Hopefully fax machines, but these things seem incapable of dying.

I’m sorry, Dave…

That’s a good approach.

I myself don’t see progress as a technical thing, but rather technology as something that could help us overcome our animalistic traits in order to enable us to live together in a good, forward-looking way. I mean, of all the mammals in the world, we are the best at building tools, but I wonder if we are making the most of this or if, despite all our tools, we are ultimately incapable of overcoming our instincts.

I don’t know the answer any more than anyone else. However, your answer, which I share, suggests that despite all our technological achievements, we are not evolving significantly, but remain trapped in our animal nature.

Since technology would presumably make it possible for people to no longer have to fight over water sources, I ask.

“Yeah, well, you know, that’s just, like, your opinion, man.”

If you cannot identify this line…

“Obviously, you’re not a golfer.”

Given what is currently happening in the US, I cannot help but ask myself: Does the police still respond when emergency calls come in reporting that several armed and masked men are dragging people into a van and kidnapping them?

That’s a genuine question, and I don’t know the answer. But hey, I don’t know the answer to the question of how all this can be possible in a constitutional state either.

I’m not concerned with definitions, but rather with people’s opinions. This seems to me especially relevant given that there are many US users here. I’m interested in how they perceive what is happening in the US, what their legal system allows, and whether they consider it just in any way.

I don’t know what you mean by “architecture of westoid regimes” and I don’t think you know either.

It is all besides the point. My question was what you think the purpose of a legal system should be. And all you come up with is that stuff.

I really don’t understand how you can hold that opinion. Your president is clearly a criminal, and he is exploiting your legal system to enrich himself and his partners.

That’s perfectly obvious.

It’s equally obvious that your legal system not only allows this, but also enables this level of massive organized crime in the first place.

Here’s an example: Clarence Thomas, a Supreme Court justice, has been blatantly corrupt for decades (and he’s not the only one in that small circle). The Supreme Court has ruled - in clear violation of the US Constitution - that the law does not apply to the president. So Trump is shamelessly enriching himself.

How can anyone live in such a system and even approve of it?

I just don’t understand what you’re getting at.

China, I assume. You seem to be a staunch communist, although you obviously don’t care what that means. So probably Russia. If I’m wrong: China also has little to do with communism. It’s just that the world’s production is located there, so they have enough money to make people believe that this is a system worth living in.

Whose boots are you licking with your opinions?

Du hast nicht die geringste Ahnung, wovon du redest, mein Freund. Es ist armselig, wie du dich aufspielst ohne auch nur das Geringste zu sagen. Ich kann nur feststellen, dass du vollkommen verblendet bist und damit kaum besser als die Maga-Vögel, die dein Feindbild zu sein scheinen. Das kann ich nicht bewerten, weil mir vollkommen unklar ist, worauf du hinaus willst. Ich kann hier nur einen Social-Media-Troll erkennen - nichts weiter. Geistlos und arrogant - nichts als haltlosen Anschuldigungen und nicht ein eigenständiger Gedanke. Ich nehme an, du repräsentiert .ml. Das ist meines Ermessens der Schandfleck von Lemmy und der Grund weshalb ich meine finanzielle Unterstützung für die Softwareentwicklung eingestellt habe. Eine derart unreflektierte Weltsicht kann ich nicht unterstützen.

Spare me your imaginary lectures and also your assumptions. I am European and I know the basics of political science. Besides, I’m not the one downvoting you. You’re doing that all by yourself.

I have tried to be conciliatory and convey a positive message here, but I have to conclude that this is obviously futile.

All I hear in your answer is anger. I can understand that, and I share it to a certain extent, but I think you’d be doing yourself a favor by turning that anger into something positive.

Being against something achieves much less than being committed to a goal. The fanatical Maga supporters show where a purely negative worldview leads. These idiots are even against things that spring from their misguided imagination, and they can’t even define what their hatred is directed against. That’s why their leaders have given them terms like “woke,” which are as empty and unfocused as these people’s hatred. The goal is to have them pulled behind their leader, who does nothing but enrich himself.

That doesn’t seem desirable to me. Rather, it seems desirable to me to think for myself instead of repeating slogans.

My point: You won’t be able to change anything if you don’t have ideas that point in a positive direction. That only leads to the same unproductive hatred that the Maga fanatics represent.

The purpose you mentioned is to oppress people. Does that seem desirable to you?

My question was what you would do if it were up to you to decide what purpose the legal system should serve.

Imagine you could establish a new legal system. What would it look like?

Do you have any thoughts on what purposes laws should serve?

What purpose do you think it should serve?

That may be true, but I still think it’s a question worth considering.