Active thread

Only the replies to the one thread you selected
Kashyyyk: It has affected what I might or might not say slightly, allowing me to be a little more candid and/or willing to try ideas that I haven't fully settled on. I am guessing it has the same effect, or an even larger one, for many people.
Sun: wish we'd had more time to read the threads before you had us respond to them in class.
Pinwheel: I don't think the pseudonymous discourse had a huge effect - because I feel like the people who have strong opinions are already willing to share them
Saturn: My two biggest concerns are (1) practicality/administrability of the the potential solutions we are discussing, and (2) the substitutions for trial. I'm learning a lot about what goes wrong in creating a fair trial, but I'd like to focus more on the lack of trials as we touched on briefly a moment ago
Arcturus: I think it probably has some effect, but also I think there is a lot of value in people having to own their own thoughts and opinions.
Venus: I think the pseudonymous discussion is helpful in creating open and honest discourse in the class. By and large, I don't think HLS does a great job at promoting open discussion, as people on both sides of the ideological spectrum are quick to judge and share what people say with their peers.
Takodana: I dont think I am any more candid on threads than I am in person. what I will say is that I think that having small group discussions like we did today pushes people more to speak and to be much more open with what they really think
Kamino: I think the threads were helpful, but I think that if the questions were tailored/structured a little more narrowly people would be able to have a more productive discussion instead of talking past one another somewhat
Felucia: I felt more comfortable having an opportunity to form my thoughts in Threads and express them in a smaller group. Also, hearing my classmates' thoughts was valuable both in Threads and the small group. The only thing with Threads is that it doesn't allow for an easy back and forth on a particular comment/idea.
Coruscant: I wouldn't say anything on here that im not willing to share in the class. the only difference is that only one person at a time gets to talk in class but everyone can simultaneously write on the forum
Sunflower: I don't think I say things in threads that I wouldn't say aloud. But I'm not sure that that's true for others. In fact, by the responses here, I know that isn't true. I think that threads could be improved if we had more of a discussion where people could respond to one another. Maybe this could be done outside of class time.
Tethys: It's helpful to let folks share some ideas that they might not otherwise want to share for fear of being shouted down or labeled negatively. However, we should have some more time to read them and/or to respond to specific comments that others raised in their discussions.
Anchor: Ultimately I've walked away from these discussions deciding that none of the methods of adjudication that we've discussed thoroughly are satisfactory. The discussion of Ubuntu at the onset was a great way of framing this discussion. I'd like to continue exploring alternatives.
Glevitzingen: I think the issues related to juries are symptoms of a society wide problem with racism and general inequality. So long as society is unequal and biased so too will the jury be. Like the entire system, in an ideal world, the system would be brought down. In a more narrow view, where we must choose between a judge and jury, I prefer a jury that is surveilled. Surveillance ensures evidence and proof when something problematic happens. Any denial of surveillance weakens the protections of people of color and low income individuals - the same people who some claim they are trying to protect by not allowing surveillance. How does one protect POC and low income communities while denying them the tools to exert their rights?
Pont Vanis: I REALLY enjoyed the small group discussions today and felt much more comfortable speaking up
Luyten 726-8A: I like when the course focuses on the abstract questions of jury sovereignty and justice -- not 'how' would this be implemented (which is a thorny question), but the more aspirational 'why/should' the jury exist? What is our fundamental notion of fairness -- where do we draw the line between democratic wisdom and elite protection of rights? I think @Venus makes a great point, the psuedonymous nature of the discussion is beneficial, and allows ideas to be considered somewhat more coldly and less emotionally than in open, verbal discussion.
Blackeye: I think pseudonymous discourse is a helpful supplement to class discussions. Fewer people would be willing to speak their minds on controversial subjects if they had to do so in front of the entire class. But I'm content with its current role in the class: as a supplement, as a way to extract insights that would otherwise perculate underneath the surface of the class without ever emerging for discussion. Some don't like that they can't meaningfully respond to these views, but they do represent the unvarnished thoughts of the class, and bringing them into the light better helps the class understand itself and its subject matter.
Tatooine: I really enjoy getting to think out and type out my thoughts and then let these ideas serve as a springboard
Ariel: Don’t let this distract you from the fact that in 1972 a crack commando unit was sent to prison by a military court for a crime they didn't commit. These men promptly escaped from a maximum security stockade to the Los Angeles underground. Today, still wanted by the government, they survive as soldiers of fortune. If you have a problem, if no one else can help, and if you can find them, maybe you can hire the A-Team.