phosphorus2
No bio...
User ID: 3264
phosphorus2
3d ago
It is clear that in the aftermath of Obergefell both the left and right wings of American politics have decided to use the courts as their primary means of advancing their "big issues" rather than Congress, or god forbid, actually persuading the public.
If the courts didn't want to be used as a backdoor to legislation by tenuous legal mechanism then the courts should not have seized the power of the legislature by backdooring legislation by tenuous legal mechanisms.
phosphorus2
3d ago
So tell me, is Sweden deporting Swedish citizens (naturalized or children of naturalized) of non-swede ethnicity, or are they revoking residency status of non-citizens?
No I am not going to tell you because I don't really care what they decide on.
But. If they do decide to deport a bunch of them, they can do that without killing them all and/or bringing about the fourth reich.
phosphorus2
3d ago
This is what I said:
plenty of countries have done mass deportations without turning into genocidal states.
Examples that support my claim are Operation Wetback in the 50s, as well as whatever DJT is doing today.
This is what you asked:
What's an example, meeting your criteria of (a) the target countries don't take the people in voluntary and (b) no military force is involved?
You have added your own qualifiers of (a) and (b) to my position. These are not my words, these are your words. You should know this, you wrote them. I did not write them. I just quote them. I am not going to give you examples of a position you have foisted upon me.
If I had said this then you would have a point:
plenty of countries have done mass deportations to target countries that don't take the people in voluntary and without using military force and / or turning into genocidal states.
But I did not say this above. I only said this here.
(a) is difficult to give an example of because it is rare to have a country that doesn't accept its own. Which is why I did not say this in my original claim.
phosphorus2
3d ago
The deportation force must not genocide people and successfully deport a large ratio of foreigners, (since the policy is remigration) many with deep ties to their community. Inevitably they will resist. Inevitably many natives will join their resistance. Inevitably, news will spotlight some especially cruel deportations, and local economies will suffer, increasing resistance. Deportation is very invasive: it's effectively kidnapping from heavily-guarded areas, here large communities of mostly citizens. All this means mass remigration can only be accomplished by a powerful, nonlocal force that is brutal towards citizens.
Ok so Sweden already deports people without doing all of this right now. So personally I don't think Sweden will turn into Nazi Germany, I think the more likely thing to happen is that Sweden just does more of whatever they are doing now.
making LLMs more diverse,
This is genuinely the most retarded thing I have ever read on this website
I don't understand why people here trivialize this.
Its because you have this post talking about Sweden and Somalia and migration and Nazis, and then at the end I read your solution was to get diverse LLMs. What the fuck are you talking about?
phosphorus2
3d ago
What's an example, meeting your criteria of (a) the target countries don't take the people in voluntary and (b) no military force is involved?
My position is that you can do mass deportations (remigrations) without genociding people.
This is in opposition to OP who I quoted there and now here: "infrastructure (military tactics) to effectively implement remigration is dangerous for your own sake."
There is no reason that, domestically, you cannot build and use deportation infrastructure that deports people without murdering them. Suggesting otherwise, like you, is insane and totally baseless.
More specifically, how do you imagine this happening for Somalis in Sweden? Somalia doesn't even have a functioning government that deserves the name, let alone one that would willingly accept and provide the infrastructure to take in millions of highly reluctant coethnics that they often won't even have a language in common with. There's no obvious route that doesn't look like the Swedish military filling up a concentration camp, sending a fleet of prison ships to the Horn of Africa, conquering a beachhead and forced-marching boatloads of people onto it at gunpoint (probably also with a temporary holding camp/fortification at the target site, so the first 500k can't interfere with unloading the second 500k).
So a few things
- Google says there are 80k somalis in sweden. Not a million
- Somalia does not have a functioning government. Just send them on boats or planes. They can't actually do anything to stop it.
- Literally just put them on a plane
- You are hysterical. Like what are you even saying here?
"There's no obvious route that doesn't look like the Swedish military filling up a concentration camp"
ummmm if you really really had to put them in a camp, just put them in a camp and then DON'T MURDER THEM. If you really had to do all the insane things in your fantasy, just do them and DON'T KILL THEM. How are you so mind raped that you immediately go to quadroon Ann Frank hiding in a sauna to dodge deportation flotillas instead of just like not murdering people? Huh?
Then you get all the problems with rounding up the people you want to send off at home, deciding what to do with the third-generation Somalis, half-Somalis and quarter-Somalis, Somalis being hidden by and protected by sympathetic Swedes, possible Somalis who swear they are Ethiopian, et cetera et cetera. You can't just slow-walk it either, because your flotilla that is parked off of Somalia is draining the budget more than the welfare payments did. Soon you find that between the ballooning military operation and the home front, you have to take a lot of inspiration from everyone's favourite continentals in the late 1930s.
Look I don't really care what criteria the swedes end up on. Reasonable minds can disagree on the appropriate percentages to achieve desomalianification. But you can do that without killing them. You can just give them a plane ticket and be done with it. You have concocted this this scenario with beachheads and expeditionary forces and a million somalis being carted off at gunpoint... why? Why would that happen? Its Somalia. They don't have a functional government. They don't have a navy. They don't have an air force. They don't control their borders. They don't control their own territory.
Maybe just bribe them? Send them to Rwanda instead? Do some negotiations with them to change their mind? Tell them Sweden will recognize Somalialand? Literally anything else than what you said? You can deport people without murdering them! The US deports orders of magnitudes more than Sweden, (mostly) murder free!
But remigration isn't a solution. First, because I can't imagine how to do it remotely ethically. Comparing anything right-wing to Nazism is an overused cliche, but it fits here: AFAIK Nazis initially planned to just deport the Jews somewhere (Madagascar), but ended up brutally overworking and exterminating them, because their end goal was to get rid of them and that was easiest. How would you get rid of immigrants if Somalia etc. won't accept them? What if it's too expensive? What if it's dangerous for them? What about women and children?
You not being able imagine deporting people without immediately genociding them like the Nazis is a very silly argument. First because it is credible to no one that you can't imagine it (did you try at all? try harder!), and second because all they would have to do is just not genocide people. Very easy, they're already doing that. And there is zero indication that they are going to stop doing that, they already deport people without murdering them. What evidence is there that they will start? None. Its ridiculous.
These are difficult questions not only morally, but the infrastructure (military tactics) to effectively implement remigration is dangerous for your own sake. It risks broadening persecution, creating a fascist state, an ugly monoculture...the exact failure it seeks to prevent.
You clearly just believe that remigration = fascism, by definition, that is the logic chain you have laid out. So just say that. Its honest.
Why would you assume this would involve military tactics? What evidence is there that remigrations are inherently dangerous, plenty of countries have done mass deportations without turning into genocidal states. Huge claims with zero evidence.
So another point of discussion is why Örebro decided to focus on this as their stand-out policy. Is it just marketing and they plan to implement something much more moderate (I realize I'm bad at marketing, but I'm skeptical this would work for a generally leftist party). Is it a radical idea to appeal to the working class? Is it only the media that's focusing on this policy, and Örebro themselves consider it a less important part of the agenda compared to the socialist policies? (Probably all of the above, especially the third.)
Is it really that hard to take them at their own word? Why do you not? Why should we not?
A real solution must be broader than immigration. Fixing the other issues: making LLMs more diverse,
This is genuinely the most retarded thing I have ever read on this website
phosphorus2
8d ago
I think that my statement is at least technically true, because "it is harder to sex id clothed persons than nude persons" should hardly be controversial.
a "technically true" statement that has no bearing on reality has no value
phosphorus2
9d ago
I mentioned people unhappy with their surgeries and if you'd bothered to click on the link you'd've seen the thread titled "Unhappy with my results" right there on the front page (it was there yesterday, it's a bit more hidden now; instead there's one titled "Really disheartened." now).
Cherry-picking negative examples from your reddit cherry-pick
phosphorus2
9d ago
I've seen the images they've seen, the collages, the screenshots, the threads, that gave them that opinion on SRS. It's not neutral, unbiased coverage.
Lol
So are you saying that if that had been the demand
No I said that was never the demand, and I asked you not to lie to us that it was the demand, and now I am telling you that when you argue with someone and try to make a point to them by telling them something that both of you know is not true they are only going to change their mind about your credibility.
phosphorus2
10d ago
If transition means having your dick cut off and turned into an open wound that needs to be constantly dilated, however... I'm not sure I can believe that that really helps anybody.
You've been fed cherry-picked information about sex reassignment surgery. Many people are, in fact, happy about their surgeries. See /r/Transgender_Surgeries.
That's not cherry-picked information. That is one of the medical interventions in question. That is an actual trans medical intervention, and that is what happens in that surgery. The penis is removed. You are left with an hole that needs to be constantly dilated. You don't get to just waive your hands and say the magic words "cherry-picking" to dismiss arguments you don't like.
You pointing us to to reddit . com for a bunch of people happy with that same surgery is an actual example of cherry-picking.
"Some people prefer to be referred to as a gender different from the one they were born with."
It was never just this, don't lie to us.
phosphorus2
10d ago
In most human societies, it is not as easy to identify the sex of another person.
impossible to have a conversation with someone who asserts such transparently false things
phosphorus2
15d ago
The police in the UK have a very bad track record of caring of what happens to the UK's poor and vulnerable. This is more about class than anything else.
If it was a class issue where are the white british rape gangs? Why are they all pakistanis? Why are the victims all white?
Here is a quote directly telling you that the police covered this up because they were worried about race relations:
Does this seem like a class issue to you? Do you think that a white taxi driver would have raped this girl?
Its a class issue that when a pakistani calls up his pakistani friends and with the promise of gang raping a british child his pakistani friends don't immediately report him to the police?
Its a class issue certain not white demographics commit rape at rates orders of magnitudes higher than the native brit population?
As a comparison there's the case of Fred West and his wife Rose West.
Did Fred West call up all his friends to join in? Did a bunch of Fred West's friends join in when offered? Do you think that the typical lower class brit would join in on gang raping a child if offered the chance? Did the police cover up Fred West's crimes because they were scared of race riots?
phosphorus2
17d ago
Anthropic doesn't want their tech to be used to spy on Americans. Your solution is that Anthropic should move to the UK, which not 2 weeks ago announced that they will be requiring tech companies, under threat of prison, to scan anything and everything on every single persons phone.
Open arms, but check your back for a stiletto.
phosphorus2
18d ago
we can intercept most of their missiles and rockets at any time
Is that why you kept your ships at a decent distance?
What are you implying, that the American ships were chicken?
First thing is that it is not entirely clear that America actually can intercept most of Iran's missiles and rockets. I'm sure the intercept rate for something like a Shahed drone is close to 100%, but it is certainly much less for their more advanced ballistic missiles.
Second thing is that it doesn't matter if America can intercept most of Iran's missiles and rockets. You need to intercept all of them, a single miss can be billions in damage. 99% isn't going to open the straight. 99% is not going to protect your $10 billion aircraft carrier. 99% gets your THAAD destroyed. See below link.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c2l2yl7r8r2o
Are you saying that America lacked the technical capacity to bomb Iran, or that America lacked the political will to deal with the fallout.
He is saying that it is not clear how doing this accomplishes America's objectives. If our objectives were something like:
- stop Iran nuclear program for good
- stop Iran missile production for good
- open Hormuz for good
Blowing all the bridges and power plants in probably stops 1, but it's not clear how it does long term. It probably mostly stops 2, but I don't think it stops it totally, and Iran having 1% the production they do now is still very dangerous and doesn't get you where you need to be. And it doesn't stop 3 at all. So unless you think we can bomb them into agreement with America it doesn't really matter if we can blow the bridges.
phosphorus2
1mo ago
This is not a Quality Contribution.
This is a Quality Contribution. You really ought to just read the whole thing and maybe not even bother reading my comment.
Rov actually posted to this website and argues on this website. Patrick does not.
phosphorus2
2mo ago
phosphorus2
2mo ago
I don't think this is a good explanation. On really any level.
Have norms really eroded in the last 50 years? 50 years ago it was the 70s, this was a huge period of political and social unrest. Political violence was at least an order of magnitude more then. Very widespread protests on the Vietnam war. There were daily bombings by an entire mish mash of groups - the Weathermen, Puerto Ricans, black power type groups. What do you mean the norms have eroded in the last 50 years, they're way better than in the 70s! Especially on political violence!
And your 3 points are lazy. They don't really explain much.
Like on 1 - of course the leadership/elite of the parties have more in common with each other than with us. They work the same job! They talk to each other a lot! They live part time in the same city! Of course you have more in common with the people you work with than with 330 million people you have never met! How could it be any other way?
Your point 2 is also very vague, it is not clear at all. What en bloc interests are unaligned? How has that unalignment increased in the last 50 years? What are some examples? Like they have an interest to stay elected? And raise money? That's always been the case. What changed? What eroded?
Your point 3 - there have always been unscrupulous rich people. They have always been willing to obtain money and power at the expense of others. They've always been there, so how could a supposed erosion of norms be due to them? What has actually changed? There are much better and much more interesting explanations out there. Like if anything changed I would say it is the technology, particularly the internet, that is driving changes. The internet is what allowed the rise of social media, and online echo chambers, and doom scrolling algos, and mean nasty people having a voice. DJT is the twitter president. Technological changes allowed his rise, he could bypass the traditional media gatekeepers. Zuck can't build facebook in 1970 when there are no smartphones and no internet.
Sorry but its just a lazy explanation when there are much more interesting ones to chew on. "Rich people bad. Politicians bad." Ok but there are a lot of people, there are a lot of rich people, a lot of them will do bad things. This has always been the case. A lot of them did bad things in 1976. So what changed? You offer platitudes that aren't even true and don't make any sense.
phosphorus2
2mo ago
This seems to assume that the Charlottesville rally would not have occured had they not been in touch with a single member of the larger group chat behind the rally. Informants have to be higher ups in order to provide solid information, but it's not like they are gods who make all the decisions by themselves for the groups. Helping the informant avoid exposure also seems like a basic concept that doesn't require assuming Charlottesville wouldn't have happened without them.
That was not my assumption, and I don't see how what I wrote would give you that impression. Can you explain why you are interpreting it that way?
But either way, how exactly would that change anything? My objection, and the DOJ's, is that the SPLC was telling donors that it opposed a white nationalist rally, while in reality they were secretly promoting and helping to facilitate that rally. That the SPLC was not solely responsible for the rally does not mean they didn't spend money they promised would oppose the rally to instead secretly promote and facilitate the rally. Can you explain otherwise? What am I missing?
Likewise with your other two points on informants - can you explain how a high up informant being more useful somehow refutes the fact that the SPLC paid for and promoted and facilitated things they explicitly told their donors they opposed? How does facilitating transport to the rally oppose it? How does paying someone and supervising their racist posts oppose that exact person's racist posting? To be honest I don't see a connection at all, can you point it out for me?
Because if you want an informant on the inside to leak you information and stay under cover, financial appeal can help you where moral appeal might not. Just paying people to snitch is not some new concept. It's not something the SPLC has invented, it's been around since the beginning of snitches and is used by law enforcement constantly.
I agree that paying people to snitch is more effective than not paying people and expecting them to snitch. I agree that getting people to snitch can be an effective way to dismantle an organization. I can even maybe see how giving over a million dollars to a fundraiser for a group you are fighting might make sense, like there is at least something there. But that is not all of what the SPLC is accused of doing, so I am going to ask again - in what sense can the SPLC be said to be working against a man when they are directly funding him and indirectly funding his organization? The SPLC says "here is a bad guy we oppose", the SPLC says "here is the donate button to oppose the bad guy", and then the SPLC goes and gives that money directly to the "bad guy". Huh?
Also not seeing the relevance of law enforcement here. While law enforcement using a technique may be a testament to that technique's effectiveness, it does not follow from that statement that the SPLC should do the same. The SPLC is not a law enforcement agency, and there are a lot of things inherent to law enforcement agencies which are not inherent to the SPLC. Those differences preclude the SPLC from operating in an at all similar manner.
Consider in just the five years from 2012 to to this hearing in 2017 the ATF and DEA alone paid informants almost 260 million.
If you are just trying to convince me that it is effective to pay informants, you don't have to. That was never questioned by me and I apologize if I gave you that impression because we are in agreement on that point. But I am also going to point out that your link really undermines that position. Did read any of it?
Like here is a quote from Rep. Hice:
We’ve got thousands [of confidential informants] who are being paid, and we don’t have any idea the quality of the information they’re providing.
This is not a quote in support of CI programs.
Even looking beyond the contradictions I don't see the relevance of the point and I don't see how this supports anything else you have said. How exactly does a House Oversight Committee reprimanding law enforcement for "inadequate oversight over the CI program" and " fail[ing] to sufficiently review, authorize, and implement controls for CIs’ activities and payments" support your position on the acceptability of the SPLC's informant program? If it is at all applicable, would it not be directionally arguing that what the SPLC did was not acceptable? Actual law enforcement agencies with Congressional oversight clearly have huge issues with their CI program, and given that the SPLC has zero external oversight of any kind should we not be more skeptical of their CI program?
phosphorus2
2mo ago
...What SPLC is accused of doing, though, doesn't fit into any of these categories, and there's no clear violation of nonprofit law. What the indictment accuses them of is fraudulently soliciting donations by using the funds in a manner that is inconsistent with the mission statement as it appears on their website. If what they are accused of doing is a matter for Federal criminal charges, then practically every nonprofit in the country should be charged, mostly for stuff that is entirely unobjectionable.
Consider the following fictional example: The Allegheny Trails Alliance is a nonprofit whose advertised mission is to support trail maintenance and construction on public lands in Pennsylvania and West Virginia. They donate $10,000 in unrestricted funds to support a trail construction project in Garret State Forest in Western Maryland, which is outside of their technical operating area but is frequented by the same people who frequent trails in PA and WV. Is this wire fraud? What if they pay a contractor to perform invasive species removal at a state park where they have a maintenance contract? Is this wire fraud because it isn't directly related to trail construction or maintenance?
Inconsistent is one thing and I can see how there is wiggle room in the definition. But what they are being accused of is not just inconsistency with the mission statement, it is doing stuff directly opposed to the mission statement and directly opposed to what they said the money would be used for. From the indictment:
The Southern Poverty Law Center's ("SPLC") stated mission included the dismantling of white supremacy and confronting hate across the country. However, unbeknownst to donors, some of their donated money was being used to fund the leaders and organizers of racist groups, including the Ku Klux Klan, the Aryan Nation, and the National Alliance. The SPLC's paid informants ("field sources") engaged in the active promotion of racist groups at the same time that the SPLC was denouncing the same groups on its website.
Here is I think the strongest example of the SPLC doing the exact opposite of what they claim to do:
F-30 led the National Socialist Party of America, was the former director of a faction of the Aryan Nations, and a former member of the Ku Klux Klan. The SPLC website contained an "Extremist File" webpage for F-30 from which the SPLC solicited donations. Between 2014 and 2016, the SPLC secretly paid F30 more than $70,000.00. This overlapped the time period in which F-30 was featured on the SPLC's "Extremist File" webpage.
If the SPLC specifically opposes this guy, and solicit donations on the basis do they really get to just turn around and give him $70k? That seems to be the exact opposite of opposing him, no?
Or to ask in terms of your Allegheny Trails Alliance example - if ATA had instead secretly donated that $10,000 to "Mr. No Trail Maintenance Ever" would your answer to "is this wire fraud" still be no? Even when the ATA explicitly told its donors "Donate to us to stop Mr. No Trail Maintenance Ever", who then went on to oppose trail maintenance according to the ATA? Because that seems to me to be closer to the story in the case of F-30, like this was not simply doing something slightly outside of their scope as in your example.
phosphorus2
2mo ago
This is already questionable. The idea that paying for an informant inside of a group to provide you leaks and information that you report on, and even share with law enforcement if it hints at potential criminal behavior counts as "funding" the movement as a form of support is quite a stretch.
Ok there is the legal question here, and it kind of looks like they are cooked because lying to banks seems like a very easy thing to prove. But probably more important is the court of public opinion, and what future donors will think. And reading the indictment it really seems very bad, the SPLC was going far beyond just paying informants for information. They were directly funding people who they promised to fight against. They were directly funding behaviors and events they promised to fight against. They were directly funding leadership of organizations they promised to fight against. To the tune of millions of dollars.
Some examples from the indictment:
F-37 was a member of the online leadership chat group that planned the 2017 "Unite the Right" event in Charlottesville, Virginia and attended the event at the direction of the SPLC. F-37 made racist postings under the supervision of the SPLC and helped coordinate transportation to the event for several attendees. Between 2015 and 2023, the SPLC secretly paid F-37 more than $270,000.00.
The SPLC billed this as a hate rally, they told their donors they were working against it, and they solicited donations from them on that basis. At the same time they were paying organizers, they were telling people they paid to attend, and they were coordinating transportation to the rally. They told their donors they were working to stop a hate group doing "hate speech" while they directly funded and coordinated with leaders of that group to do that very same thing they promised to stop, with money that they said would be used to stop it!
F-9 was affiliated with the neo-Nazi organization, the National Alliance and served as an F for the SPLC for more than 20 years. F-9's activities included fundraising for the National Alliance. Between 2014 and 2023, the SPLC secretly paid F-9 more than $1,000,000.00.
This is what the SPLC tells its donors about the National Alliance. If the SPLC wanted to dismantle National Alliance why would they give their fundraiser a million dollars? How exactly could donating to a group be considered dismantling that group?
F-42 was the former chairman of the National Alliance. The SPLC website contained an "Extremist File" webpage about F-42 from which the SPLC solicited donations. Between 2016 and 2023, the SPLC secretly paid F-42 more than $140,000.00. This overlapped the time period in which F-42 was featured on the SPLC's "Extremist File" webpage.
Is it honest and ethical to tell your donors you are working to stop this specific person and this specific organization while secretly paying that person, the former leader of that organization, $140,000? While giving their fundraiser (and presumably by extension that group) over $1,000,000? In what sense can the SPLC be said to be working against a man when they are directly funding him and indirectly funding his organization? In what sense is that not just flat out lying?
F-unknown was the Imperial Wizard of the United Klans of America. In an article published on November 22, 2013, the SPLC described the group as a "millennial reboot of what was once a serious domestic threat.
F-unknown was a member of the Ku Klux Klan and married to an Exalted Cyclops of the Ku Klux Klan. F-unknown and their spouse were involved in litigation whereby the Ku Klux Klan applied to take part in the Adopt-a Highway program. During the course of the litigation, known payments were traced from the SPLC to F-unknown which exceeded $3,500.00.
These are the people who set policy, who make decisions, who control the entire organization. In a very direct sense they ARE the organization, more so than anyone else, and the SPLC is giving them, the KKK, the SPLC's biggest bogeyman, hundreds of thousands of dollars and indirectly funding their lawsuits.
The indictment is pretty short so I encourage you to read it if you think I am taking these out of context. This information was not in the OP so maybe you were not aware of it, but does seeing it now does that change your mind at all? If it was just paying informants for information then I agree that the funding allegations would be quite a stretch. But that is not really even close to what was happening here. They were directly coordinating and promoting and facilitating this stuff. It looks much closer to "self licking ice cream cone" than "informants for info".
phosphorus2
3mo ago
Trump repeatedly uses the phrase "worst of the worst".
The claim was that Trump has called for "JUST" the removal of the "worst of the worst". Those are your words, I even quoted them. You are not alone in making the claim, but that is your claim. That you change the claim instead of defending it with evidence indicates that you cannot defend it.
They even had a website about this exact phrasing, albeit they even admit it was filled with errors.
You are interpreting words to mean what you want them to mean, not what they actually mean. This website is a good example of what is going on. Here is the Trump admin, direct from the website you linked, emphasis mine:
"The U.S. Department of Homeland Security is highlighting the worst of worst criminal aliens arrested by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)."
"Under Secretary Noem's leadership, the hardworking men and women of DHS and ICE are fulfilling President Trump's promise and carrying out mass deportations - starting with the worst of the worst - including the illegal aliens you see here."
They say they are starting with the worst of the worst. They never say they will just deport the worst of the worst. They say they are doing the opposite of just going after the worst of the worst, they are carrying out mass deportations.
The slight of hand here is that you are misconstruing "highlighting the worst of the worst" as "just the worst of the worst." Highlighting does not imply exclusivity. Does a highlighter block out everything on a page not highlighted?
Just go ask any of the chatbots and they can give you tons of examples.
ChatGPT says that you are reading framing from media and not Trump's actual words:
✅ Bottom line:
-Trump has often said criminals would be deported first.
-But he has also repeatedly supported deporting all undocumented immigrants, not just criminals.
-I could not find credible instances where he explicitly promised deportations would be limited exclusively to criminals.
If you want, I can also show a few examples of how this claim (“Trump said he would only deport criminals”) entered political discourse, because that framing mostly came from media summaries and campaign messaging rather than his literal wording. That nuance is actually pretty important in debates about this.
phosphorus2
3mo ago
Likewise when the Trump admin strips the legal status of people who came here properly, people who are against illegal immigration but for legal immigrants are also pushed away.
People who are against illegal immigration are against it not because it is against the law, but for some other reason. Joe Biden going and flying in millions of people, immediately giving them humanitarian parole, and then giving them TPS does not actually address any of those reasons those people were concerned about. People can see that Biden used humanitarian parole / TPS in a very novel way, they can see it used as an immigration pathway,
lies that it's just the "worst of the worst"
Who here is lying? Do you have any evidence that Trump has ever said this?
From his 2024 platform he did not promise this. CARRY OUT THE LARGEST DEPORTATION OPERATION IN AMERICAN HISTORY is what it promises. I have searched and I have not found DJT promising to just deport criminals, and I have found loads of instances of him saying positions contradictory to that claim.
phosphorus2
3mo ago
So what does this tell us about the state of the Trump administration? Turnover is generally bad, but I don't really see why Trump is firing her at this time.
She has had many scandals, she comes across as an idiot, and she hasn't had any really any wins. I don't think we can really read into this as a policy change when her performance has been so poor.
The timing really seems to be due to the senate hearing, she had a very bad showing because she has a bad record. She got hit from both sides of the aisle.
I would say Bovino got outed for similar reasons - too many fuck ups and not enough wins to overcome those fuck ups.
They already have the funding for ICE expansion, I don't see them changing course on what was arguably Trumps biggest issue.
phosphorus2
4mo ago
You can not compel people to really treat you as your identified gender any more than you can compel them to treat you as one of the cool kids. If a bearded person in a dress complains that none of the guys at the bars are buying them drinks, that is not really actionable.
This is basically 'your passports are invalid until you get the J stamp', the state unreasonably punishing an outgroup for partisan reasons.
Kansas, like all states, records "sex" not "gender" on the driver's licenses it issues.
It is entirely reasonable for Kansas to require true information that is useful for identifying those it issues licenses to because that is the entire purpose of driver's licenses, to provide true and useful identifying information on those to who it is issued.
Would it be reasonable for a state to issue a license with a different picture than the holder? With a different name? With a different date of birth? Or would doing these things defeat the purpose of the driver's license?
By contrast, for all the moral panic about trans people from the Republicans, the state not caring about your gender identity matching your sex assigned at birth will not have such negative externalities. Nobody is forcing anyone to suck trans cocks. As a straight guy, I can spend weeks without thinking about the existence of dickgirls at all, something which MAGA seems completely unable to achieve.
The negative externality here is not about identification or paperwork. It is that the state has embraced and celebrated and mandated untruth. That our shared truth seeking institutions are no longer seeking a truth that reflects material reality because they have been cowed with histrionic comparisons to the genocides of Nazi Germany.
In 2013 the Dominican Republic stripped birthright citizenship from every Haitian born in the country. Their stated goals were to get rid of an unwanted people, and those people were not wanted explicitly due to their ethnicity. They applied it retroactively, all the way back to 1929. They stripped citizenship from people who had only ever known the DR solely because of their ethnicity. Since then they have deported hundreds of thousands of Haitians.
None of the things you say will happen in Sweden happened in the DR. They did not genocide. They did not turn into the fourth reich. Doing this was not some impossible pedestrian dodging task.
More options
Context Copy link