A "Showerthought" is a simple term used to describe the thoughts that pop into your head while you're doing everyday things like taking a shower, driving, or just daydreaming. The most popular seem to be lighthearted clever little truths, hidden in daily life.
Here are some examples to inspire your own showerthoughts:
If you made it this far, showerthoughts is accepting new mods. This community is generally tame so its not a lot of work, but having a few more mods would help reports get addressed a little sooner.
Whats it like to be a mod? Reports just show up as messages in your Lemmy inbox, and if a different mod has already addressed the report, the message goes away and you never worry about it.
Anyone interested in this area check out Ted Chiang's short story It's 2059, and the Rich Kids are Still Winning.
Premise: In the future, scientists conduct an experiment to genetically modify poor children to improve their intelligence, so they have a better chance to succeed in life. While the experiment proves to be successful, and the children's IQ increases, they still fail to achieve social progress, because the entire state system favors the rich only.
Thanks. That was... interesting but depressing to read.
Anyway, here's the link in case anyone else happens to be curious.
Where do we find this story.
Maybe in one of the two links that other commenters posted to it?
Justice is a luxury the poor can’t afford because the rich pay to evade.
Where I come from, there's a saying that goes something like this: 'There are only two kinds of people in jail: the very stupid and the very poor.'
😢
Oh, this post is turning out to be a sad one.
Anyway, I've heard that mental illnesses and other psychological issues often lead to jail and only get worse in there. Modern societies are not at all prepared to handle these kinds of problems.
Insofar as "modern societies" refer to the people who hold power in them, I'm not so sure modern societies are interested in handling these kinds of problems.
Totally agree. It’s all about not being interested in handling these problems. That’s a bit strange though, because the current style is really expensive.
Justice is a spider web.
It's made to catch small bugs.
Bigger animals just trample the damn thing.
That’s a very good way to think about it.
As a lawyer with over 20 years of experience I can tell with confidence that there is justice in between the same social groups such as lower class vs lower class and middle class vs middle class. Upper class vs upper class is much more unpredictable, depends on many elements and it can go both ways unless one side is coming from old money, has politicians in the family etc... Unfortunately the illusion of justice, freedom and equality ends when you face someone outside your class.
Sounds like you have seen some interesting cases. Care to share?
I’ll tell you the craziest story I’ve known. It wasn’t my case, but I know the details well.
The guy was the son of a very wealthy family. He filed for divorce; his wife—refusing to go quietly—dragged the process out as long as she possibly could. Finally, they reached a settlement and agreed to meet in court the following day to make it official.
She invited him over for one last dinner. During the dinner, something snapped. He murdered her in a way that was beyond gruesome; he reportedly broke 13 different knives on her body. This meant he had to repeatedly stop, walk to the kitchen, grab a new blade, and return to continue the attack. To this day, as far as I know, nobody knows what happened to make him snap like that. Not even his lawyers. He didn't speak about it to anyone.
Naturally, his sanity became the central focus of the trial. His defense team leaned into it heavily, and he was sent to a panel of psychologists and medical professionals for a formal assessment. The panel's report was definitive: he was sane and fully fit for sentencing.
However, the judge said that according to the medical findings, he was unfit for prison and released him into "medical care". Despite an appeal from the wife’s family, the higher court upheld the verdict. He walked free, and I've met the guy in person. Seems like a normal, well-mannered guy if you don't know about his history.
Oh wow!
Sounds pretty odd that he was fit for sentencing, but not fit for prison. Do you think wealth and connections had anything to do with the outcome?
Well there is no other explanation for that verdict. Legally if the panel says he is sane and fit for sentencing he should have get a proper punishment. Instead the judge let him go.
Ju$tice.
(☞ﾟヮﾟ)☞
The cost of justice is too damn high!
That made me think of a riddle.
The poor beg for my arrival.
The rich never want to see me.
The poor can’t afford my visit.
The rich pay to block my entry.
Who am I?
I begged to know if justice
is a form far-out or in
he said son, there is no justice
there's just what
and that just is.
So that means I can start woodchipping criminals, right?
After all, there is no justice.
In other news: fire is hot.
Totally.
Also, it’s kinda funny to strictly follow this logic, because it means that the rich still struggle to get justice if the criminals are the rich.
When a rich person screws over another rich person, the one with more money will be able to inflict greater injustice on the other. Either way, this equation involves no justice, and people pay to keep it that way.
What do the police do with it then ?
they use it as a cudgel and beat the poor with it until they submit.
Any law that is solely enforced by a fine is simply a pay-to-do activity for the rich.
What autocracy and plutocracy are: functions of government are only the province of the privileged capable of cruel manipulation.
If there are reforms, I think that one of them is access to lawyers. Rich or poor, you shouldn't pay for lawyers. Instead, they are all placed into a common pool, where each side picks their representatives. If both sides happen to pick the same lawyers, they roll a dice in front of the court until someone has the higher number. That person gets the lawyer, and the other side draws someone else of choice from the pool.
I also think that lawyers should rotate in the role they may serve after every case. Prosecution -> Defense -> Prosecution -> Defense, for their entire career as courtroom representatives. If a lawyer refuses to represent, they are barred from serving as a lawyer for four months, and their refusal goes onto a common dossier that anyone can see.
This encourages the whole profession of lawyers to ensure that the courtroom is fair to both defense and prosecution, and that both roles are equally valid when it comes to reputation.
if injustice exists for anyone, no one has justice, just temporary repreve from injustice. further, justice requires peace. "justice" without peace is how the people are subjagated. "peace" without justice is how the people who have been subjagated are exploited
Yep 100%
Pretty much sums it up
This is the endgame of uncapped lawyer fees.