Tiber727
5d ago
I mean, look at this framing from NPR: "A Third of people arrested by ICE have no Criminal record". Are we for real here? ICE's track record is that even wildly dishonest, leftist institutions admit that 66% of them are criminals, and now we're talking about why we need to stop that activity?
This is also dishonest. Of that 66%, half of them are accused but have not yet gone to trial. Some number of them might end up being criminals, but you are not a criminal until you're convicted, ergo that was not admitted.
Second, this might be what NPR is referring to by saying "the majority of those criminal convictions tend to be traffic violations or lower-level offenses." This breaks it down into traffic violations, DUI, drug possession, and marijuana. Let me put it this way - as someone centrist but closer to the bleeding-heart type than the average mottizen, I'm far less sympathetic to an illegal immigrant who committed DUI or drug offenses, but I don't think marijuana or a single traffic violation really moves the needle on how sympathetic or unsympathetic I am towards a person (repeated traffic violations might though).
Tiber727
8d ago
I don't think the far left wants cops to also be therapists, I think they want to send therapists and protective services in instead of or in addition to cops. I think this is to some degree a stupid idea, but it is different from what you described.
Tiber727
10d ago
Regarding censorship, there was an old article I remember well but sadly never saved. It was about a western journalist in China who worked closely with censors. The most fascinating thing to him was how opaque the process was. One moment they'd censor something that seemed completely innocuous and another they had zero problem when he was sure they'd want some change. They would never explain the rules of what leads them to act.
Tiber727
11d ago
Trump's tariffs are based on trade deficits, Trade deficits can be a result of unfair trade, but given Trump talks about domestic manufacturing a lot, signs point to Trump simply thinking that exporting more than you are importing is an inherently good thing.
Door in the Face doesn't really have much to do with this. That's a negotiation technique, and you were talking about negotiation outcomes. Maybe it'd be better if I asked what you refer to by "cooperative outcomes for all involved parties." Greenland seems very much only for the benefit of America. His trade negotiations seem solely for the benefit of American domestic manufacturing. His Russia policy seems to be to cut off aid to Ukraine and alternative threatening either of them. He renegotiated NAFTA to increase American production, then negotiated again.
I do want to check my biases. I tried to find bills passed by Trump with bipartisan support. I couldn't find a listicle, so AI will have to do.
-
First Step Act (2018)
-
SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Act (2018)
-
VA Mission Act (2018)
-
Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act Reauthorization (2018)
-
Women’s Entrepreneurship and Economic Empowerment Act (2019)
-
Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (Farm Bill)
Tiber727
12d ago
maybe a little, he sure does seem to despise Obama
And Biden, and Clinton, and Comey, and CBS... He spent Christmas ranting about the Democrats!
generally prefers cooperative outcomes for all involved parties.
He put tariffs on the entire rest of the world based the ratio of imports vs exports. And is currently threatening to annex Greenland from our allies and is using tariffs to force them to negotiate.
Tiber727
15d ago
The thing about stackoverflow is most of the time I'm doing a web search and that brings me to a Stackoverflow link. I check the link and it's not the same question I have, it's something superficially similar. That's the same thing AI tends to do, so it's a wash anyway.
Tiber727
16d ago
This argument goes both ways. By all rights, what makes modern immigrants special, in that they should be allowed access to America? Access to America isn't some human right, after all.
Access to America is not a human right. I tend to more pro-immigration in that more people means more work gets done, more work being done meets more prosperity, etc. I think that we can help people, and maybe a few generations down the line many of them will become at least middle class and pay taxes. But that's a mix of utilitarianism and charity, not a moral imperative. Should, not must. But I oppose opening the floodgates because even if you believe in charity, charity must be measured. Spread yourself too thin, too fast and everything gets neglected.
But in either case I mostly despise the people who say "I deserve to be here because my ancestors were born here." There are two connotations of deserve, moral and procedural.
Procedurally, the rules say that people who are born here are citizens. So they are correct. But by the rules, it is equally correct that if if an illegal immigrant crosses over the border and has a kid, the child is a citizen.
However, there's a moral/cultural definition, that there's an inherent social credit to one's family being in a country for a long time. That you own more shares in the stock that is American culture by virtue of inheritance. The Heritage Americans are appealing to that. That I think is nonsense, because the circumstances of one's birth are a matter of luck.
That's a moral condemnation, not an argument.
Yes and no. Why should I respect their viewpoint if they preach one set of values but practice another? If enough of a group says A but does B at what point should I feel entitled to say that their real beliefs are B? And note that I would say that contradictions can come in two flavors: vice and hypocrisy. The man who cheats on his wife once and hides it out of shame is one thing. The man who has been carefully arranging rendezvous behind his wife's back for two years does not believe in marital fidelity.
Bringing it back, my observation of Heritage Americans is that in practice they seem less interested in how long one's family has lived in what is now America and more interested in the superiority of those of European descent. I don't see vice being a factor here, so what should I conclude?
Tiber727
16d ago
Personally, I have respect for the people in the past who risked their lives to settle. The modern-day descendants of those people deserve no special accolades. You didn't do shit except get popped out in the right place from the right hole. You're not special because of what they did.
And I can't help but notice that the Heritage Americans seem to have little to no problem with white people who have only recently migrated, or that they seem to have little interest in the contributions of people who are not white but have also been here a long time.
Tiber727
16d ago
Yes and no. There's still a strong social stigma against adopted/step siblings getting into a relationship.
Tiber727
18d ago
This is a fascinating example of using creative language to frame war as peace and weakness as strength. Of all of the things that could be argued to be negatives of lax immigration policy, arguing that it's bad for the migrant is certainly a choice. With an offhand parenthesis that intent to escape is irrelevant, you casually steer away from the tiny detail that one of the defining concepts of slavery is the slave's lack of choice in the matter.
And uh, A KDR is a useful tool to measure the effectiveness of a military operation, but an odd standard to use for measuring enforcement of what is normally a misdemeanor. I'd argue that any number of deaths starts to make me ask questions.
Tiber727
18d ago
A country simply doesn't work when everyone feels entitled to have an opinion on matters over their pay grade
I would say that the entirety of America's history has operated on this principle, and it has endured. It came close to failing during the civil war, but Motte pessimism aside, I don't think we're near that level yet. I would argue that the Civil Rights protests is an example of people manipulating the levers of public opinion through civil disruption and some intentional lawbreaking, and not it only did it not tear society apart, it was a pretty significant success.
I would say that your view inherently holds that the state is just, and by just I mean that your highest ideal is order. This represents an inherent trust in authority, which let's say a Russian wouldn't share. America is inherently founded on a certain distrust in authority.
I also have a question about "matters over their pay grade." Right now the scientific consensus is that gender affirmation is good and life saving. Now the general view of the Motte, and one I to some degree with, is that the doctors are ideologically captured. But some places have gone to the level that not affirming your child is legally considered child abuse. So whose pay grade is it to make these decisions? The doctors? The legislators? The parents? And to what degree does the parent have the right to not comply if they believe this is unjust?
Tiber727
18d ago
In all honesty, I'd say the line between appropriate and inappropriate depends entirely against the injustice being fought. Revolution against the government/terrorism is murder, but justifiable against if the government in question is Hitler's Germany. During the civil rights era, sit ins were technically trespassing by refusing to leave. The Underground Railroad was abetting the escape of slaves. I guess I'd like to know what your thoughts are on those illegal activities.
The American Constitution was written by people who believed their aims could only be reached in their lifetimes by breaking the rules. The thing about standing in the town square waving a sign is that most of the time it doesn't work. I think that you know that, based on your comments about getting into politics or accepting that you've lost. So to what extent do you believe citizens are enabled to seek effective political change outside of an election cycle?
According to the latest political poll, 52% of the public disapprove of ICE, 39% approve, and 10% have no opinion. To what extent is the government obligated to respect the wishes of the people? Is there some level of unpopularity to which Trump should change course? Does a citizen have any recourse if he doesn't?
Tiber727
19d ago
Nothing convoluted about it. It was a mob intent on reaching people whom they know they are not allowed to meet (thus the barricades). The police by virtue of their job have to speculate on bad outcomes because that's their job. A gallows had been put up by someone. A state rep and staff were right there. The shooter was pointing his gun at the wall directly in front of the window and it had been shouted out that a gun was drawn. If someone was willing to still try to get in I'd call it reasonable fear that someone is determined to do something at the cost of their life.
Do you think if a mob of lefties is breaking down a door to get to where they think Trump is, that the Secret Service is engaging in convoluted speculation about their motives? No, they're thinking "My job is to protect someone. They are close to someone I am trying to protect and behaving in an aggressive manner." The speculation that matters is they are willing to commit a crime (breaking down a barricade in a government building) in furtherance of another goal that involves getting close to a VIP.
Tiber727
19d ago
As much as I dislike Trump, if Trump can make a deal that all parties are happy with to buy Greenland (including not bankrupting America) I'll give him credit.
But thus far I am not seeing any serious attempt to convince Denmark and Greenland to want to make that deal. From the Deal Maker in Chief I mostly hear complain, complain, insist that it's going to happen so they should just get with the program, complain, and make something that could vaguely be interpreted as a threat. I know he's serious about wanting it, but it would take a lot of effort for it to happen and I am seeing very little from Trump to explain his confidence. I know there's long odds that Trump will use force, but with Trump I can never rule anything out and I see more breadcrumbs of evidence that he might use force than I see evidence he's going to charm them into agreeing.
Tiber727
19d ago
Babbitt was shot at 2:44 PM. At 2:42 some House members were walking through the tunnels. I couldn't find exactly how many people were not evacuated, but Markwayne Mullin saw the shot and says that there was still staff there.
Tiber727
19d ago
In the Babbitt situation, the concern wasn't what she would do to the officer. The concern was what she and the other people who would likely follow her would do to the lawmakers they were getting close to.
Tiber727
19d ago
I'd like rich people to give me all of their money, but obviously the people who would need to make that decision are not going to go for it. A one-off joke might be one thing, but it's a bit weird if I repeatedly talk about it like it's going to happen.
Tiber727
19d ago
Let's say John frequently talks about murdering his wife in a way that suggests he's not going to do it, but he just keeps randomly bringing it back up. Steve asks him if he's actually going to do it and John says his policy is to never confirm or deny anything. Oh and just the other day John beat somebody up that he similarly talked about beating up, but nobody liked that guy (Venezuela).
Is the problem here:
A: Steve for taking John seriously and repeatedly asking him about it. Who would openly talk about murdering their wife? That's crazy. He should know that John is weird, and that he never denies anything.
B: John because talking about murdering your wife is deeply unsettling behavior even if you're not being serious, and there's evidence John does in fact do crazy and possibly illegal things. If asked if you're going to kill your wife, maybe saying that you never confirm or deny anything shouldn't be considered an acceptable answer.
Tiber727
1mo ago
I'm of the opinion that the best way to stop these sort of games is to do random audits and fine the companies violating it 10x the amount of money they saved.
Tiber727
1mo ago
I was going to reply to Soteriologian with somewhat similar. The right phrases it to sometimes sound like a white man will never be hired again. The left will claim this is all made up and point to some really specific stats like programming being overwhelmingly men (women don't even try to go into programming at nearly the same levels) or X% of a field is still white men (even though many got the job before DEI initiatives ramped up). But there definitely is a finger on the scales towards non white man. Success is a spectrum, not a binary. The geniuses of any generation can succeed against a headwind. But for those who are around average talent to somewhat above average, having the resources to get off the ground can be huge. Hollow Knight was made by a handful of people, but in order to do that they need a stable job with time to spare to work on personal projects.
Tiber727
1mo ago
I can't say I agree with your specific interpretation of Trump regarding China. Trump has been pretty insistent that having a trade deficit is bad and wanting to use tariffs as a way to bring manufacturing back. He's been pretty aggressive in trying to tariff China until China flexes that they have similar leverage on us.
Tiber727
1mo ago
I've heard the mockery about wearing shoes inside a few times now, but I don't get it. About the only time I really wear shoes inside is when I'm going in and out repeatedly. It's not really something Americans do all the time, and it's not like we stomp through mud and dog shit and then think it's perfectly fine to wear them inside.
Tiber727
1mo ago
I'd argue that China wins first by having a lot of resources, cheap labor, and a government that is, all commentary aside, stable. They were willing to accept large amounts of pollution to establish themselves. Western stockholders were happy to kill their golden goose to get their money this quarter.
Tiber727
1mo ago
Oh please. Russia has a long history of invading their neighbors under flimsy pretenses and taking effective control over the area for decades. They started on Ukraine in 2014 with Crimea, spent the entirety of 2014-2022 destabilizing the eastern region using plainclothed soldiers and separatist puppets, played "mediator" to try to force Ukraine to stop interfering with the separatists, and finally amped up to war when Ukraine didn't sit by and let the separatists break the agreements while they abide by them.
Trump had 4 years to take a shot at it as well. He sent some weapons, but otherwise was more interested in getting Ukraine to investigate Hunter.
The "I don't believe this but you do" is a form of "If you believe premise A and premise B then behavior C doesn't fit." This forum often engages in this towards the left. And while often the person using this logic is bad at modeling the thoughts of the group they're applying it to, that's not inherently a problem with the form of argument.
"Arguments as soldiers" is a way to make attempts at persuasion sound nefarious. Of course they are attempting to persuade you! It isn't a secret. It's a nihilistic world view that frames the world as two sides, and one is pre-committed to always defect you no matter what you will do, but wants to see if you are a sucker who will cooperate. You can never earn their respect, never reach some sort of compromise, therefore the correct response is maximum fuck you. I won't say such a person would never possibly exist, but it treats the extreme as the norm. It's also self-fulfilling, because viewed from the opposite side you literally are playing defect bot.
The existence of people who have contradicting goals is not some new phenomenon, it's the norm of society. Regardless of what other people do, you should hold to your own values. This is the right's version of the left's "bad faith" exemption. The left loves this similar game - "We stand for tolerance but by having a limitless definition of harm we can shun you and still be tolerant!" Now it's "If the enemy tries to use our values against us that gives us license to never consider whether the accusation is correct!" The atheist vs Christian context of the meme is rather ironic - at the risk of being the atheist in the meme, I'm still fairly confident that Jesus' big thing was being so committed to his own values that he'd let the opponent "win" thereby convincing the opposition of his righteousness.
More options
Context Copy link