its not civil to call people lunatics because of their beliefs. and yeah, i said terrorism because it is a completely fickle, undefined term yet governments can use it to instill all kinds of violence. but when ordinary people use it they "have to define it". i can see the double standard.
It's not civil, but people basically have no idea how courts work and that discovery is a thing.
So "spectacularly ignorant" might be a better alternative to "lunatic", but that isn't polite either.
It's kind of like how Matt Levine was making fun of Carlos Ghosn today for saying "I was brutally taken from my world as I knew it".
``Yes, right, that perfectly and exactly describes the experience of every single person who is arrested and sent to jail. Very few of them like it! And he’s not wrong, it is a bad thing to take people away from their friends and families and everyday lives. It’s just, you know, that’s kind of the deal, with jail. In general society does not seem especially responsive to arguments of the form “I do not want to stand trial for these crimes, because I’d rather hang out with my friends.” ''
> but people basically have no idea how courts work and that discovery is a thing
are you saying that courts have become so opaque and inaccessible to voters that they exert their power as an impenetrable cabal ? Or that people need a PhD to assess whether the law or its enforcement is good or bad?
That's still really really bad, since everyone needs to know how the laws that they interact with works for a functioning democracy, but nobody who uses a website needs to know how the code is written. Courts should be orders of magnitude more accessible to people (especially in a country where people are tried by the jury of their peers!) than anything even remotely involving technology to the extent that a comparison between the court system and javascript doesn't even make sense.
