ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
No bio...
User ID: 626
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
2hr ago
I had the mistaken impression that you were responding to the substance of my argument.
I was. The substance of your argument was that e-verify can't have anything to do with discrimination by definition, because it would be applied equally to everyone, correct?
If not, I'm the one that should apologize. Though I hope you understand where my confusion comes from, given that you wrote "mandatory e-verify has nothing to do with discrimination. By definition, if you e-verify everyone, you aren't discriminating."
Your argument is that mandatory e-verify would be ruled as illegal discrimination and that companies would be forced to hire people without work authorization?
I have no way of knowing whether it would be ruled as such or not. The American legal system lets the judges rule whatever the hell they want. I'm just pointing out they already dismissed the "because it's applied to everyone" argument in another case.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
2hr ago
My argument is that your previous argument is wrong, I made no statements about why no one tried passing mandatory e-verify. Where did you even get the idea?
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
3hr ago
By definition, if you e-verify everyone, you aren't discriminating.
You're assuming court's follow actual logic. If "we apply this to everyone, so it can't be discrimination" the concept of "disparate impact" would not exist.
Do you understand how cause and effect works?
Sure.
ICE agents swarm American cities
Wait, so you're saying George Bush didn't actually do shit regarding immigration?
American citizens begin peaceful protesting. --> ICE agents shoot and kill American citizens.
Yes, that's exactly my point. The first step is already where they're acting like lunatics. You can call the screeching, whistling, blocking of streets, setting off fireworks, not to mention occasionally actually shooting at ICE agents, "peaceful" all you want, it's obvious that the goal is to create a chaotic and violent situation. Stop acting like lunatics, and no one gets killed. Simple.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
4hr ago
Same as last week - no progress this time. How are you doing @Southkraut?
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
6hr ago
Are many of them denying that the label Antifa (or antifaschistische Aktion) refers to anything in the real world at all? Doubtful, though the strategy of calling the sky pink when it suits your needs has recently had some success, and the left might borrow it.
Biden referred to it as just an idea, and this was way before the current drama, so I don't see how it can be a case of borrowing. That's without going into all the times was loudly claiming the sky is pink over the years, and how outrageous it is to claim anything other than that they've pioneered the tactic.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
10hr ago
We're not talking random people, we're talking the mayor of Minneapolis, and the NYT. Also, "everyone, including politicians can lie all they want, as long as they don't put it in an official statement" sounds like "newspaper can lie all they want in headlines, as long as they put a correction in tiny print, on page 57" to me.
And either way are you sure the government hasn't lied with impunity in official statements in the past? I don't have an example off the top of my head, but it would hardly be surprising.
I wasn't nerd sniped by the Renee Good case the way those here on the Motte were - it just didn't interest me that much, which is why I only had a few marginal comments in that thread despite reading much of it.
That's fine. What I'm saying is we've seen the Blues ran the entire gambit of excuses from "she was just a random passerby" to "she didn't know they were from ICE and was terrified of these rando thugs" to "she didn't hit him with her car" or "he walked in front of her in order to create a situation where he could shoot her". I agree there's probably some amount of yarn spinning to cover their own ass from the DHS here. Frustratingly, it's hard to tell how much, and we probably won't find out for at least a couple days more, but my point is that It's a just bit hard for me to get outraged at the "point deer make horse"-ness of this latest situation, when te Blues get to do it essentially unlimited amount of times, and no one cares.
I'll be honest, if the "sig misfire" or "reaching for the gun" thing don't pan out, this shoot seems a lot less justified to me. But maybe my brain has just been poisoned by partisanship, despite my best efforts.
I think only a second gun would actually justify the shoot. Even if there was a misfire, it would It make the decision understandable from the agent's perspective, but it would still be a clear mistake (in contrast to the Good situation where the car was actually heading for him).
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
14hr ago
Were people acting like lunatics to protest ICE during the Bush era?
They passed an immigration reform act the summer before the 2024 election and Donald Trump torpedoed it.
The act in question would still allow significant illegal immigration. Also, it was perfectly in their power to do something about it without an act of congress, and they refused to, thus proving they never wanted to stop it to begin with.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
15hr ago
Should I believe my lying eyes here, or is this another case of Point Deer, Make Horse in action?
Would you agree that the Blue Tribe statements on Good's shooting were one of such cases?
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
15hr ago
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
16hr ago
Is this a typo? ICE just killed a man.
Has someone hit the reset button, and it's year zero again?
There were at least two armed attacks on ICE prior to that, they were just executed incompetently, and the only people that ended up dead were the illegal immigrants (at the hands of the shooter), and the shooters themselves.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1d ago
everything was done in bad faith from the beginning.
How? Even if you think this is political ping-pong, it's completely par for the course.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1d ago
and saying India was better in some respects because.
So I wasn't sure if they were Indian or what. Now it's been clarified.
Even if at one point he said things are better there in some respects, that comes with a pretty big caveat. I have no idea where you're getting the Indian bit from, he's been Russia-poasting for years, until he got disillusioned because of the war with Ukraine.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1d ago
Wait, originally I read this as "race scientists" being exposed as misrepresenting the data to push their theory, is the "misuse" just about them having access to it and being able to use it as evidence?
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1d ago
Okay, so the next time you write in the persona of "I'm a non-white non-Westerner
What are you talking about?
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
2d ago
Not any weirder than brands adding mastectomy scars to cartoon characters in their promo materials, imo.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
2d ago
He's saying they're changing the vocabulary in order to normalize bugz. But it wouldn't be out of the ordinary, there were a few pushes to get people to eat them - I even had some!
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
2d ago
due to the fact you weren't sufficiently liberty seeking in the 1700/1800s
More like "from the he 1700/1800s onwards"...
you don't get to be now
They can start any time they want, but actually being for liberty would involve repealing several laws they've passed, and probably prosecuting anyone who voted for them.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
2d ago
As Corvos pointed out, it's actually far from instantaneous. Either way a lot of time passes between seeing something, interpreting it, making a decision and reacting. Also this situation was dyanmic, he wasn't observing a still picture in a museum. You're expecting literally superhuman performance, as far as I can tell.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
2d ago
How do you know that?
You can see him getting pushed back through the force of the car in one of the videos. He also suffered from internal bleeding as a result.
You don't seem to grok the concept of probabilistic beliefs.
I grok it, I just don't think the idea is particularly useful in the situation. Many suspects don't telegraph their bad intentions, and as a result, doing the kind of analysis you describe is just an easy way to get yourself killed when doing police work.
We don't live in a world where cops are killing people who have lost control of their cars for medical reasons
Because most of those people don't happen to lose control of their car when police are nearby, and when the car is posing obvious danger to them or others.
No, he does have to guess about her state of mind.
No, he doesn't. It's literally irrelevant whether the driver is coming at him with murderous intent, or with nothing but love and all the warm fuzzies in the universe, he can die either way, and has a right to protect himself in either scenario.
You seem to be arguing that a police officer standing in front of a car whose driver is having an involuntary spasm, and consequently driving towards him, is justified in shooting the driver.
Yes, but that does not imply the self-defense case is weaker.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
2d ago
This whole thing happened in seconds. You're the one acting like the guy could see everything in slo-mo, and from multiple perspectives, because that's how you got to see it.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
2d ago
In general, yes. But given that she was in the process of turning away from him in order to drive away, it's very unlikely she would hit him unless she had done it deliberately.
Countered by the fact that she did, in fact, hit him, and by the fact that the car was delayed by the wheels spinning on ice.
The fact that you can come up with a scenario in which there would still be a threat even without the intent to do harm doesn't prove that intentions don't matter.
That's quite literally what that means. Conversely, having murderous thoughts does not justify shooting, if someone is unable to act on them. Intentions are irrelevant.
Her intentions determine the likelihood of her hitting him with her car.
The trajectory of her car is what it is regardless of her intentions. Many drivers miscalculate what their car will do. You are also still ignoring the fact that he has no way of knowing her intentions.
By the way, I think this example is illlustrative as almost a reductio ad absurdum. I think most people would find the ideat that, had she had an involuntary spasm, he would have been justified in shooting her, to be ridiculous.
I think you're wrong, and the people who would think that are simply refusing to out themselves in the position of the cop for ideological reasons. All the cop sees is a car driving at him, he has no way of knowing whether it's because of a spasm or deliberate action with the intention to do harm. He has to react to the material facts available to him from his perspective, not guesses about the state of mind of the suspect.
and I think the fact that your argument justifies shooting people who have involutarily lost control of their vehicles shows how weak this self-defence claim is.
I have no idea how this follows from anything you said.
Then why is the entire European establishment apoplectic at the mere thought of Trump cutting support for Ukraine? Why is the argument against appeasement that Putin will just keep pushing west? If Russia is just a chihuahua, Europe should be able to handle the situation all on it's own.
More options
Context Copy link