nods and sighs
Every time someone unironically asks me to define fairness, I explain that whatever they think someone else deserves has to be something they themselves would accept happening to them for being guilty of the same thing. It's terrifying how many adults either stare at me blankly or are outright hostile towards such a thought exercise.
I think most people maintain an illusion of themselves being infallible, and that any mistake they might make is only ever going to be harmless or innocent.
So the sticking point there isn't even that the punishment needs to fit the crime, even if they were the criminal, but rather the idea of them having to think of themselves as being in any way malicious, if only hypothetically.
Nevermind that there is malice in all humans, and that it is also possible to commit crime/evil without malice.
Most people who haven't contemplated the matter much, seem to knee-jerk themselves into two conflicting positions, at the same time.
They did evil, therefore they are evil, and deserve the worst thing I can imagine.
And
I am not evil, even if I do evil it will never be intentional, therefore I deserve no punishment and will never receive any. Any punishment I receive is undeserved and unfair.
I don't think I've ever been asked to define fairness. Lol
Apparently this person gets asked that both ironically and unironically. So like every day they're having to explain to people what fairness is. Hmm.
Maybe they create these scenarios by talking about fairness a lot.
Happens to me everytime in my made up scenarios
And then everyone claps right?
I prefer getting hundreds
It's probably not in those terms. The phrasing "what sounds fair to you" seems like a reasonable thing to ask.
Sure, but that sounds like a different question to me. The original question sounding philosophical, whereas yours sounds contextually specific
You all are misremembering. The chant was
give her an impartial investigation and a fair trial in the event the investigation yields charges, and them lock her up when convicted by a jury of her peers!
[pause]
give her an impartial investigation and a fair trial in the event the investigation yields charges, and them lock her up when convicted by a jury of her peers!
Yeah, they even had their MAGA hats that said: Make America Get rid of political persecutions and ensure an independent Department of Justice free of presidential influence Again
covfefe was also code for Constitutional Oversight Values Fairness, Equality, Facts, Et cetera.
They don't care about the law and order. They just want to lock up their opponents. These people are extremely dangerous.
"Lock her up," was about classified documents on an email server. What are they chanting about the stacks of boxes in Mar-a-Lago or the fact that he sold the names of CIA agents to his buddy Putin? Oh, that's right, "witchhunt" and "election interference" and other dimwitted takes.
Hillary should have been treated like anyone else who has handled classified documents in a similar way. Severely.
As should trump.
So yeah, it does turn out that pronouns matter.
Satire sites come close to reality sometimes, but this shit is just straight up happening.
Like, there's 'eating the onion' but these dudes planted an onion and somehow managed to grow an apple.
Time to bring back /TheOnionWasCorrect?
We’re in the Onionwascorrectromorphic.
The onion is back baby!
Three years?
A place to share and discuss stories from The Onion, Clickhole, and other satire.
Great Satire Writing: