So I guess it has been a few weeks so I guess I'll open up a bit on my thoughts on the matter.
Unlike the prior article that I had embargoed myself, there wasn't really any comment here covered the items that I thought about with this article.
One thing about the article was that I did mention during editing, is that it talks about two separate aspects of justice in the same article. The Black Live Matters movement and the Me Too movement. I had put in an inquiry if the author had wanted to separate out the two parts into separate articles.
1) An article about furry leadership's lackluster responses during the height of the George Floyd protests.
2) An article dealing with the MeToo situations in the fandom and blasé responses by conventions, focusing on their Vancouver activism.
However, they indicated they would rather it be all one article, and honestly it is less work for me to keep it on one article than to separate it into two, so I let that stand.
So, why do I see these two separate movements as separate while most with liberal tendencies tend to see them as one and the same (other than creating un-natural divides making it easier to force citizens into voting blocks, nerd)? Basically it comes down to how these two movements wish to modify the justice system.
In order to understand this, and why it's important to view the objectives of those of good motives within these movements as separate actions, we put the concept of justice upon a scale. Which is fitting, of course, a scale is often used as a symbol of justice, typically held by someone blindfolded. However, most adults know that justice isn't blind, as stated in the movie "Oh Brother, Where Art Thou?": The Law is a Human institution. So let's take a closer look at how the scale is actually balanced using a picture:
As you can see, the balance of Justice is harsher on those with less social/Eeconomic status then on those with higher social/economic status. This is obvious to anyone with eyes and I think even the apologetic pro-law enforcement person knows this to be true.
So why is this important? Or more importantly, how does this show the difference in these movements?
With a quick modification to this same picture we can see why the MeToo and BLM objectives with the justice system are not equivalent:
From here we can see that the Black Lives Matter movement indicates that changes need to be made to the justice system so that those who are marginalized either socially or economically deserve to have a justice system that treats them with more respect and far less harshly. Some would go so far as to indicate that Law Enforcement as it is know should be abolished, but weather they are Abolitionist or not, the end goal is for the before stated lightening of the justice load upon the downtrodden.
On the other side of the scale, the Me Too movement demands that those who are of higher social and economic status feel too comfortable in the system as it is. Thus, they are more likely to try and commit heinous acts without consequence. And as a consequence of this, women tend to be mistreated by those with that kind of status: from Bill Clinton, to Bill Cosby, to Matt Lauer, to Donald Trump.
So they want the scales of justice to be harder on those up top.
In essence, they are both right, and if they push for their respective changes to rebalance the scales then the feelings of a 'lack of justice' will ebb. For interestingly enough, while the BLM movement was marching for unjustified killing of George Floyd, they were were also provoked by a President who made a statement that indicated the government would start shooting citizens [Looting starts, shootings start]. If any of us non-politician types made a tweet like that at the time it was made, we would have been kicked from the platform. No if, ands or buts. It was not until January 6th, after Trump ultimately proved to the whole world by his own actions what his intent to use the internet was actually for, that he was treated as the rest of us mere mortals.
So let's go back to the article at hand:
There isn't much discussion here about the systems of justice, how they was developed, and the iteration of these systems. No mention of the Code of Hammurabi, the Magna Carta, the Constitution, and other said examples. To know where we are going, it's important to know where we have been.
All of these systems have flaws, and all of these systems have been iterated for many millennia. This is why most modern governmental systems have these things called "amendments".
As an example, one of the latest major iterations of changes to the United States justice system came from the late 1960s when Miranda Rights were implemented. It's a change we take for granted and ironically most people think they were always a thing these days (just as we tend to take for granted all the prior major iterations to the system). One furry example of an adult thinking Miranda Rights were always a thing is the furry adventure game BlackSad: Under the Skin, which ended with the criminal being read them. Blacksad takes place during the 50s which can be discerned by character dialog. I wonder if the comics make the same mistake the game made.
Getting back to the article (again):
We must look at the penultimate desire by the author here. To dispose of this system of 'theatrics'.
First off, I must note, that for the people involved in trials, both victims and the prosecuted, this isn't a stage people want to be on. To them it isn't some anecdotal story about rats and barley. But let me bite.
I'll be the defense lawyer for these rats for a moment and pretend they made their court date. Why should an entire species of animals be condemned to genocide merely because the farmers who are responsible for their crops refuse to take proper precautions to keep the animals who commit the trespass directly off of their property? Why should those of that species that keep to the woods and keep to themselves suffer because another group of their species were pillaging the human food? Are we saying that human survival is tantamount to all else and that it is more important than the lives of the other animals we share this planet with?
Let's transition for a moment.
If the continuation of the human species should be held tantamount without trial for the rats, then why not the humans be held to that standard without trial? After all, some governments agree with that assessment. Russia recently stated that furries, LGBT, and 'the childless movement' are a threat to our species and thus their government. After all, those people are eating barley and don't plan on continuing the human species through procreation. Aren't they 'wasting resources' that those farmers are making that could be going toward families that are procreating?
That's the biggest item of this article that I had an issue with. The last thing that anyone who is trans* should be calling for is the abolishment of our system of justice that is based on the rule of law and not the feelings of impassioned individuals toward some eugenic objective. Because if you think it's bad being the barley, wait until you're the rat being killed to protect the barley, even if you never took a nibble.
Because we have history on how well that goes in America: it's named Salem. As a person who studied theater I believe the author of this piece knows what "The Crucible" is. I mean— it was about Salem literally, but really was a metaphor for the Red Scare where you had Senators literally playing judge, jury, and executioner trying to circumvent the Judicial Branch to change the country's demographics to be more loyal toward their causes (political eugenics as it were). No worries, we iterated the system so that now congress has to request contempt charges be levied through the Judicial Branch now for better or for worse (it's why the whole Steve Bannon contempt thing is taking 'forever').
In conclusion, if the author's goal is to get rid of the judicial process and branch and just leave policing to the most impassioned of citizens, then I leave you with this question: What do you think those that stormed the Capitol Building on January 6th were trying to accomplish?
So I guess it has been a few weeks so I guess I'll open up a bit on my thoughts on the matter.
Unlike the prior article that I had embargoed myself, there wasn't really any comment here covered the items that I thought about with this article.
One thing about the article was that I did mention during editing, is that it talks about two separate aspects of justice in the same article. The Black Live Matters movement and the Me Too movement. I had put in an inquiry if the author had wanted to separate out the two parts into separate articles.
1) An article about furry leadership's lackluster responses during the height of the George Floyd protests.
2) An article dealing with the MeToo situations in the fandom and blasé responses by conventions, focusing on their Vancouver activism.
However, they indicated they would rather it be all one article, and honestly it is less work for me to keep it on one article than to separate it into two, so I let that stand.
So, why do I see these two separate movements as separate while most with liberal tendencies tend to see them as one and the same (other than creating un-natural divides making it easier to force citizens into voting blocks, nerd)? Basically it comes down to how these two movements wish to modify the justice system.
In order to understand this, and why it's important to view the objectives of those of good motives within these movements as separate actions, we put the concept of justice upon a scale. Which is fitting, of course, a scale is often used as a symbol of justice, typically held by someone blindfolded. However, most adults know that justice isn't blind, as stated in the movie "Oh Brother, Where Art Thou?": The Law is a Human institution. So let's take a closer look at how the scale is actually balanced using a picture:
https://www.flayrah.com/sites/default/files/u/Sonious/Justice1.jpg
As you can see, the balance of Justice is harsher on those with less social/Eeconomic status then on those with higher social/economic status. This is obvious to anyone with eyes and I think even the apologetic pro-law enforcement person knows this to be true.
So why is this important? Or more importantly, how does this show the difference in these movements?
With a quick modification to this same picture we can see why the MeToo and BLM objectives with the justice system are not equivalent:
https://www.flayrah.com/sites/default/files/u/Sonious/Justice2.jpg
From here we can see that the Black Lives Matter movement indicates that changes need to be made to the justice system so that those who are marginalized either socially or economically deserve to have a justice system that treats them with more respect and far less harshly. Some would go so far as to indicate that Law Enforcement as it is know should be abolished, but weather they are Abolitionist or not, the end goal is for the before stated lightening of the justice load upon the downtrodden.
On the other side of the scale, the Me Too movement demands that those who are of higher social and economic status feel too comfortable in the system as it is. Thus, they are more likely to try and commit heinous acts without consequence. And as a consequence of this, women tend to be mistreated by those with that kind of status: from Bill Clinton, to Bill Cosby, to Matt Lauer, to Donald Trump.
So they want the scales of justice to be harder on those up top.
In essence, they are both right, and if they push for their respective changes to rebalance the scales then the feelings of a 'lack of justice' will ebb. For interestingly enough, while the BLM movement was marching for unjustified killing of George Floyd, they were were also provoked by a President who made a statement that indicated the government would start shooting citizens [Looting starts, shootings start]. If any of us non-politician types made a tweet like that at the time it was made, we would have been kicked from the platform. No if, ands or buts. It was not until January 6th, after Trump ultimately proved to the whole world by his own actions what his intent to use the internet was actually for, that he was treated as the rest of us mere mortals.
So let's go back to the article at hand:
There isn't much discussion here about the systems of justice, how they was developed, and the iteration of these systems. No mention of the Code of Hammurabi, the Magna Carta, the Constitution, and other said examples. To know where we are going, it's important to know where we have been.
All of these systems have flaws, and all of these systems have been iterated for many millennia. This is why most modern governmental systems have these things called "amendments".
As an example, one of the latest major iterations of changes to the United States justice system came from the late 1960s when Miranda Rights were implemented. It's a change we take for granted and ironically most people think they were always a thing these days (just as we tend to take for granted all the prior major iterations to the system). One furry example of an adult thinking Miranda Rights were always a thing is the furry adventure game BlackSad: Under the Skin, which ended with the criminal being read them. Blacksad takes place during the 50s which can be discerned by character dialog. I wonder if the comics make the same mistake the game made.
Getting back to the article (again):
We must look at the penultimate desire by the author here. To dispose of this system of 'theatrics'.
First off, I must note, that for the people involved in trials, both victims and the prosecuted, this isn't a stage people want to be on. To them it isn't some anecdotal story about rats and barley. But let me bite.
I'll be the defense lawyer for these rats for a moment and pretend they made their court date. Why should an entire species of animals be condemned to genocide merely because the farmers who are responsible for their crops refuse to take proper precautions to keep the animals who commit the trespass directly off of their property? Why should those of that species that keep to the woods and keep to themselves suffer because another group of their species were pillaging the human food? Are we saying that human survival is tantamount to all else and that it is more important than the lives of the other animals we share this planet with?
Let's transition for a moment.
If the continuation of the human species should be held tantamount without trial for the rats, then why not the humans be held to that standard without trial? After all, some governments agree with that assessment. Russia recently stated that furries, LGBT, and 'the childless movement' are a threat to our species and thus their government. After all, those people are eating barley and don't plan on continuing the human species through procreation. Aren't they 'wasting resources' that those farmers are making that could be going toward families that are procreating?
That's the biggest item of this article that I had an issue with. The last thing that anyone who is trans* should be calling for is the abolishment of our system of justice that is based on the rule of law and not the feelings of impassioned individuals toward some eugenic objective. Because if you think it's bad being the barley, wait until you're the rat being killed to protect the barley, even if you never took a nibble.
Because we have history on how well that goes in America: it's named Salem. As a person who studied theater I believe the author of this piece knows what "The Crucible" is. I mean— it was about Salem literally, but really was a metaphor for the Red Scare where you had Senators literally playing judge, jury, and executioner trying to circumvent the Judicial Branch to change the country's demographics to be more loyal toward their causes (political eugenics as it were). No worries, we iterated the system so that now congress has to request contempt charges be levied through the Judicial Branch now for better or for worse (it's why the whole Steve Bannon contempt thing is taking 'forever').
In conclusion, if the author's goal is to get rid of the judicial process and branch and just leave policing to the most impassioned of citizens, then I leave you with this question: What do you think those that stormed the Capitol Building on January 6th were trying to accomplish?