• partial_accumen@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    Ā·
    4 months ago

    Like I get that the ACLU could have capitalized that, bolded it, and stuck it at the top of the page, but you only have to make it to like the second paragraph to read it.

    Oh I read that too, and again youā€™re making an additional logical leap with your idea that isnā€™t always true.

    In many cases, the debtors were unaware they were sued or had not received notice to show up in court. Tens of thousands of these warrants are issued annually.

    They arenā€™t sent to jail for having debt. They (could possibly) be sent to jail for failing to appear in court. You keep saying we ā€œliterally have debtors prisonsā€, but at best we might have effectively debtors prisons and Iā€™m squinting really hard and giving you every benefit of the doubt to even say that.

    If debt was illegal (as the OP post claims), everyone not paying debt would be in prison. That simply isnā€™t true. Presenting it like it is reality makes you come off as a crackpot, dismissable, and your otherwise important message is lost.

    Edited to add ā€“ thanks for this. I havenā€™t had a pointless argument on the internet with someone who already mostly agrees on the important points but canā€™t quite get past pointless minutiae in awhile.

    I wish I could say its been a while since Iā€™ve had a conversation with someone on the internet that has a good overall message, but is so urgent to make an additional point for rhetorical value that they de-value their entire message. If you want to change minds, which ostensibly is the reason for organizing around the problem, you have to look at your own messages through the eyes of others, not just your own. Good luck!

    • hibsen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      Ā·
      4 months ago

      Oh I read that too, and again youā€™re making an additional logical leap with your idea that isnā€™t always true.

      Weird, because I feel like youā€™re jumping past the point because it isnā€™t technically spelled out in the USC that someone will arrest you if you donā€™t make enough money.

      If someone sues you civilly, you receive no notice of it, and then they arrest you and put you in prison, I get that there are intervening steps, but itā€™s literally the same result.

      I understand that sometimes people get notice and might have the ability to show up in court and they do, but the OPā€™s point isnā€™t that every poor person is in jail. The point is that theyā€™re put there when rich people arenā€™t.

      That the OP canā€™t cite a PL that says being poor is illegal doesnā€™t exculpate society from putting them in prison because theyā€™re poor. Iā€™m sorry that itā€™s insidious and underhanded, but it is literally happening.

      I also donā€™t think the OP is trying to change anyoneā€™s mind. Iā€™m not either. I donā€™t think the people who criminalize being poor are worth the effort. The point of these types of posts isnā€™t to change minds. Itā€™s to overcome the apathy of the majority of people who already know itā€™s wrong to do this and use that majority to forcibly remove power from those people whose minds you want to change.

      • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        Ā·
        4 months ago

        Weird, because I feel like youā€™re jumping past the point because it isnā€™t technically spelled out in the USC that someone will arrest you if you donā€™t make enough money.

        I think its very weird youā€™re willing to jump past the fact its not illegal to call it illegal when the OP post is putting in context with two other things which are unequivocally illegal. Putting all three together is creating a false equivalency.

        If someone sues you civilly, you receive no notice of it, and then they arrest you and put you in prison, I get that there are intervening steps, but itā€™s literally the same result.

        1. IF you have a debt andā€¦
        2. IF the creditor chooses to sue andā€¦
        3. IF you do not get notified andā€¦
        4. IF you donā€™t appearā€¦
        5. THEN MAYBE the judge will have an arrest warrant issued against you and ā€¦
        6. If you commit an ADDITIONAL crime, which puts you in contact with law enforcement, the warrant from the no-show would cause you to be jailed.

        Thats A LOT of ā€œifā€ to make your statement true, but youā€™re passing it off as its always the case. Complete different with drugs and homelessness. You can be arrested (and jailed) in the very first act.

        Being in debt doesnā€™t put you in jail which is what your statement should mean happens. We have literally tens of millions of people in debt and millions of them are poor that are walking the streets without warrants against them.

        I also donā€™t think the OP is trying to change anyoneā€™s mind. Iā€™m not either. The point of these types of posts isnā€™t to change minds.

        Hmm, okay youā€™re not interested in changing minds of others. Nothing wrong with that I suppose, but does that mean this just food for an echo chamber then?

        Itā€™s to overcome the apathy of the majority of people who already know itā€™s wrong to do this and use that majority to forcibly remove power from those people whose minds you want to change.

        So you want to change the mind of someone that is neutral on the subject to being supporting of different policy? How is that not changing someoneā€™s mind? Are we now arguing what the definition of ā€œchanging a mindā€ means now?

        • hibsen@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          Ā·
          4 months ago

          This is so much fun, thank you again.

          I think its very weird youā€™re willing to jump past the fact its not illegal to call it illegal when the OP post is putting in context with two other things which are unequivocally illegal. Putting all three together is creating a false equivalency.

          Is this some new definition of unequivocal I was previously unaware of?

          The OP mentioned being homeless, being a drug addict, and being poor. Itā€™s not illegal to be a drug addict, either. Oddly enough youā€™ll find a lot of people put in prison for it, if they buy drugs illegally and if theyā€™re caught and if itā€™s worth enough to the prosecutor and if theyā€™re convicted or if they accept a plea bargain. Youā€™re okay with those ā€˜ifsā€™ in your definition, but not the chain belowā€¦why?

          Thats A LOT of ā€œifā€ to make your statement true, but youā€™re passing it off as itā€™s always the case.

          I mean, yeah, thatā€™s kinda how it works. Not all bank robbers go to prison either, you know? The point is that this only happens to poor people and it only happens because theyā€™re poor and itā€™s wrong that it happens. The point is not every poor person goes to prison.

          Being in debt doesnā€™t put you in jail which is what your statement should mean happens. We have literally tens of millions of people in debt and millions of them are poor that are walking the streets without warrants against them.

          Maybe this is where youā€™re confused. No one is saying that everyone with debt is being put in prison. Or maybe someone is, but they arenā€™t in this conversation. Iā€™m saying that this set of circumstances should not be criminal, and it only happens to poor people. Apparently, according to the ACLU, it happens to tens of thousands of them. Iā€™m pretty sure the OP is saying that, too.

          Hmm, okay youā€™re not interested in changing minds of others. Nothing wrong with that I suppose, but does that mean this just food for an echo chamber then?

          Iā€™d classify it more as a call to action for likeminded people. I generally read things like this and think I should do something about it, so I do what I can think of. If thatā€™s an echo chamber for you, knock yourself out, I guess.

          So you want to change the mind of someone that is neutral on the subject to being supporting of different policy? How is that not changing someoneā€™s mind? Are we now arguing what the definition of ā€œchanging a mindā€ means now?

          I mean, no; youā€™re arguing against something no one said (again), but I guess I can address that now, too.

          I donā€™t care about changing the minds of someone neutral on the subject, either. If someone manages to read something like this, find out whatā€™s happening, and somehow not think thatā€™s wrong, I donā€™t think any words are going to change their mind.

          Itā€™s doesnā€™t matter, though, because the majority already know itā€™s wrong. They either know itā€™s wrong and didnā€™t realize it was a thing, or they know itā€™s a thing but they think theyā€™re powerless to change it.

          I (and, I assume, the OP) want those who arenā€™t currently doing something to realize they arenā€™t alone in thinking what theyā€™re thinking, so theyā€™ll be more inclined to do things about it. They already want to do those things; their minds donā€™t need to be changed.

          • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            Ā·
            4 months ago

            Is this some new definition of unequivocal I was previously unaware of?

            • ā€œFederal Drug Possession Penalties (21 USC Ā§844) www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/21cfr/21usc/844.htm Persons convicted of illegally possessing any controlled substance face penalties of up to 1 year in prison and a minimum fine of $1,000, or both.ā€

            • ā€œIt shall be unlawful for any person to be found loitering, concealed or sleeping at night, or other inappropriate time, in, or about any public building or private premises not such personā€™s own, under suspicious circumstances, and not being able to give a satisfactory account thereof.ā€ = an example of texas law

            Is there any ambiguity in your mind these are laws on the books? In what way is it not unequivocal that these are illegal? Do you have a different definition of the word?

            The OP mentioned being homeless, being a drug addict, and being poor. Itā€™s not illegal to be a drug addict, either. Oddly enough youā€™ll find a lot of people put in prison for it, if they buy drugs illegally and if theyā€™re caught and if itā€™s worth enough to the prosecutor and if theyā€™re convicted or if they accept a plea bargain. Youā€™re okay with those ā€˜ifsā€™ in your definition, but not the chain belowā€¦why?

            Youā€™re right that if I was an absolute stickler I could even challenge this part of the post. Technically a drug addict could exit the country, do drugs, and reenter the country and because they neither bought nor possessed drugs in the USA, they could indeed be a drug addict, and it wouldnā€™t be illegal. The reason Iā€™m not taking that stance is because I do allow for some logical leaps that realistically a drug addict isnā€™t going to do that. There are limits to that allowance of thought. Your view seems to all many many more logical leaps yet still feel its not too far a departure. We clearly differ in this.

            Thats A LOT of ā€œifā€ to make your statement true, but youā€™re passing it off as itā€™s always the case.

            I mean, yeah, thatā€™s kinda how it works. Not all bank robbers go to prison either, you know?

            All bank robbers are breaking the law. Thats the difference. Being poor isnā€™t breaking a law.

            The point is that this only happens to poor people and it only happens because theyā€™re poor and itā€™s wrong that it happens. The point is not every poor person goes to prison.

            Using your logic from above, all poor people would be breaking some law by being poor, yet just lucky enough to escape capture or detection. Thats why that line of thinking falls apart.

            I mean, no; youā€™re arguing against something no one said (again), but I guess I can address that now, too.

            I raised the question of why the OP (and by proxy you) were voicing the message. It was my assumption that you wanted to change minds from one point to another.

            I donā€™t care about changing the minds of someone neutral on the subject, either. If someone manages to read something like this, find out whatā€™s happening, and somehow not think thatā€™s wrong, I donā€™t think any words are going to change their mind.

            Let me clarify. I used the word ā€œneutralā€ before. My mistake from your interpretation of it. Let me change that to ā€œno opinionā€. Am I correct from your responses that you would like to take someone that currently has no position on this (because of lack of exposure/ignorance to it) to someone that does have an opinion supporting change?

            • hibsen@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              Ā·
              4 months ago

              Is there any ambiguity in your mind these are laws on the books? In what way is it not unequivocal that these are illegal? Do you have a different definition of the word?

              I suppose in the way that neither of the things you listed are the definition of being a drug addict or homeless. Iā€™m glad you made this point though, because it furthers mineā€¦being poor isnā€™t specifically in the law, just like being a drug addict and being homeless arenā€™t.

              Itā€™s circumstances that result from being a drug addict, being homeless, and being poor that they criminalize, because for some reason that seems to fool some people into thinking itā€™s okay to do it.

              Maybe I havenā€™t articulated this well enough for you to see it yet. Maybe someone else can do it better:

              The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.

              Sure, he was French, but he was right.

              Youā€™re right that if I was an absolute stickler I could even challenge this part of the post. Technically a drug addict could exit the country, do drugs, and reenter the country and because they neither bought nor possessed drugs in the USA, they could indeed be a drug addict, and it wouldnā€™t be illegal. The reason Iā€™m not taking that stance is because I do allow for some logical leaps that realistically a drug addict isnā€™t going to do that. There are limits to that allowance of thought. Your view seems to all many many more logical leaps yet still feel its not too far a departure. We clearly differ in this.

              We definitely differ; I donā€™t see why itā€™s hard for you to see that the circumstances that arise from being a drug addict or homeless or poor shouldnā€™t be a reason for imprisoning someone. Itā€™s really hard for me to understand why you canā€™t see the obvious similarity just because thereā€™s a few more steps.

              All bank robbers are breaking the law. Thats the difference. Being poor isnā€™t breaking a law.

              Ah thatā€™s fair, Iā€™m overstepping into hyperbole.

              Using your logic from above, all poor people would be breaking some law by being poor, yet just lucky enough to escape capture or detection. Thats why that line of thinking falls apart.

              Yeah this is on me for the hyperbole with bank robbers, but Iā€™m definitely not trying to say that all poor people have this happen to. Again, the point is that it only happens to poor people and it shouldnā€™t.

              I raised the question of why the OP (and by proxy you) were voicing the message. It was my assumption that you wanted to change minds from one point to another.

              No worries, we all make mistakes (see me above with the hyperbole).

              Let me clarify. I used the word ā€œneutralā€ before. My mistake from your interpretation of it. Let me change that to ā€œno opinionā€. Am I correct from your responses that you would like to take someone that currently has no position on this (because of lack of exposure/ignorance to it) to someone that does have an opinion supporting change?

              Here I think the OP and I differ, actually. The OP probably does want that. Iā€™m more of the mind that if you havenā€™t figured this out and arenā€™t on board yet, Iā€™m not the right person to help you get there. The OP might be, though.

              • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                Ā·
                4 months ago

                Is there any ambiguity in your mind these are laws on the books? In what way is it not unequivocal that these are illegal? Do you have a different definition of the word?

                I suppose in the way that neither of the things you listed are the definition of being a drug addict or homeless. Iā€™m glad you made this point though, because it furthers mineā€¦being poor isnā€™t specifically in the law, just like being a drug addict and being homeless arenā€™t. Itā€™s circumstances that result from being a drug addict, being homeless, and being poor that they criminalize, because for some reason that seems to fool some people into thinking itā€™s okay to do it.

                I addressed that in my post immediately prior to this one. One or maybe two logical leaps I find mostly acceptable (as each leap lowers likelihood or confidence). Blindly accepting infinite logical leaps drives us right into ā€œslippery slope fallacyā€ territory. As I said on this before, Iā€™m not accusing you of ā€œslippery slopeā€ here yet, but youā€™re well on your way and not too far off.

                Maybe I havenā€™t articulated this well enough for you to see it yet. Maybe someone else can do it better:

                ā€œThe law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.ā€

                Sure, he was French, but he was right.

                Weā€™re in agreement on homelessness, but again, youā€™re making logical leaps to try and tie, in this case theft, to simply the state of being poor illegal. Are you moving your claim that we have an epidemic of people in jail for stealing basic foodstuffs?

                We definitely differ; I donā€™t see why itā€™s hard for you to see that the circumstances that arise from being a drug addict or homeless or poor shouldnā€™t be a reason for imprisoning someone. Itā€™s really hard for me to understand why you canā€™t see the obvious similarity just because thereā€™s a few more steps.

                Youā€™re moving the goalposts here. This has always been a discussion of ā€œillegal vs legalā€. Youā€™re now moving the argument to ā€œthe circumstances that ariseā€ from these conditions. Youā€™re welcome to take that stance, but thats a different discussion. However, the OP post didnā€™t say that. I understand why it didnā€™t. It doesnā€™t hit as hard rhetorically, and the poster was trying for eloquence. They were largely successful if partially inaccurate.

                Let me clarify. I used the word ā€œneutralā€ before. My mistake from your interpretation of it. Let me change that to ā€œno opinionā€. Am I correct from your responses that you would like to take someone that currently has no position on this (because of lack of exposure/ignorance to it) to someone that does have an opinion supporting change?

                Here I think the OP and I differ, actually. The OP probably does want that. Iā€™m more of the mind that if you havenā€™t figured this out and arenā€™t on board yet, Iā€™m not the right person to help you get there. The OP might be, though.

                I appreciate your candor and respect your position. Its also helpful to understand you and the OP post are going in different directions with your goals. With this understanding I donā€™t think I have any more argument with you in defense of the OP Post. You are taking a decidedly different position from the OP post. Youā€™re perfectly free to do so, and do so with whatever language and goal you have in mind.

                I appreciate you taking the time to share you position. I think your goal is a good one even if I disagree with the slight nuance of the message or the means.