Tiber727
4mo 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
4mo 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
4mo 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
4mo ago
Yes and no. There's still a strong social stigma against adopted/step siblings getting into a relationship.
Tiber727
4mo 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
4mo 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
4mo 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
4mo 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
4mo 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
4mo 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
4mo 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
4mo 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
4mo 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
4mo 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
5mo 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
5mo 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
5mo 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
5mo 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
5mo 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.
Tiber727
5mo ago
Pretty much agreed. He always had the power to cancel executive orders, rhetoric aside. Canceling pardons is another matter.
Agreed that if someone used Biden's autopen without his knowledge or consent, that would be invalid. The issue is burden of proof. I would imagine that if Trump actually tried to challenge it, it would be assumed Biden signed it unless Trump has proof to the contrary. That strikes me as consistent with the Supreme Court's ruling of absolute immunity for core Presidential acts and privileged communications.
Tiber727
5mo ago
Yes, but that's still Trump's problem. Them not doing their job does not grant Trump authority to do it for them. Which is why a big part of every President's job is to get enough of Congress aligned with him, or vice versa. Trump is trying to skip that step and do everything through the executive, which results in a circus in the courts.
Tiber727
5mo ago
Literally every administration has to contend with the opposing party making it difficult to enact their agenda. Trump has been gifted with a majority of all three branches greater than most administrations ever get. And Republicans have opted for a line where, rather than the legislative branch approving things, the executive simply creates its own mandates while the legislative passively allows him to.
Tiber727
5mo ago
I would imagine on The Motte you could make an effort post about what people would consider a morally acceptable line for either starting revolution or committing political assassinations in a completely abstract sense. Though that does invite people to come up with "hypothetical" scenarios that are thinly-veiled parallels to actual American events.
I am pretty confident you could come up with an explanation which is consistent with non-criminal intent.
There's a reason why criminal prosecutions use the standard "beyond a reasonable doubt." One can always create an explanation how the murder weapon ended up in their possession if they're motivated enough. The stories just end up more and more absurd.
I think they should not be prosecuted unless there is a strong bi-partisan consensus in favor of doing so. Yes, this means that some presidents will get away with wrongdoing. But I think the alternative is worse.
I don't. I don't entirely trust my own party to convict one of their own, and I don't trust the opposing at all. And I think the feeling is mutual. Hell, McConnell hates Trump's guts and reportedly wanted to impeach Trump over J6, but argued that the courts were the right venue since he was leaving office. Why? Because reportedly he thought he could have his cake and eat it too by getting Democrats to punish him and say he had nothing to do with it.
I'd rather live in a world where politicians fear the consequences of their actions than one they don't, even if that power is sometimes misused.
And Biden, and Clinton, and Comey, and CBS... He spent Christmas ranting about the Democrats!
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.
More options
Context Copy link