Your definition of concrete must differ from mine. I expect concrete, irrefutable evidence before accepting that somebody is guilty of a crime that carries a potential death penalty. I can only take your definition to be that an unsubstantiated belief must be concrete for some reason.
If you’re just using this to rant about being banned from an instance or something, your metaphor failed when you compared it to a criminal trial. Lemmy instance moderators can ban someone for any reason without it being illegal (usually). There does not need to be evidence of wrongdoing or even an accusation of any.
Why they do accuse people of things then, I wish I knew. Do note that’s just a side discussion in mind though.
My definition of concrete is anything which there couldn’t possibly be any alternate explanation for. The desire for concrete evidence is the main defense against people framing each other. Most of us are lucky to live in a nation where court trials involving full analysis are a given right.
For this reason, I am open to the idea that Mangione might not be guilty. But that seems to be an exception for other people. There have been other celebrities with varying levels of guilt applied to them this year based on how high or low a bar people want to define the word “concrete”. It makes the defense of Mangione, which I would otherwise just chalk up to being generous, as inconsistent. If it has ever seemed like I have advocated for the idea that Mangione is guilty, it doesn’t boil down to me absolutely concluding he is guilty but rather down to the fact that, one, his defense feels forced, and two, people do seem to defend acts of violence these days, even more than a lot of non-violent situations, accusations of which I have seen jeopardize livelihood.
I’ll ignore your last section since that’s a separate discussion and a poor explanation of the situation.
Many people believe Mangione is guilty based on all the evidence. Heck, from what I’ve seen, it seems incredibly likely. However, belief in that isn’t enough to condemn someone to either a life sentence or death penalty. While I might believe he’s guilty, I won’t be the one to state that he is, without a doubt, the one responsible for the murder because I have no evidence of that. This is what due process is for.
Many people don’t want him to be guilty because while he likely broke the law, the morality of his actions is a separate and more complicated matter. Depending on one’s morals, they may feel as though the murder was just. Whether you do or not is up to you. However, a lot of the commentary you’ll see online is going to be based on the commenter’s own personal views on the subject. This doesn’t mean the commenter believes he is innocent of a crime, but they may believe that his actions were just regardless of it being a crime (since law and morals are separate things entirely).
No, but it presents its own problems to say we have to wait for that specific misdeed to be among the charges to use concrete thinking.
Your definition of concrete must differ from mine. I expect concrete, irrefutable evidence before accepting that somebody is guilty of a crime that carries a potential death penalty. I can only take your definition to be that an unsubstantiated belief must be concrete for some reason.
If you’re just using this to rant about being banned from an instance or something, your metaphor failed when you compared it to a criminal trial. Lemmy instance moderators can ban someone for any reason without it being illegal (usually). There does not need to be evidence of wrongdoing or even an accusation of any.
Why they do accuse people of things then, I wish I knew. Do note that’s just a side discussion in mind though.
My definition of concrete is anything which there couldn’t possibly be any alternate explanation for. The desire for concrete evidence is the main defense against people framing each other. Most of us are lucky to live in a nation where court trials involving full analysis are a given right.
For this reason, I am open to the idea that Mangione might not be guilty. But that seems to be an exception for other people. There have been other celebrities with varying levels of guilt applied to them this year based on how high or low a bar people want to define the word “concrete”. It makes the defense of Mangione, which I would otherwise just chalk up to being generous, as inconsistent. If it has ever seemed like I have advocated for the idea that Mangione is guilty, it doesn’t boil down to me absolutely concluding he is guilty but rather down to the fact that, one, his defense feels forced, and two, people do seem to defend acts of violence these days, even more than a lot of non-violent situations, accusations of which I have seen jeopardize livelihood.
I’ll ignore your last section since that’s a separate discussion and a poor explanation of the situation.
Many people believe Mangione is guilty based on all the evidence. Heck, from what I’ve seen, it seems incredibly likely. However, belief in that isn’t enough to condemn someone to either a life sentence or death penalty. While I might believe he’s guilty, I won’t be the one to state that he is, without a doubt, the one responsible for the murder because I have no evidence of that. This is what due process is for.
Many people don’t want him to be guilty because while he likely broke the law, the morality of his actions is a separate and more complicated matter. Depending on one’s morals, they may feel as though the murder was just. Whether you do or not is up to you. However, a lot of the commentary you’ll see online is going to be based on the commenter’s own personal views on the subject. This doesn’t mean the commenter believes he is innocent of a crime, but they may believe that his actions were just regardless of it being a crime (since law and morals are separate things entirely).