UwU
13d ago
What if you believe that when you reach the finish line, there's a 5% chance that the track will blow up, but if the other guys reach the finish line first, there's a 10% chance the track will blow up. Also you believe the other guys don't take the risks seriously so they won't stop running. Is "sprint harder" a valid option?
UwU
14d ago
The denial of cert is likely strategic for the conservative justices. Alito and Thomas will probably strike down the assault weapons bans but the rest (Barrett, Roberts, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh) probably couldn't get a clear 3/4 majority in favor of repealing the bans. Therefore for the ban proponent justices, it's better to deny cert and revisit until the court make-up changes, or at least until the current dissenters change their minds, rather than bringing the issue to a vote today, and have assault weapons bans be upheld.
UwU
30d ago
The second sentence doesn't strictly follow the first. Stealing from an out-group (e.g. the faceless forgetful hotel patron) is not an indication they'll do the same to an in-group. On the other hand, cheating is necessarily harming an in-group person (the romantic partner), and as the current romantic partner you should be worried.
Think of the "I against my brother; I and my brother against my cousin; I, my brother, and my cousin against the world" proverb.
UwU
1mo ago
I guessed like 10 years. 400 years is insane! My first impression is that this is malicious compliance by some disillusioned engineer to highlight the absurd state of the project.
UwU
1mo ago
So there were no guarantees. Zelensky was an obstinate fool for not wanting to give up 50% of all future sources of Ukrainian natural resource revenues for a chance that a future US president in 5-10 years will have an excuse to intervene on their behalf?
For what it's worth I believe Zelensky played it wrong a few months ago and he should have been more diplomatic. But I disagree with how you are framing the original mineral deal and it was not foolish for Ukraine to be hesitant about it. In fact, the new mineral deal, being much better for Ukraine, proves that it was not a foolish decision to reject it.
What security guarantees did Trump give to Ukraine through the mineral deal? Under what circumstances will Trump send troops to Ukraine?
UwU
1mo ago
My original issue with this was that I interpreted this question as rhetorical, but if it's not, let me know:
Why should anyone brainstorm alternative ownership with a thief in the middle of a robbery?
My point was that it can be perfectly fine for someone to believe the current capitalistic system is psychopathic, categorize it as such, and still having to participate in this system because that is the system that exists right now. Sure, by participating, they are in a sense being hypocritical, but it doesn't mean we should invalidate their position because of this. It's a "don't blame the player blame the game" sort of situation where individual players can still brainstorm how to make the game better, while playing the game because they don't control how the world works.
BUT, and this is a big but. I pattern-matched your original comment to something like "You benefit from personal ownership, which you believe to be immoral, and therefore your critique of personal ownership is invalid." However, it's possible my analysis was off the mark and you were instead making a different argument entirely, such as challenging their internal consistency or the falsifiability of their standard. If that's the case then I will apologize once more and bow out of this discussion.
UwU
1mo ago
I agree broadly but if the following is the standard to judge hypocrisy, then clearly just living in a communal-type environment doesn't absolve the OP of his sins, so to speak.
However, you are posting here. On the internet. A medium that requires a computer of some sort that could be not-deprived to someone else. Moreover, you repeatedly responded to others. This entails further use of time depriving the device to others. It also implies a surplus of time, and thus material resources you are depriving others of, that enable the hobby rather than sharing like a non-paranoid should. These resources are deprived from benefiting other possible beneficiaries and potential users by virtue (or sin) of your use. Your use and expected ability to use is demonstrating a de facto, even if not de jure, ownership.
UwU
1mo ago
I apologize, I should have been more clear. The "we should improve society somewhat" meme only refers to this panel, not entire the comic in which it originated.
I still find it problematic that a person can't criticize any fundamental pillars of a society while "benefiting" from them. Like, how can we expect the OP to not "take advantage" of personal property ownership by your standard and still be able to function in a capitalistic society? Are we supposed to disregard any criticism they have because they themselves are forced to participate in the society as it is currently structured?
UwU
1mo ago
Yes I think blanket birthright citizenship is a mistake and we should at the very least repeal it for those whose parents came here illegally.
UwU
1mo ago
Yes, I agree that it is cruel to imprison an individual in harsh conditions for entering a country illegally, but it is probably both reasonable and necessary, by some measure, to do so if they are a violent gang member
Yeah, if they are a violent gang member. He hasn't been convicted in a court of law. Innocent until proven guilty and all that. The US shouldn't have sent him straight to a foreign gulag without a conviction.
UwU
1mo ago
- The guy was born here, but left the US as an infant
- It's highly probable that he did not have a passport or else they'd have mentioned it, so it's very likely he returned to the US through illegal means and not at a lawful port of entry.
- He did not speak English.
- He was arrested with two other likely illegal immigrants from Mexico.
- He was held but released after his citizenship was verified.
If anything this proves the system is favorable to people like him, or at least working as intended.
UwU
1mo ago
Maybe the longer term play is to create so much political spite around this that the next Democratic president will be forced to return all the exiled gang members from CECOT to the US, instead of merely to stop paying for them or something. This of course will be disastrous for the local community and also be quite unpopular politically.
UwU
2mo ago
The order needed to be clarified with respect to the "effectuate" part, but it seems they upheld the "facilitate" part. The administration had the same interpretation. At 11 seconds, the WH press secretary said:
The Supreme Court made their ruling last night very clear um that it's the administration's responsibility to facilitate the return not to effectuate the return
If you don't agree with this interpretation, that's fine, but it's disingenuous to frame it as the district court rebelling against SCOTUS when it is using the same interpretation as the White House.
UwU
2mo ago
Here's what the SCOTUS opinion said, emphasis mine:
The rest of the District Court’s order remains in effect but requires clarification on remand. The order properly requires the Government to “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador. The intended scope of the term “effectuate” in the District Court’s order is, however, unclear, and may exceed the District Court’s authority. The District Court should clarify its directive, with due regard for the deference owed to the Executive Branch in the conduct of foreign affairs. For its part, the Government should be prepared to share what it can concerning the steps it has taken and the prospect of further steps.
Kind of vague, right? Maybe the SCOTUS meant the Government should only facilitate the release of Abrego Garcia, not to facilitate his return.
However, this was the wording of the original district court order that the SCOTUS deemed to be proper in the "facilitate" sense:
Defendants are hereby ORDERED to facilitate and effectuate the return of Plaintiff Kilmar Armanda Abrego Garcia to the United States [...]
It seems like the SCOTUS decision basically said the order to "facilitate" was proper, but the "effectuate" part needs to be clarified.
Now, the new order from the district court no longer talks about effectuate, but instead focuses solely on the facilitate part, namely:
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that beginning April 12, 2025, and continuing each day thereafter until further order of the Court, Defendants shall file daily, on or before 5:00 PM ET, a declaration made by an individual with personal knowledge as to any information regarding: (1) the current physical location and custodial status of Abrego Garcia; (2) what steps, if any, Defendants have taken to facilitate his immediate return to the United States; (3) what additional steps Defendants will take, and when, to facilitate his return.
Granted, the SCOTUS ruling was vague, probably intentionally so for political reasons and to get all 9 justices onboard, but the district court did not pull this interpretation out of its ass, and it's not directly opposing the SCOTUS.
UwU
2mo ago
Does that even matter? The executive branch can make the determination that he's ineligible for asylum no matter the actual legitimacy.
UwU
2mo ago
What I don't understand is why Trump doesn't just do the malicious compliance thing of bringing him back, let his AG vacate the deportation withholding order, and then immediately send him back after he gets his day in court. Presumably Trump is planning to send additional deportation flights to El Salvador, so him hitching a ride shouldn't require additional resources. It also assuages the fear of US citizens since the Trump administration can't unilaterally strip anyone of citizenship, and it takes the wind out of the sails of his enemies.
Win-win-win for Trump. But I guess it makes him look weak in the short term, or however long the courts drag it out. On the other hand, the facts are fairly clear cut and dry if he loses the deportation protection, so I can't imagine it would drag for too long. On the mutant third hand, maybe the length of a court case is something I shouldn't ever underestimate.
UwU
2mo ago
Are the people who called Trump supporters "a bunch of deep-throating cock-slobberes" in the motte with us right now?
UwU
2mo ago
I see. Thank you for the context. It's certainly more palatable to me that he was considered inadmissible at the port of entry rather than hunted down by ICE. For the reasons I outlined in my previous post, I still think it's not a good thing in this specific case to keep him out, but the policy seems reasonable on its face. I'm not informed enough to know whether his scenario is the 5% case or the 50% case, so I'll refrain from passing judgement on the policy itself. Though even if his case is the 5% case, I would wish the bureaucracy to be flexible enough in corner cases such as these to admit those with minor crimes long in the past and have since been reintegrated with their community.
But this highlights an additional problem in the original post. The one example for deporting illegal immigrants depicted neither an illegal immigrant nor deportation in its typical sense.
UwU
2mo ago
I do not find this convincing. As mentioned below, Alfredo Orellana isn't an illegal immigrant; he's a permanent resident, and it seems like you already knew this. While permanent residents can be deported under certain circumstances, they possess a legal status that illegal immigrants do not. Conflating these two categories is muddying the waters when discussing immigration policies and deportation, to say the least.
I also don't find it to be good and necessary to deport him in this case. For Orellana, the offense cited is attempting to scam a store out of $200 eight years ago. This was a relatively minor crime, as it was not violent and I don't think it rose to the level of felony (but I could be wrong, not a lawyer). Also, if the only crime the government cited is from 8 years ago, then I think it's very likely that there are no serious more-recent crimes to levy on him, and, given his employment and (claimed) benefit to the community, he's probably rehabilitated. So, should an 8 year-old, minor, non-violent offense be sufficient grounds to deport a legal resident who has since rehabilitated and established a stable life? I say no.
Of course this is all just based on NYT's reporting, and I'm not able to find any other source of information to corroborate it. If it is discovered later that Orellana is actually a drug dealer with a very long wrap sheet, I'll change my mind.
I think the main point of contention is this. As evidenced by discussions up and down this thread, for most people, the number is closer to 0.05 than 0.95, so there's no political will to do the other things you suggest. A real-world example: Anthropic. When the OpenAI engineers quit the company because it wouldn't slow down for safety, they didn't shoot the remaining employees, instead they created a competitor to sprint faster with the belief that if they reach AGI first, it'll be better aligned for humanity.
More options
Context Copy link