@ThisIsSin's banner p

ThisIsSin

Derive the current state of affairs from a frictionless spherical state of nature

2 followers   follows 3 users  
joined 2022 September 06 05:37:32 UTC 

				
User ID: 822


				
				
				

			

		

	














	


		


			



	

		

			

			

				

					

						

							
						

						

							
							

								
ThisIsSin


								

								

								
								
								

								
							
					
 
				


				
Derive the current state of affairs from a frictionless spherical state of nature

				
				
				

				

					2 followers  

					follows 3 users  

					joined 2022 September 06 05:37:32 UTC
				


				
					

					
No bio...

				

				

				

				

				

					

					

					
					
					

					
User ID: 822


					
					
					
				

			


					

						
					



		

	

 











			
			

			
			

			




	


		

			
‎

			

				
				

					Hour
					Day
					Week
					Month
					
					All
				

			


			
‎

			

	
	

	 Hot Bump Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
	



		

	






	

		
		

		
		
	

	

  







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 12, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Or, more correctly, boiled over again given the unfortunate incident in the 1860s.




Sure, but in this case the actors are both contradicting themselves.


Currently, the "conservatives" (as they call themselves- I call them traditionalists, as they have conserved nothing) might be sympathetic to the Confederacy as an axiom, but are acting like Unionists right now with all the anti-slavery stuff.


This is in stark contrast to the "progressives" (as I call them- they call themselves 'liberals', but that's just stolen valor), which are existentially hostile to the Confederacy, but are indistinguishable from Confederates right now with all the "don't take our slaves away"/"State's Rights [to keep slaves]" stuff.


So you have a situation where the founding myths are contradicted on both sides: that the Union was bad for doing what they did in 1860 on the Conservative side (on balance, probably wasn't), and that the Confederates [and the economic benefits of slavery they so desired] were the actual good guys on the Progressive side (on balance, probably wasn't).


The side that's forced to give will probably win... but they also won't be that side any more.  They'll be something else.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 5, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


It fundamentally just seems clear to me that the behavior of agents on the ground and of federal leadership is just as much about intimidating political opponents as it is about accomplishing their stated goals




The same being true of the protestors [and the federal faction they prefer], of course.  It's not possible to vote for a party promising not to do this.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 12, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


I'd agree with the idea that there is a very fine line between a modern progressive and a person who thinks we should re-start mass sterilization, and most of that fine line is IQ denialism.




Judging by urban TFR, mass sterilization has been ongoing in progressive areas (and progressive countries more broadly) for quite some time now.


They prefer the imported humans over the domestic ones- once the economic opportunity per capita to support a middle class vanishes, the limited number of spaces at the top means they can simply staff them all with IQ denialists, and the low-IQ will keep the people who would have been the middle in line.


This is European domestic policy in a nutshell.




The anti-slavery folks of the 1850s didn't think blacks were equal in talent to whites, they derived their views in other ways.




Of course- they had "alternate ways of knowing" and "it's just not Heckin' Nice", which is part of how modern progressives delude themselves into the pretense that they're still the anti-slavery faction (while doing literally everything they can to impose it, like importing an underclass that is indistinguishable from a slave class in the way the population is permitted to treat them, then pushing the costs of that onto the people who now have to compete with those slaves by giving them benefits reserved for citizens).


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 5, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


The relevant point here, regardless of how you want to define words, is that the US is breaking the law by importing people who it should not be importing, both legally and morally. More importantly, they should not be being imported, legally or morally in the way that they are.






The reality is that [a variety of governmental actors, or those taking government money] is appearing people without due process and sending them to [abuse the public trust, purse, and otherwise devalue labor] in the US without so much as a citizenship oath, let alone a paper trail. It's not histrionic to describe them that way. To deny that and say they're only importing refugees in accordance with existing law elides the fact that the people's rights are being abused in myriad ways and that they legally cannot actually be imported. The US is breaking the law.






You can come up with some argument why technically the definition of refugee means that even though they can't be imported that's the correct label to use, but the original claim was clearly trying to say that everything is on the sly and these people are being trafficked. The alleged histrionics are much closer to the truth.






My defense, which I've never seen anything approaching a reasonable answer for, is simply to hold up a mirror.  The tools to enact the resolution mechanism for this situation- when US law has broken so far down- is explicitly provided for in that law, though it's certainly an ugly business when it occurs.


I saw it mentioned elsewhere in this thread that the people who were about to lose indeed started sounding the alarm to put the brakes on the trafficking- it was even enough for the legislature to do its job for the first time that term, though of course that was mostly just so they could claim "the other side wouldn't compromise".  I wouldn't accept a conditional surrender like that either if I knew I was going to win, especially not a half-assed one that sidestepped most of the problem's causes.


Of course, the lack of any immigration reform from the other side of the aisle is also extremely telling- and if the best that can be expected from the legislature is answering "present" when voting even when it has power, and if the judiciary is completely corrupt (which it is), and if the Consuls [and their bureaucracy] are just doing everything, then that country isn't a representative democracy any more; rather, the conditions for empire have [again] risen, and it's just a question of what sets it off, who wins, and what the nation becomes after.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 12, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


But the ICE agents being bussed in to our metro from red tribe America genuinely have zero conception of any of this




Which is the inherent risk when [your local political body, henceforth referred to as "you"] decide you either won't follow the existing law, or are unable or unwilling to spend the political capital to change it to something your community can accept.


This isn't a hard concept to understand[1], and all Imperial (or Federal, which is just Imperialism within a border) systems do this, for this exact reason- because they won't care about your local community standards and the nuances therein.  The Soviets didn't use Hungarian or Czech soldiers to put down the uprisings in those countries; they chose people not from those areas specifically because painting the people in those areas of the Soviet Empire as a simple adversary is more effective that way.


It is not, and should not, be the Hmong's problem that they [and their representatives and other power-brokers in their local community] has decided to put themselves in opposition to these policies- and the fact they in particular are being burdened at outsized rates simply for looking more like the stereotype of the average trafficked human is most regrettable (and indeed, SE Asia really isn't where the human traffickers were canvassing for subjects anyway- but their skin color is somewhat comparable, which is what matters).


But much like the abortion question before this, you have systems for finalizing durable consensus, and I suggest you use them.  "Deciding not to spare the power to do these things because we can just ram it through the branches of government that don't work on consensus" is what has caused your system to flip-flop so destructively in the first place.


Remember that whole "those who make peaceful revolution impossible make a violent one inevitable" thing?  Media is soapbox, legislature is ballot box, executive/judicial is jury box, and direct paramilitary/military action is ammo box.  And I believe you're solidly in "jury" now.


[1] Unless your socioeconomic standing requires you not understand it, which is the impulse that drives war more generally.  Power exists, and is desirable, because fairness is fundamentally undecidable.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 12, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


52% of the public disapprove of ICE




That's a lot lower than I thought it would be.  Sure, regarding public opinion, 40% of that is "strongly disagree"... but then, how much of that is distinct from the anger that the government would take their slaves away to begin with?






The Underground Railroad was abetting the escape of slaves




So like what ICE is doing now, basically (though yes, a lack of intent to escape is irrelevant in this case; you will be "freed" regardless).  In fact, they're going into the places where the slaves are and removing them from their owners (ostensibly, the <52% of the American public that feels they gain material benefit from their presence) with violence from/against slave-owners being a very narrow exception, not the rule.  I mean, what, about 20 dead for 2 million deported?  A 1:100,000 KDR [so to speak] for an armed operation of this type and size is absurdly successful.


I'm sure John Brown would be proud, if somewhat conflicted- and I find it ironic that the people who go out of their way to name their organizations after him are actually the ones most aligned with the historic Confederate cause, while the losers of the resulting Civil War over it are now proud Unionists (who fly the flags of its vanquished enemies in its defense [lol wtf?]).  Of course, the CSA was formed by people who believed their aims could only be reached in their lifetimes by breaking the rules, too- it's just that they lost, so they're the bad guys.  I think that's how that works.


It's a State's Rights [to keep slaves] issue.






Does a citizen have any recourse if he doesn't?




They can use the soap box, the ballot box, the jury box, or the ammo box (or other boxes of that type; like the pedal box).  They're all legal to keep and bear for this purpose, and all 4 have been used in this conflict, on both sides.  (And yes, the fact that the citizens that want this are existentially in conflict with the ammo box, and that's inextricably linked to their decision to retain slaves, is relevant.  The people who would normally be depended on to use the ammo box are all strongly in favor of anti-slavery measures.)


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 12, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
For de-radicalization I suggest you try a diet high in vine fruits, including beverages made from them.


That'll keep those free radicals away, and as a bonus, you have the excuse to spend all day drunk while ostensibly detoxing.


In all seriousness the best way to use the forum is as an analysis tool.  There's nothing to be done; the systems are not in your control (unless and perhaps especially if you're secretly JD Vance).


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 12, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


I'm pretty sure most schools of thought consider an excess of apathy (or worse, contempt) to be more dangerous in virtually every sense, yes?




Perhaps.  But an excess of empathy and an excess of apathy are two sides of the same coin, especially when the empathetic stand to gain financially, and the costs will not fall on the empathetic.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 12, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


What Trump is doing here is clearly selective enforcement




Yes- that's absolutely a valid and significant criticism of the program.  There shouldn't be exceptions to these policies; both Red and Blue must give up their slaves because "giving up the slaves for the future good of the nation" was the stated goal of this campaign.  And if they're so vital in that area- that both Red and Blue agree on the assertion they should be there (and clearly, they do, hence their current immunity)- maybe pass some legislation that legitimizes their presence.  They have the House, but that doesn't stop Blue from introducing bills.  Why don't they?  Well...


And then we could even talk about the more boring logistical stuff, like "well, they aren't really driving up the housing prices as much out in the middle of nowhere", "it wouldn't have as much of an impact per capita in the immediate vicinity", "perhaps food prices were more important than the stated goal", or perhaps most importantly (and likely more fitting for the Trump admin), "isn't going to remind the sizeable minority of city-dwellers that did vote for this that showing up to vote is not pointless".


But that don't bleed, so it don't lead.  And I'm unconvinced anything that sophisticated is on the forefront of the average protestor's mind, either; I believe being angry they can't have it their way and the resulting hysteria that they're feeding the neighborhood indentured servant to the functional equivalent of a wood chipper is the dominating impulse there.


And when the better options- say, options 1 through 81- rely on an educated and measured populace, I find it kind of hard to blame the Feds for choosing the 82nd.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 12, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


have taken to sneering at her and calling her a mail-order bride.




Do you have some links for this one in particular?  Any source will do.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 12, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


if I supported letting in a million hot single Latinas, in the hope that they will enter the dating market and make that market more favorable for men, that is not trafficking




Of course not- mere encouragement of lawless action is not a crime.  If instead you formed organizations to buy them all plane tickets and encouraged them to overstay their visas, and ran a campaign to suppress immigration enforcement, then I think you'd agree that would be trafficking.




this is not the central case of a trafficker, which is someone who gets paid for providing victims of exploitation.




But they are getting paid through that massive economic benefit they claim exists.  Sure, we can dispute what that comes out to in practice, but the important thing is that they justify it because they believe it exists, so I judge them as if it does.




I would have to add "... and then these Latinas will have no choice but to find a sugar daddy or starve" to even come close.




Trafficked humans are not citizens, thus not entitled to any social services/welfare, so this condition holds.  Indeed, you can find the male equivalent on the street corner- the only difference is that they're there in the morning, crowded around Home Depot.






by using the male illegal immigrants as fuckbois




You misunderstand: a foreigner X is "trafficked" when the reason for them being imported is that the fundamental reason to value a domestic X should go down, and a law was broken [or intended to be broken] to do that.


Men and women (and Red and Blue/"right" and "left" pursue the respective gender politics) are different, thus the way they bring value to society is different.  Which is why the assertion that women would want to import men for sex is nonsense- that's not the value men provide to women.  By contrast, sex is the value women provide to men, and when men see fit to devalue it we call that a sex crime.  But the qualifier of "sex" is only there, and only important, as a statement that the crime attacked the fundamental value of a citizen with those characteristics.


So yes, I treat women seeking cheap labor outside the country as the same crime, with the same motivation, as men seeking cheaper sex is.  If men and women are to be equal, then the former is just as serious a crime, with just as wicked an intent, as the latter is commonly held to be.


Hence, "human trafficking".


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 5, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Around 1970.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 12, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Human trafficking is involuntary




The traffickers have often claimed migrations are involuntary, yes.




A smuggling case can become human trafficking if the victims are exploited—for example,




like a citizen holding that trafficked status over that person; "piss me off, and I'll report you to ICE".

Even the traffickers would agree that this would constitute unfair exploitation, though of course they have a sociofinancial incentive to say that anyway.




The reason human trafficking occurs in the first place is because men want a supply of cheap women to use and throw away.


This is the same thing, except it's women wanting cheap men to use and throw away.  And those women call it trafficking when men benefit from it; so it doesn't make rhetorical sense to isolate a demand for rigor and only exempt one from the harsher language.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 12, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


I don't see how you've suddenly gone from this to supporting a mass militia of the government killing people.




Oh, like that thing that happened in 2020, perpetrated by the exact same people trying to disrupt law enforcement now (who functionally had absolute immunity for those actions especially given how the people who defended themselves from that were treated)?


If you don't see that, then you don't see this.


Bad shoot?  Maybe.  So was Babbit.  Maybe try not to charge at law enforcement and obey simple verbal commands, then you won't die, seems simple enough to me.  "Duty to account for local hysteria about federal law enforcement going to disappear random citizens to some black site" is simply not a thing a working system can tolerate- since you appear to feel the opposite, perhaps you can expand on the reasons why it's only OK for only one side to be protected when it claims this is a thing?




that they have lost empathy for a dead mother




An excess of empathy for human traffickers (and the trafficked) is the reason the US is even in this situation in the first place.  MN could have enforced the immigration law but decided it didn't want to, so now the Feds are doing it for them, just like what happened in the '50s in the South- if you want to deny the legitimacy of this action, you must in turn also deny the legitimacy of that.  And yes, enforcing laws on people who don't want them is always going to lead to this to some degree.




I'm a "the system works" kind of guy. This is not working.




Sure it is.  This is a whatever-wing attempt to disrupt the logical consequences of an election they lost, and the fact they're failing is good from a conservative-as-in-stability-of-system point of view.  The system failing would be federal law enforcement not being able to operate in the area at all, which was actually more true in the BLM days than it is now.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 5, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


I don’t think him shooting improved his odds of surviving the shooting.




That's immaterial to the point on which I was critiquing/elaborating, which was your "you can just shoot lesbian woke agitators and nobody cares".




but it does improve future safety by making agitators aware they will shoot




Yes, I agree that an event that makes women acutely aware that running from/over the cops does not qualify as play-fighting in the eyes of society at large will discourage women from trying this in the future.


(It's not going to discourage men, but they have an instinctual awareness they aren't Privileged, and as such are more likely to know when they're caught.  Not that this would still be a story was Good a man, but anyway.)


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 5, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


You can just shoot lesbian woke agitators and nobody cares whose not in the 30% whose in their tribe.




Well, not quite.  Good (and Babbit) crossed a line.


That line, established through human instinct, is that a woman only has the "protection from male violence" privileges until that woman poses a legitimate existential threat to a man.  Once that happens, her Wonderfulness is forfeit, and she is as expendable as any man.


This is why the stereotype of most women having a tantrum is throwing breakable objects.  It's play-fighting.  If she grabbed a knife or gun to assault the man (unarmed strikes are play-fighting as men are more powerful than women), was actively in the process of hitting him with the car, or is punching through a window at the head of an angry mob... then all bets are off.


This is why, I believe, that a good chunk of the way this was treated (and you can see it on this forum once the "was she a threat?" question was firmly established to be "yes") became "well, did she think she was play-fighting?", and the answer being a plausible "yes, because she was constantly told by her favorite media apparatus these people weren't serious" seems to engender (heh) the most sympathy.


In other words, the resulting violence (from the biological male defending against the hostile woman) is, from a sociobiological perspective, functionally man-on-man (which is Part of the Plan so nobody cares).  The only people who don't understand that are either paid a salary not to, or are weirdos who actually think men and women are equal (perhaps they lack the above instinct altogether).


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 5, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


This is basically a fundamentally left wing form of operating that the right cannot copy without not being the right anymore.




Which, ironically, is what the right is figuring out it's going to become- whether it likes that or not.


What refers to itself as left-wing today is solidly motivated by the same thought and moral patterns that motivate more historic examples of right-wing thought (privilege preservation at all costs, message discipline for free as a consequence, attempts to enshrine the excuses providing those privileges as holy, conscripting the young to fight stupid wars, etc.).  This is more obvious in Western countries outside the US.




but without understanding the true underlying demonstration of solidarity that is the actual point of it




This is what happens when the left- a specific revision of reform thought at the time- metastasizes into something that will displace the right at the time.  The fact that the right doesn't seem to be winning is a sign that this hasn't happened yet, though this is also only recognizable once it has happened.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 5, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


And any rational non-racist argument against non-maximally-open-borders is just a covers for the racist argument (not always wrong!).




Which is why the way to dismantle that is to publicly disavow that the "racist argument" has any meaning whatsoever (re: Fuentes/Morgan, though Trump is the best modern example).  That's partially why he, uniquely among English-speaking nations, can still pull the Boomer vote (typically confused as "obligatorily right-wing" by the people who call themselves the left), since the other places are more reflexively fighting the racist bogeymen of 70 years ago.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 5, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Its only residents of third world shitholes who insist on flying their flag as a mark of conquest on territories they conquer.




Oh no, lots of First Worlders do this too; that's why they treat people removing or burning their "progress" flag as a war crime.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 5, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


necessitating an extended adolescence




It wasn't necessary, but this failure is 100% on the traditionalists.  You can see the echoes in "but no daughter of mine will be dating at 13".


They didn't understand the consequences of it at the time, and some of them are just operating on instinct and still don't- but "refuse to pursue the things you want because it's holy not to" in a time where the things you wanted became far more available (i.e. far less risky) had, and continues to have, massive downstream consequences.


In the face of this they insisted on "just do nothing" (rather than what they should have done, which was to accelerate life and the achievement of those milestones, not retard it), and when the youth walked away their persecution complex did the rest.  And the youth that remained were more likely to have the same hatred of life within them, or the same development issues that cause them to be compatible with delaying life far past that normal range, so the problem persists.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 5, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Also, who the administration considers cops to be varies.


In a protestor-friendly administration, the fiery-but-peaceful protestors (who are enforcing the law the administration wished it could have) have qualified immunity while the cops don't; in one that is not so friendly, they do not.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 5, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


in terms of threat provided by what is happening outside the vehicle.




In terms of objective threat, sure.


But that's the entire debate in a nutshell: if one suffers from a [perhaps reasonable] expectation that cops are about to black-bag you, and in attempting to flee from them get shot by one who [perhaps reasonably] believes you're going to drive right into him, is it reasonable to suffer death under those circumstances?


Of course, we already have an answer to that: 12 locals and the relevant executive have to agree it isn't reasonable, since either one can [from a subjective standpoint] pardon, and the executive spends political power to do that.


Which is probably what it's going to come down to.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 5, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Tasers and pepper spray (which are "shooting to wound"- you can't realistically use any firearm like this) won't go through a windshield or sheet metal.


Once she hit the gas, the gun was the only option.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 5, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Hamtrack style takeover




I'm not sure I follow- what is this referencing?




White liberals at the roost want to destroy their own societies because they make the category error that impoverishing white institutions only harms the uneducated white hicks.




Well, that and- because they're relatively rich (ironically, due to good institutions)- they're insulated from the consequences of destroying the institutions.  Besides, they'll still be on top afterwards due to their Allyship(tm) that was definitely earned and not just appropriated.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 5, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


You need to go back to the drawing board and figure out the least-painful way to right the ship ASAP




We are here now: taking Blue's pawns off the board, in a fashion meant to ensure that, when Blue again calls for more pawns, less of them show up (Blue media is doing a great job of over-reporting the dangers here).  Would you prefer Red go after Blue directly?


Hence the physical removals, hence the [so far, only claimed] attempts to stabilize the nations from which they come.






robotically apply the harsh punishment to every single person who crosses the line trivially creates far more suffering than would be strictly necessary to prevent the greater evil




This is robotically applying the harsh punishment to the people who trafficked those humans (the greater evil in this case, at least from Red's perspective)- or at least, what Blue perceives as a harsh punishment despite it being objectively pretty lenient. Blue has to see on the news more of their pets being deleted, and whining about being afraid they'll be removed, every single day.  They have to listen to their peers cry that It's So Over and marinate in their own hysterics about the end of Our Democracy.  Some of them get so angry about this that they try to run over cops.


As for "but it's a human rights disaster", Blue has no leg to stand on here- they could have compromised for an amnesty properly but refused to, so clearly they don't care about their pets' rights beyond their usefulness as pets.


Ironically, that's the best way to criticize this event- using a human shield to cover hurting the outgroup, then striking back under "self-defense" when the outgroup decides they care as much about the life of the human shield as the ingroup did.