@OracleOutlook's banner p

OracleOutlook

Fiat justitia ruat caelum

5 followers   follows 2 users  
joined 2022 September 05 01:56:25 UTC 

				
User ID: 359


				
				
				

			

		

	














	


		


			



	

		

			

			

				

					

						

							
						

						

							
							

								
OracleOutlook


								

								

								
								
								

								
							
					
 
				


				
Fiat justitia ruat caelum

				
				
				

				

					5 followers  

					follows 2 users  

					joined 2022 September 05 01:56:25 UTC
				


				
					

					
No bio...

				

				

				

				

				

					

					

					
					
					

					
User ID: 359


					
					
					
				

			


					

						
					



		

	

 











			
			

			
			

			




	


		

			
‎

			

				
				

					Hour
					Day
					
					Month
					Year
					All
				

			


			
‎

			

	
	

	 Hot Bump Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
	



		

	






	

		
		

		
		
	

	

  







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 12, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Would you like to specify which case you think matches Alice's example?  Because the ones that match most closely take my side, for instance:




Haig v. Agee concluded that an ex-CIA agent's "repeated disclosures of
intelligence operations and names of intelligence personnel" were as
constitutionally unprotected as "'the publication of the sailing dates of
transports or the number and location of troops,"' at least when the disclosures
were done for "the declared purpose of obstructing intelligence operations and
the recruiting of intelligence personnel."'




and




Several federal circuit cases have held that speech that
intentionally facilitates tax evasion, illegal immigration, drugmaking, and
contract killing is constitutionally unprotected.




At most your source is saying there's a complex history of caselaw here and the Supreme Court hasn't ruled on this action specifically.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 12, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Ok, but the standard is Brandenburg and Brandenburg says you can't incite imminent lawless action.  Evading the police is lawless action, and alerting criminals to police is inciting them to flee.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 12, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
That certainly is a narrative.  Going to stick with the factual bit at the top:




First, undocumented immigrants are, not to put too fine a point to it, undocumented. Oh, sure, you might catch and deport a few foreigners who overstayed their student visa, but generally the government is unlikely to have a complete list of all the people who illegally crossed the border and try their best to stay out of the governments databases.




Many get put into databases once they are arrested for crimes inside the US.  Others are caught on the border, start the process of removal proceedings, but are released on bond while their case goes through court.  Congress explicitly gave ICE the power to revoke bond or parole, at any time, for any reason.  Hope that helps!


Edit: I guess there was another factual claim there.  ICE is not targeting sanctuary cities as punishment for voting blue.  Most arrests take place in cooperative jurisdictions, like Texas, where 110 out of 100k non-citizens are arrested. In sanctuary Illinois, that number is 21 out of 100k.  https://www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/2025/12/11/ice-jails-update/#:~:text=Impact%20of%20strategies%20to%20block,remain%20lower%20than%20other%20states.  ICE arrests in cooperative jurisdictions are easy, they just show up to the jail and it's done.  ICE arrests in non-cooperative jurisdictions make more noise and take more manpower.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 12, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Unlawful entry is criminal, not civil, under 8 USC 1325 carrying a maximum prison sentence of up to six months on the first offense (higher on subsequent offenses). That makes it a Class B misdemeanor (18 USC 3559).


So misdemeanor, no probs right?  Still way worse than a library fine, but less than a murder. But a significant number of people ICE targets are felons, as in having committed a crime inside the US which they have been found guilty of.  And a significant number of those who are not are guilty of committing crimes in their home countries.  ICE's method in Sanctuary Cities is largely to go to locations where released criminals are, arrest the criminal, and grab anyone else there who shouldn't be here.


Cato (a pretty hostile source) says:




The ICE data show that the share of immigrants detained after an ICE arrest who had criminal convictions has fallen in half since January from 62 percent of detainees to 31 percent in November.




Note they say convictions, many of those without convictions have pending criminal charges.  And then, as they say in the headline, only 5% have violent convictions.


So let's take that smallest number, 5%.  You only have a 5% chance each time you mob ICE of preventing a violent convicted felon from being deported.  If you make a habit of it, say you interfere in 10 arrests, you have at least a 40% chance of having interfered in the arrest of a violent felon.  Great work!


Edit: I changed it to "At least 40%" because from my understanding, ICE often targets violent felons, and then catches others unlawfully present.  So this is kind of a floor, the likelihood of a violent felon being caught in any given raid is likely higher than 5%.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 12, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Is it really constitutionally protected to warn a felon of the presence of the police?  Like let's say Alice gets a phone alert that a white murderer who killed three black kids escaped from prison.  Alice sides with the murder because she's a white supremacist. Alice later sees several police cruisers on a nearby street.  Worried that her favorite convict is nearby and will be returned to prison, she starts blowing a whistle and making a ruckus to help the convict escape.


That is constitutionally protected speech?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 12, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
"Because of the implication" cuts both ways.  The mob is perfectly capable of attempting murder, just look at what happens to Jake Lang yesterday.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 12, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Yeah, but I'm slightly less ok with that.  Not 100% less ok, just slightly and it isn't really necessary to the point if we're comparing false positives on detainees.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 12, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
The examples I gave in the OP had nothing to do with a false positive rate. I'll repeat:




But the problem isn't in the false positive rates, the problem is the methodology of accosting random people in public. I can point to official statistics about ICE to demonstrate that this is not their methodology. I do not have comparable statistics for Anti-ICE protestors, but I can point to them literally doing the methodology they accuse ICE of in broad daylight.




				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 12, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I agree that certain false positive rates are acceptable when enforcing the law (up to but not past the point of conviction/sentencing at least).  I disagree that certain false positive rates are acceptable when forming a mob.  This is not hypocrisy.


But the problem isn't in the false positive rates, the problem is the methodology of accosting random people in public.  I can point to official statistics about ICE to demonstrate that this is not their methodology.  I do not have comparable statistics for Anti-ICE protestors, but I can point to them literally doing the methodology they accuse ICE of in broad daylight.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 12, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Because it seems he was in their protest group, just didn't get the memo that they don't wear camo on Saturdays or whatever the line is now. Maybe you can expand what your comment meant because I took it as a general, how long before they eat their own?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 12, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Does this count? https://x.com/i/status/2012649035673350540


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 12, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Every White Male In Minnesota is now ICE


First I saw the video of a MSM Cameraman who was accused by a crowd of being ICE due to the car he drove.  He himeslf was Anti-ICE and fine with opening his vehicle up and showing that all he had inside was camera equipment.   The crowd was not mollified by this, their demands just grew more ridiculous.  "Get another car!  Rent a car!"  They learned no lessons about stereotyping people based on their race and vehicle.  It was the victim's fault for looking like the wrong type of person.


Then I saw the video of the tech workers sitting down for lunch together.  One of the gentlemen was on an Anti-ICE Signal chat and saw a notification that was accusing him and his friends of being ICE.  At first it seemed funny, but then the mob descended.  And of course, despite this mob not having any badges, several of them covering up their faces, generally being a threatening bunch, these tech workers were expected to give out details about where they work, where they live, what their occupation is, their politics, etc. lest they face the wrath of the mob.


The videos are abundant once you start looking.  The Tree Trimmer who has a caravan of Anti-ICE cars following them around, honking, for the crime of driving a work van with tinted windows.  The tall white guy just walking by himself with a warm jacket.


The irony of it all is that this is what anti ICE groups are accusing ICE of doing.  Going to places and harassing people based off of stereotypes without any legal authority to do so. Demanding evidence to prove that someone belongs here.


However, that's just not true.  ICE goes after specific people who have a final order of dismissal from an Immigration judge.  When they do so, they often find other illegal immigrants living in the same area or working at the same business, as that is the nature of these things.  Oftentimes these people also have final orders of removal.  And so it goes.


From January to October of last year, only 170 US citizens were detained by ICE as reported by ProPublica.  Of those 170, many were arrested for interfering with ICE operations.  Compare this with 234,211 removals (I don't have data on arrests or detentions, but I can assume the number of arrests/detentions is greater than removals.  The "US Citizen arrest rate" is at most 0.07% of the ICE arrestees, probably much smaller due to fact that there are more detentions than removals.




In July 2025, during street arrests and similar activities, ICE arrested some 4,494 persons who had no criminal record and no final order of deportation. If ICE were just arresting people who looked different, this is the statistic that would show it. The vast majority of Black people (96%) and Hispanic people (79%) in this country are citizens, so, if a government dragnet arrests a bunch of Hispanic people just for their skin color, we would expect about four out of five of them to turn out to be U.S. citizens. The ratio would be even higher in this dataset, because we’re already excluding people with final orders of deportation.







Of the 4,494 immigration suspects arrested in July, 209 have been released (<5%). 30 won their cases and received some form of formal relief. The others were released without much detail, but it seems safe to assume that ICE realized that they were likely to win relief in some form and pre-emptively granted it themselves. Zero—I repeat, zero—of those arrested were U.S. citizens.




The narrative of, "ICE is just going to immigrant communities and asking to see papers and then arresting anyone who can't prove without a shadow of a doubt that they're here legally," does not hold up to scrutiny.  But it seems like Anti-ICE people are assuming this is their playbook because it's what they would do, and are now doing.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Transnational Thursday for January 15, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Which figure are you referring to? Millions dying refers to the possibility of a severe famine, and yes, millions of deaths would not be unheard of in a famine.


Shooting protestors is easy when they've lines up on the street for you. But notice that I didn't commit to there being thousands, just said possibly because that was a report I saw.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Transnational Thursday for January 15, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
It's honestly difficult to see what can happen besides a revolution or millions dying at this point.  They have a severe drought because of mis-managed water supply.  They have Weinmar levels of inflation.  They have possibly tens of thousands of protestors shot to death.  They foolishly cut off internet, giving the locals little better to do than join the protests.  If soldiers defect because their families are starving, it's a revolution.  If the regime keeps their enforcers fed, it's mass deaths.


Treasury Sec. Scott Bessent claims that the Iranian government is wiring money out of the country.  Not sure if that's business as normal or if that's a sign this is the big one.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 12, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
No, Hmong tend to be salt-of-the-earth people.  But kids, especially college-aged kids, can get swept up in things even when they know better.


From what I can tell, their experience is not representative of ICE's activities.  I am sorry they had a rough experience.  I would like experiences like that minimized, but there are a certain number of false positives that will happen when enforcing any law and I would rather have those false positives than no law enforcement.  I would say the same if it was myself caught in a sweep.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 12, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
What were your "wife’s native-born coworker’s native-born children" doing when they were detained? Because in most of the cases I have seen where a US citizen is detained it's because they try to interfere with the arrest of someone else. Statistically only like .5% of people ICE detained this year were US Citizens, so it's not impossible that a mistake was made. But the framing that ICE is just arresting brown people and sorting them out later doesn't seem to hold up to data.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 12, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Typically speaking, there is a Grand Jury to assess if there is enough evidence to prosecute.  Prosecutors do not want to take on cases where there is insufficient evidence to convict, because they cherish their conviction rate.


In cases of a government agency being involved with the self-defense, there is an internal review.  If the internal review finds nothing wrong, it is unlikely to make it to a Grand Jury in the first place.


A murder trial is expensive for the government.  It isn't a thing to undertake lightly.  You have to rip away 12 random people (the jury) from their lives for weeks.  The level of evidence gathering, expert testimony to be paid out, etc. is very high.   I would recommend watching the Rittenhouse trial to see what it looks like for an innocent man to go through all that.  Then watch Daryll Brooks trial to see how hard it is on everyone else in the courthouse to go through all that even when the man is guilty as sin.


Edit: something else is that we are innocent until proven guilty. The assumption that someone acting in self defense needs to prove their innocence is wrong. They are not in a nebulous "not sure if guilty" state.  It is on the courts to prove guilt, and if they do not think they can they should not make the attempt.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 12, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Looked at the channel and one of their most popular videos seems to demonstrate the point quite well:  https://youtube.com/watch?v=5FMtL7saNKE?si=5-UEv0w-P9KmYvtH


A woman's boyfriend gets mad at her for stripping and when the police intervene the man just absolutely refuses to be chill about it.  Winds up needing to be manhandled quite severely.  Dragging him into the police car without dislocating his shoulder was tough.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 12, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
To add a personal flavor to this:


One of my police uncles was out on patrol one day with his partner.  They responded to a robbery at a convenience store.  When they tried to arrest the guy, the partner was shot and killed.  My uncle was shot and seriously wounded - multiple surgeries in a hospital wounded.  My uncle managed to shoot back and killed the guy.


Believe it or not, this was controversial in the local community!  The black community decried it as racial discrimination.  Surely he could have shot to wound, surely petty larceny wasn't worth the lives of two people, why did the police have to intervene?  The gun was planted, it didn't even belong to the robber (no one argued the guy didn't shoot, just that the gun didn't belong to him, except it turns out it did!)  There was even an article in the NYT I'm not going to link to for the tiniest bit of opsec remaining to me. But trust me, it was controversial.


Despite it very clearly being an act of self defense, should my uncle have had to stand trial for this?  If the only metric is 'Was the action controversial?"  then yes, he would have had to go through a trial and relive that day with his freedom and life on the line. That would have been an injustice.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 12, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I disagree that that is how the law should work.  For example, the Rittenhouse case should never have been brought to trial.  Prosecutors generally do not bring cases to trial that they know they will lose.  This case is likely one they would lose.  Therefore, the incentive is against drawing this out in a court of law.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 12, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Point me to the law that says people who act in self defense must be tried in a court of law to prove their innocence.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 12, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I think you will like his proposal for the House: https://decivitate.jamesjheaney.com/p/expand-the-house-you-cowards


The Senate is not the House.  The House should be extreme Democracy in action.  The Senate is the cooling rods.  You need both or you get Tyranny.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 12, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
This is true, with the important caveat that the Republican party he supported 13+ years ago is gone and dead.  He's not a Democrat, but it is unlikely the Republicans will ever field candidates he likes either.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 12, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
What we have every election under the current status quo is 45 hardcore Republicans, 45 hardcore Democrats, and 10 people who more often than not are anti-democrat but not necessarily pro-Republican (but vote for Republican causes more often than not.)  Republicans have a major bias in the Senate anyways.  Would it not be better for those Republicans to be moderate and willing to pass laws from a Democratic House?


Because another proposal he has would blow up the house to 1000+ people who are also more representative of the people at large and much less gerymandering.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 12, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
He calls Trump "Mr. Trump" and calls him the "de-facto president" because he believes Trump is illegitimate. On another post he writes, "When all is said and done, I’ll have spent 12 years in the political wilderness… " indicating he doesn't see himself aligned to the Republicans for 12 years now.