iprayiam3
1d ago
This is a fair take. Still don’t agree completely but thanks for laying it out
iprayiam3
1d ago
You’re misunderstanding my point. Trump should go after employers. Im responding to the idea that PMme is steelmanning the protesting side. If his suggested solutions aren’t things the protesting side would support then it’s not really an alternative to placating the protests and undermines the argument that the R model of the protestors simply refusing deportations is insufficient
iprayiam3
2d ago
Is there anyone on the left actually pushing that, not as a piece of rhetoric? If Trump pivoted to that, would a sustantial portion of the left get on board with deportations and remigrations? If not, it's not a better plan; it's a distraction.
iprayiam3
2d ago
This forum basically presents the cause of protests in Minneapolis as "blue tribe doesn't want immigration policy enforced". If this claim is controversial, I can back it up by linking several comments from last week saying as such, so I hope you don't feel strawmanned if you're broadly anti-protestor.
I think this is fair, and not a strawman. So,
I want to present the claim that what ICE is doing in Minneapolis is inefficient at its stated goals, broadly unlawful/lawless, and disproportionate.
let me ask, is this actually your point of view? Ok, you've written your reasoned defense of this claim. But is that in alignment with your goals? Do you simply want ICE to become more efficient and lawful in exercising it's deportation goals? Do you think the real disagreement is how to maximize efficient deportations? Or are we right that the blue tribe doesn't want it? If the latter, what's the real value of the rest of the post?
I am not trying to be flippant. But otherwise this reads a lot like that one meme, where the atheist is basically saying: “I don’t believe your religion is true, but according to your religion you should act this way."
iprayiam3
3d ago
Parsimony is objectively better. Fewer significant figures for the relevant precision.
We can get into philosophy of good and what not, but this is a silly gotcha. I’m making a point about an objective feature and describing why I think it’s better
iprayiam3
3d ago
For that attitude, I retract any concession that other metric units may actually have merit. Imperial all the way.
iprayiam3
3d ago
I can absolutely distinguish a thermostat set 1 degree. Not, I can walk into a room and tell you the temperature to a degree of precision. But in a building that I am intimately familiar with, like my house, I can tell when the thermostat is set differently at night. A degree F happens to be about the amount you can roughly distinguish
You’re conflating two separate points. When setting a thermostat you can tell the difference between 66 and 67. It’s a good increment of noticable but slight. Celsius degrees are too far apart and tenths are too small.
Separately, 0-100 is roughly human haitable weather
On the metric point, there’s nothing more “metric” about Celsius. It doesn’t math any differently. It’s just set to a different reference point, which is less human centric
iprayiam3
3d ago
You can make whatever argument you want for metric, but F is objectively superior to C in daily life. There's no 'metric' advantage to C, you don't multiple or divide temperatures real world use cases. Both are effectively arbitrary.
However with Farenheit, 0-100 is basically, human habitable range. 0 is dangerously cold, 100 is dangerously hot. With Farenheit, 1-100 are basically every day weathers around the globe and in every day life describing your freezer up to your body temperature. Meanwhile 40-99 C are nearly useless.
The only time these numbers are really relevant in daily life is internal temperature of meats, but it's nearly arbitrary numbers with either measure, so C brings nothing to the table here.
Finally, Farenheit is over twice as precise as C, and right around human noticability. You can distinguish 1 degree F, but not really 1/10th degree Celsius, making F a more useful and intuitive unit.
iprayiam3
3d ago
No I don’t think this or any specific instance is a moral conundrum; my point is that it can’t scale infinitely. At scale illegal kmmigrants and homeless do take up emergency room resources and cause downstream issues.
Were I in your situation I wouldn’t think twice about resolving some moral tradeoff over whether to help him. My issue is the system that grows the problem or anyone trying to frame this is as a contradictory wordview, as your OP pondered
iprayiam3
3d ago
On an individual level, there’s no dissonance here. We should save this man’s life. But let’s zoom out. How many ambulances and EMT workers can be extended in your town? The fact that we have a moral duty to help this man, makes the moral duty to prevent this situation with unsustainable immigration all the more grave.
I’m caught up in this ice storm myself. My wife is currently 9 months pregnant and starting contractions. There is a real possibility we will need an ambulance tonight to get her to the hospital. What if every ambulance is busy with homeless illegals? I don’t want these people not to get help. But I also want a functional infrastructure.
The only dissonance is with the side that refuses to consider the world in any terms other than endless handouts without any trade offs, or worse resolving the dissonance with “fuck whitey”.
iprayiam3
3d ago
The issue right now is this.
Waltz could stop what’s happening in Minnesota by cooperating. Trump could stop it by going after the employers. Neither actually want the problem solved because they both have a lever.
In the absence of this, ICE is the only avenue and they can’t be heckled into giving up. There is absolutely no dissonance with this view and the view that the leaders are failing us at the top on both sides or that homeless lives have inherent dignity and deserve emergency services where possible.
iprayiam3
4d ago
Tim Walz:
I just spoke with the White House after another horrific shooting by federal agents this morning. Minnesota has had it. This is sickening.
The President must end this operation. Pull the thousands of violent, untrained officers out of Minnesota. Now.
The left seems to be running a massive hecklers veto. After GF, the right can’t do it again. It’s only going to get worse
iprayiam3
9d ago
Six pack: this presumably any man could achieve with sufficient exercise (and diet control) though it might be difficult to do concurrently with a six figure job.
This is the first time I’ve not heard the third 6 referring to inches. Is this a common alternative? 6 ft, 6 figures, 6 inches. Is how I’ve always understood it
iprayiam3
10d ago
No. You can’t equivocate law enforcement with mob behavior. You’re trying to compare false positives with legitimate law enforcement with false positives in the disruption of said law enforcement.
iprayiam3
16d ago
I read the first few sentences and got to “mask off moment” and thought: oh boy I can’t wait to see which side has taken their mask off.
Anyway, it is a scissor statement. It’s basically definitionally. I dislike a lot of rationaistisms, but this is about as scissory as they come.
Yes, I’m inclined to think that your side is just as much in full on dishonest propaganda mode as you think mine. That’s the scissor.
iprayiam3
17d ago
Yes that narrative is 100% a fabrication based on a multitude of evidence and common sense and has always been a fabricated hopium, never evinced in any way. You can debate the shooting all you want, but the whole thing stinks of inauthenticity when the left started their position on a completely made up situation.
iprayiam3
17d ago
There’s a longer video of the honking out there, it kind of pans annoyingly back and forth on the street for several minutes. You’re seeing a cut version because there’s nothing of interest immediately after. She’s on the street honking and dancing him her car, parked perpendicularly and waving through non ice vehicles. At some point (off camera) she pulls back (to let non ice vehicles pass through).
The only think of interest there is that based on how far out the car was on various pans, it’s clear that she was pulling back and forth in the car, to variously obstruct and allow passage. She was not stationary until the attempted peel out. This (minorly) adds context to the agent not knowing exactly what she is doing / her actions being more unpredictable and the alertness / sense of danger being heightened.
I think that alone is a stretch but my point is that every single additional video that dribbles out throws addition drops (at least) into the full picture always looking worse for her.
We’ve moved far beyond “confused and panicked mom just dropping off her kid approached by masked strangers”, yet that remains the “moral” starting point from which every counter narrative tries to gap.
Instead we see that she was actively using her car as a deliberate object of obstruction, moving it strategically to thwart the ice activity, and was using noise to rile up the situation and interfere with ICE apprehensions. She was creating a dangerous scenario intentionally for several minutes, and that context is very relevant to what happened in the heat of the moment 3 minutes later.
At the very minimum she was hoping to help attempted detainees to flee arrest and prevent ICE from safely pursuing and apprehending them. So she was creating deadly conditions from the get.
Suppose she was blocking a SWAT team from a drug raid while also shouting into a loudspeaker to alert the suspects. There would be no question. That she was creating a physically dangerous environment and that would factor into the police’s actions and assumptions and benefit of doubt in those moments. It would be very different than reading the same outcome with the assumption that she had just been walking a dog by the raid and gotten confused.
Yet that initial frame was intentionally set to poison public opinion and create artificial priors in the public to emotionally distort the interpretation
iprayiam3
19d ago
I don’t understand the folks still taking about her tires turning. You have to take this video in with the next most recent one over the fence. There are agents surrounding her on multiple sides including one approaching on the other side of the car.
It is very unlikely she was trying to kill anyone. But it is very clear she was ok to plow through a group of agents without respect to their individual positions. She was recklessly fleeing a lawful arrest and put her getaway above the pedestrians she was plowing through. And she did this in a cold calm manner, not in some confused panic
iprayiam3
19d ago
You do not lose track of her face as she accelerates she is smiling and then closes her mouth with a grin.
iprayiam3
19d ago
Agree. Building “golden” off ramps is just going to incite more of this shit, where people think disrupting police activity is acceptable and then panicked fleeing when they are detained. Even if officers try to comically deferentially deescalate, it’s a fundamentally dangerous scenario to embolden. What happens when a detainee hurts someone or the fleeing driver hits a bystander in their recklessness.
And the whole, find them later and arrest them, is also a joke. First the massive waste of resources and difficulty, second what happens when those involve reckless fleeing. “Officer showed up at their home and they ended up shot” is going to be much worse optics than it happening at the scene
iprayiam3
21d ago
Running from the cops shouldn’t be a death sentence, but it is a death gamble. If the officers primary duty is to make sure you are maximally safe while fleeing and to avoid any putting themselves between you and your exit, then the law stops existing for criminals. This is anarchotyrrany.
iprayiam3
21d ago
Then she called his bluff and began driving anyway
It clearly wasn’t a bluff. As I said to another poster, “you’re allowed to obstruct and then flee as long as you’re reckless about it” is not a stable status quo. “Resisting arrest and ignoring the authority of detaining officers will get you shot”, is.
Complying with the police is how you stay alive and fleeing the scene / believing your car is “base” that you are allowed to plow forward is how you get shot. I can’t comprehend how it could be any other way. It’s the very belief that you are allowed to flee that is creating these outcomes.
Easily our cast iron skillet
More options
Context Copy link