this post was submitted on 20 May 2025
395 points (94.8% liked)
Games
38693 readers
2562 users here now
Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.
Weekly Threads:
Rules:
-
Submissions have to be related to games
-
No bigotry or harassment, be civil
-
No excessive self-promotion
-
Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts
-
Mark Spoilers and NSFW
-
No linking to piracy
More information about the community rules can be found here and here.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Weinstein? Diddy? Epstein?
I think the more apt description would be that when you’re got something that makes other people money, then you will be protected. When that ends you’re fair game.
I also agree that the more money you have the better defence you can get, but I don’t believe laws only apply to the poor. That’s hyperbole.
So the logic is...
The laws only apply to the poor except for exceptions where rich are on their way to poor and can be used as examples of the exception .
I don’t believe that’s what I said, or at least it wasn’t my intention. I was more trying to highlight that wealthy people (which are not in the way to being poor) will be protected by the people that stand to gain from that protection, not simply for being rich.
I also explicitly said that the justice system does favour the rich, not in a malicious way but more because we have a system that means rich folk can afford more man hours which translates to a better defence.
I want to be clear I’m not defending rich folk here, just being a pedant I guess.
Ah yeah we are all pedants here and such while I understand and mostly agree with your comment I now must include.
Uhh, actually we don't have a justice system, we have a legal system.
Haha how dare you out pedant me.