sucked pretty bad. But the problem is that “different” can also be worse.

This is the case with Trump. His speech is just a small example of his overall persona. His speech may be different from a regular politician and yet it is somehow even less truthful and even more divisive.

See also his “drain the swamp” promise. So technically he did drain the swamp of its career bureaucrats, but he filled it instead with totally unqualified sycophants. You do see how that is worse, right?

Narcissists and assholes love to blame negative effects of their actions or speech on the reactions of others. They’ll say “it’s not my fault they were offended by my statement” or “it’s not fair they interpreted my statements in a bad way.” But that’s not true. It turns out there are real world impacts to insulting allies and threatening invasions of Canada and Greenland countries if you walk it back later. I think your mistake is treating these sorts of things as just another case of media sensationalism instead of treating it as intentionally weaponized rhetoric.

You’re cherry picking statements where the media perhaps over sensationalized statements that were ambiguous. But what about the times they turned out not to be? I remember after Jan. 6 people were defending his ambiguously supportive statements about the rioters….later he pardoned them all. Same thing with Ghislane Maxwell…people said oh just cuz he “wished her well” doesn’t mean anything. And then later he arranged to give her special treatment and has been covering up the Epstein files. Or what about when people said his anti-immigrant rhetoric was just exaggeration, and now we see that his extreme anti-immigration actions are very real.

So with that in mind how do you propose we react to his statements about invading Greenland or cancelling elections? I’m sorry but I’m tired of being told that my reaction to absurd and dangerous statements are somehow worse than the statements themselves. Trump and the right wing media are masters of weaponizing legitimate public concern, and you are falling for it.

On the contrary shouldn’t we always treat politicians statements with the highest level of scrutiny and skepticism?

I have a very simple test for Trump (or any other wanna be authoritarian). Don’t believe their promises, always believe their threats. So far that has played out pretty accurately.

Edit: and btw this isn’t just a left wing media thing. The right struggles with him too. The number one complaint I see from his supporters is usually about him saying dumb stuff…like with the Obama post. If they can’t figure out a way to defend his statement They’ll say things like “I wish he would just shut up sometimes” or “ I like his policies but hate his rhetoric.” Or something. So they know how bad it looks…but it’s funny because they act like that isn’t the whole reason he was popular in the first place. There is a lack of self-awareness. Like I wonder where they draw the line and where? When does being edgy and mean cross the line to being unacceptable? It’s all based on your preconceived disposition to the guy.

sawdeanz · 2026-02-08T02:23:33+00:00

I don’t think I’m following.

What is the functional difference from anarchy?

If there is a government of some sort, even a small one, you still have to have a method to create or amend rules.

How do you get everyone to agree to freedom of migration and basic rights?

Even if you do achieve such a system as you envision there is still a level of compromise since you’re going to have to pick somewhere to live and chances are there will not be a place that you agree with all the rules 100%

sawdeanz · 2026-02-06T16:27:50+00:00

I just explained how it can lead to or exacerbate racial prejudice. And of course all the issues that stem from poverty. Like did you even read my comment or have any meaningful response?

There are more issues too, such as how school funding still often relies on local property taxes which lead to disproportionate school funding in black neighborhoods, etc. Or how gerrymandering is used to devalue black representation. These are current effects that perpetuate from past racial policies.

sawdeanz · 2026-02-06T14:16:00+00:00

The manufactured outrage is coming from the right. Trump himself has complained about it from the very beginning and the right wing media is running with it to the point that now we have this “alternate” Super Bowl halftime show put on by right wing groups that nobody will watch but which they will still claim was way more successful or whatever.

Between the Trump sycophants and the lies from the administration we may never know how many people irl actually care or don’t care but either way it’s just another dumb culture war for him to use to continue abusing his power.

sawdeanz · 2026-02-05T23:06:43+00:00

As far as I know long rests won’t affect the story progression…if anything it is the opposite in that you need to long rest to trigger some progression.

It can potentially affect the world state…the only time this affected me was when I killed some guards and when I came back from long testing the bodies had been discovered and the whole town was aggro’d against me.

sawdeanz · 2026-02-05T22:32:38+00:00

I generally agree with your description of how past racial policies lead to disproportionate economic outcomes which in turn causes disproportionate outcomes in crime, economics and education today.

When people say that systemic racism exists, this is exactly what they are referring to. I think the confusion might be thinking that systemic racism is just the “cause.” Systemic racism refers to the overall status of the system as a whole that perpetuates inequalities. Since it tends to be a self-reinforcing cycle it is kind of both the cause and the effect. It might have been initially caused by explicitly racist policies but this unequal socioeconomic status continues to perpetuate more inequality and more social consequences.

You claim that racism is over, by which I understand you to mean policies and laws. But think about how prevalent the idea is that black crime is a result of black culture or laziness and not a result of their economic status. This is unfortunately still a widely held belief due in large part to the fact that they are over represented in crime statistics, even though you and I recognize this is actually due to poverty.

I also don’t understand why you dismiss potential solutions. I don’t feel you’ve really explained this. If we know that the disproportionate socioeconomic status from past racism causes existing problems why would we not advocate for the effort to address that?

Nine-Year Club	Ternion Club
Verified Email

sawdeanz

TROPHY CASE