Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
No bio...
User ID: 297
To add to this, most people underestimate how truly terrible most submissions are. I don't mean "Not a particularly good or interesting book," I mean "So bad that the agent can tell within the first few paragraphs that this writer is hopeless." If you get them to read three entire chapters you're ahead of the pack.
Hah - it's flattering to think I have fans here, but even if so, I don't think my posts give much of a sense of how I write fiction.
Ironically enough, my only actual professional writing credits are with Steve Jackson Games. It's amazing to me they have survived all of Steve's really bad decisions. I guess Munchkin keeps them afloat.
It's SF, actually.
Honestly, I've given up trying to find an agent or publisher with this particular book. I might try the indie publishing route someday, but I'd want more books in the pipeline to do that.
About 83,000 words.
I've heard that January is a bad time to query, precisely because agents know a lot of people have just finished polishing up their NaNoWriMo novels and are sending them out. Don't know how true that is.
One of these days I will finish one of my other manuscripts. The one serious effort I made, I got zero agent interest, but I did make it all the way to Baen's final editorial board.
I wasn't using rhetorical flourishes. I was using words to communicate things that I actually believe.
You read my statement and your conclusion is that I believe "going after the employers is the best and only reasonable way to do anything about illegal immigration and, as a result, going directly after illegal immigrants is cruel and should be verboten."
Is that correct?
f we go back to Nybbler's actual claim, that people believe "going directly after illegal immmigrants is cruel and should be verboten", we see that PmMeClassicMemes clearly does not want immigration law used against actual illegal immigrants, even illegal immigrants with previous criminal histories.
It is not clear to me that that is true, but I tire of trying to engineer semantics to cast what someone "really" means (especially when this is done to me) rather than just asking them directly.
But Nybbler's statement wasn't "literally no deportation against anyone, ever, in any situation, no matter the case". He said "going directly after illegal immmigrants is cruel and should be verboten".
I suppose in fairness I should ask @The_Nybbler directly, then. Does "going directly after illegal immigrants is cruel and should be verboten" mean one believes no illegal immigrant should ever be arrested and deported under any circumstance?
The two statements you quoted are not perfectly consistent.
Adjectives, adverbs, and qualifiers alter the meanings of sentences.
I do not think @The_Nybbler was referring to "their strongest form." I am aware there are people who genuinely believe immigration laws should not be enforced and everything ICE does is illegitimate. @PmMeClassicMemes does not seem to be saying "immigration laws should not be enforced" (in fact he says the opposite), and I don't know of anyone other than the most radical leftists who'd agree that literally no one, not even a convicted felon, should be deported ever. @The_Nybbler seems to be merely taking a shit, as he usually does, on people who have moderate-to-strong opposition to the maximal position.
The other posts you quoted seem to be generally agreeing with my own personal position, which is that immigration laws should be enforced, but the administration is unserious about really doing that because they are more interested in setting up confrontations on the streets than applying any pressure at all on the businesses who continue to incentivize illegal immigration.
Do you think any nuance exists in these objections? Perhaps something less absolute than "going directly after illegal immigrants is cruel and should be verboten"? Is it possible the presence or absence of certain qualifying adverbs might impact the meaning of such statements?
I'm not "punishing" either of you, I'm just telling you to give it a rest. I am not trying to judge who was "more" at fault here, because no one is getting banned.
This sudden received indisputable wisdom that going after the employers is the best and only reasonable way to do anything about illegal immigration and, as a result, going directly after illegal immmigrants is cruel and should be verboten is not credible.
Granting somewhere on the Internet someone has probably said this, this looks like a straw man to me.
You and @crushedoranges -
One of my least favorite things is looking at a thread where two people are going at it over some slapfight from weeks or months (sometimes years!) ago. I don't like it when someone comes after me because he wants to renew an argument we had so long ago I barely remember it, and I don't like seeing a bunch of reports because two guys are at it again over some petty shit that they should both just let drop.
What happened was this:
@crushedoranges said "It's understandable that someone who keeps getting called a Nazi will eventually say 'Okay fine, I'm a Nazi.'" You said: "So you're a Nazi then?"
And you've both been going at each other unnecessarily ever since, crushedoranges angry that you called him a Nazi (which you didn't, really, you were just being snarky and trying to score a zinger), you indignant that he said it's okay to be a Nazi (which he didn't, really, he was talking about a natural human reaction to someone constantly accusing you of being something you're not).
IMO, you are both being deliberately obtuse in refusing to see what the other one is really saying, but it doesn't matter. Let it go.
Actually, Jiro, you are a perfect example of terrible voting and reporting patterns. There are few long-timers on the Motte with a worse history of bad faith posting, bad faith reporting, and generally taking a reflexive conflict theory approach to any post. "If it supports my tribe, it is good. If it advocates for any member of my outgroup, it is bad and should not exist."
You are of course allowed to upvote or downvote a post for any reason you like. We would prefer people actually vote according to the quality of the argument and whether it contributes anything interesting or new to the discussion (even if you disagree with the post!), rather than using it as an Agree/Disagree button, but most people do the latter. We would really prefer people not use the Report button to call the mods' attention to posts, presumably with the intent that we should warn or ban someone, because you don't like their opinion.
A silly mod score doesn't memory hole an X times reported AAQC post or hide it from the editorial review process, I hope.
It does not. The janny score gives us some community feedback, but mods make the final decision.
That is not my experience, though I admit I don't exactly hang around with the Hasan Piker fan club. Mostly what I see in the way of insults is they are evil and devoid of human feelings, or they are stupid and uneducated. The most "sexual" common insult is claims that their guns/SUVs/McMansions/etc. are compensating for small dicks.
Dunno where you see all this queer talk. Maybe you are deeper in leftist circles than I am.
Interestingly, this post has received 3 AAQC nominations. (I'm frankly surprised there have been no "boo outgroup" or "antagonistic" reports-not that I think it was boo outgroup or antagonistic, just that a post going against the popular grain here usually gets those with the speed of a hammer tapping the femoral nerve.) However, because it is in the mod queue, it's also in the volunteer mod queue (which does not reveal to the volunteer jannies whether it's in the queue for AAQCs or negative reports or both).
It's currently sitting at a "Bad" rating--meaning most of the volunteers going through the queue marked it as "Deserves a warning or ban."
Fascinating.
The right equivalent is usually calling leftists pussies, cucks, or otherwise implying they are weak and womanly.
I'm arguing the state should exercise discretion in punishing crimes, not all crimes are equal in severity, and not all criminals are equal in deleteriousness to the public good. This is why we have courts and judges and a Constitution, though I am increasingly persuaded by those who argue that these things are fabulations and all that matters is who's holding the gun. I think that's a very unfortunate descent.
Okay. Lots of people walk around every day committing some form of crime, whether it's minor violations they aren't even aware of or an ongoing illegal behavior. I am just not moved by "EVERY SINGLE DAY THEY WAKE UP ILLEGAL THEY ARE CONSTANTLY IN A STATE OF DOING CRIME!" Yes, that's true. I disagree we should make every one of them eat pavement and boot and there's no other remedy but that, but I understand this is a minority view here. Perhaps if you stretch your capacity for charity a bit you can understand this does not also mean I think everyone should be allowed to COMMIT CRIME EVERY DAY with impunity.
If I inserted the word "otherwise" would you be less distressed?
Yes, of course it's law. It's not all migrants from third world countries, though. There are people who overstayed tourist or student visas, maybe had some kids, and because of various complicated personal situations, couldn't or wouldn't become legalized. Are they breaking the law? Sure. Do I think they made avoidable mistakes at some point? Yes. Should they all be tackled by ICE outside their homes and shipped home in cuffs, even if they've been working and paying taxes for decades? Yeah, I am aware this gives some people a hard-on.
Should every single one of us be subjected to maximal enforcement of every law we have every violated? Okay, fine, you hate illegals. I think illegal immigrants should be prosecuted and deterred. I think people who break other laws should be prosecuted and deterred.
I hate drunk drivers. DUI is bad, I think they absolutely should be punished. Should the police pull every drunk driver out of their car at gunpoint? No. And I don't necessarily think everyone should go to jail on their first DUI, but certainly on their third or fourth. But some people think you should go to prison and lose your driving privileges forever on your first DUI. I disagree with these people. It doesn't mean I think DUI is okay or shouldn't be enforced. Some people think DUI is a minor violation and no big deal and everyone does it. I think those people are wrong too.
I'm curious as to why someone in the country for 26 years who has been compliant with regulations isn't given asylum or citizenship. I'm not doubting the story, but if this is so, then the entire system is backed up worse than a toilet and is clearly not able to handle the applicants it has, on top of the new applications flooding in.
People who came in illegally and lived law-abiding lives for decades are still technically here illegally. There are avenues for such people to pursue naturalization and citizenship, but it's not simple and typically they have to leave the country and spend a minimum number of years outside the US before being allowed to reenter. As abused as asylum laws are, not everyone can just claim asylum ("Really, you were fleeing from the dystopian failed state of... Ireland?") So yeah, there are people who have been here for years, raised families, pay taxes, but technically could be arrested by ICE even now. Reagan issued an amnesty in the 80s which allowed many long-time illegal residents to naturalize, but there hasn't been such an opportunity since.
- Prev
- Next

A literal open borders advocate (which is how I would interpret "no person is illegal") might indeed say that even criminals (for crimes other than illegal entry) shouldn't be deported. But saying we should go after businesses rather than targeting individuals doesn't mean open borders and no one can ever be deported. My guess is those making the latter argument would mostly say illegals should only be deported if they commit other crimes, or if their appeals/application process is denied.
More options
Context Copy link