phosphorus2
No bio...
User ID: 3264
phosphorus2
12hr ago
because it's in the definition: fascism is nosiness, interfering with the citizen's private lives, even the most intimate. Fascists at best don't care about others' intimacy, at worst they have a control fetish. Why should anyone care about what degenerates do, consensually, apart from them?
I hate when people just make stuff up like this, no I'm sorry but that is not what fascism is. You clearly just made that up on the spot and put zero thought into it which is lazy and rude. Like the communists were notoriously nosy, nosier than the fascists, does that make them fascists? Things can be bad without also being fascist.
phosphorus2
1d ago
When did the US left promise to enforce immigration law?
That is just the standard assumption for dealing with societies. People are subject to the law, and a law isn't a law if it is not enforced.
What exactly are you trying to argue here?
That if a political faction doesn't explicitly promise to enforce some law it shouldn't have to?
That if a political faction doesn't like the law they can just not enforce the law instead of changing it?
That it is ok to not enforce laws that you don't like?
The law isn't unfair; what is unfair is suddenly starting to enforce the law after it's been unenforced for decades and people have built their lives around the expectation that it won't be enforced. Enforcing it for new arrivals is entirely fair.
We have a process to decide what is and is not fair. We elect representatives, representatives write and pass laws, and then we all agree to be bound by the laws. Do you not agree?
Then why is it fair for your side, the pro immigration side, to just not enforce the law? Why does your side get to selectively enforce the rules? Why do you get to make claims as to what is and isn't fair when you have already ignored what we agreed on?
phosphorus2
2d ago
I think what the US needs is a grand bargain between the two sides on immigration: one big amnesty for those already there, obviously excluding criminals, etc., and to then start actually enforcing the law.
I give you: everything you want on the issue
You give me: you promise to follow the law, which you have already promised to do, and which already gives me everything I want on the issue
Wow great, what a deal, sign me up
I do feel it is unfair that people who've lived in the US for years or decades under the understanding that the law will not be enforced have had the rug pulled out from under them. No, you can't just say "but it's the law!". Imagine a teenager smokes some weed on the understanding that the prohibition is not enforced, and then a tough-on-crime district attorney starts enforcing it and suddenly he's spending a year in jail (the maximum sentence) and will never be able to get a good job. People act differently based on how and whether laws are enforced, and suddenly changing that retroactively is unfair.
Oh look, one paragraph later the I am being told that you are just going to ignore the law if you think its unfair.
phosphorus2
5d ago
No, I DON'T think you're antisemitic because your post reads as a person who is pretending to be an antisemite who is in turn pretending to not be an antisemite and just doing criticism, and that's the problem.
phosphorus2
5d ago
When you crank it up to 110% for the entire post it doesn't make it better. You need to have something plausible to engage with and then a FEW firecrackers thrown in there. When you pour it on it is just way too obvious. Like it doesn't even seem like you're authentically antisemitic, go for a masterpiece paragraph inside something solid, not an entire masterpiece post.
phosphorus2
9d ago
The Dem agenda is gibs. Everyone loves gibs.
Arguably, the Democrats spent the
You don't like the democrats, ok. But what you describe is not unique to democrats. Voting to give yourself free stuff is the bane of all democracies in existence, since forever. It is the quintessential "populists run amok" agenda item, not just a "gibs" thing.
Do you not see this same impulse in Donald? If so, why bash the dems then? If not, how? He is I think the most shameless of all of them. Interesting that he killed the Romney / Ryan wing of the GOP that was the only real force pushing against entitlement growth.
phosphorus2
9d ago
he has visibly kept most of the promises he made in the campaign (with a minor problem of the Iran war).
Trump campaigned on ending forever wars and he campaigned on lowering gas prices / inflation. Those were heavily featured. Now he's got a war that he started and which looks like he can't finish, and its raising gas prices a lot and causing inflation. That seems like a major problem, not a minor one? And a very visible problem?
He has kept promises on immigration for example, but the nature of that problem is that when there isn't a crisis it doesn't get much attention. Yeah he solved the problem, he kept that promise, but doing that also makes the problem a lot less visible. Compare to the Iran war - very visible, lot of air time. And its causing gas and diesel to shoot up, which is also very visible.
Secondly, the Democrats have no serious agenda. They don’t have an economic agenda, a foreign policy agenda, a social agenda, their entire political agenda seems to be “Prevent Trump from doing things, and hate on Israel.”
Do they need an agenda to win an election? Does it help them?
First thing is that agendas don't have to be serious or even good, they just have to be popular. “Prevent Trump from doing things" seems like it would be a pretty popular agenda, as he is -20 net approval.
Second thing is that agendas should also not be unpopular. When Dems do have an actual agenda it is very often very unpopular. Can't be hit over the head with the wrong side of a 80:20 wedge issue if you haven't taken a side!
Third is that by having no set national agenda Dems don't get pegged to a national agenda in purple state races, red state Dems can more credibly run as centrists when they aren't tied down to Kamala.
So I don't think having an agenda helps them. It's probably the best thing they could do to be honest.
phosphorus2
1mo ago
That's because of the precedent set by European police officers. They don't have a reputation for suicide-by-cop. They don't have a reputation for turning off body-cams at suspicious times. They don't have a reputation for shady protection schemes for rotten-apple police-officers. If American police want the right to stop random strangers, they must establish accountability and through it, build public trust.
This doesn't make any sense. Sometimes, rarely, crazy people in the US attack the police and force the police to shoot them, therefore the police need to build enough trust with the public to do basic policing work?
American police already have the right to stop random strangers. What they can and cannot do is defined by the law. It has nothing to do with public trust or accountability or context. This is also the reason why those people could be stopped in Germany or the UK - because the laws are different. Not because the public trusts the police more.
phosphorus2
2mo ago
Biden didn't really ignore the law on immigration. One could make the argument (which I would agree with) that he ignored the spirit of what the law intended, but his parole abuse followed the letter since every applicant technically received an individual decision, and the DHS asserted individualized "significant public benefit" findings. The definitions of those things were so wishy washy that it could mean almost anything.
I would consider "pretending words mean what we want them to mean instead of what they actually mean so we can technically follow the law" the same as just ignoring the law.
phosphorus2
2mo ago
Immigration law is a trainwreck in general, so there are tons. One particularly noteworthy issue that Biden abused was the parole authority. This is something the 2024 bill would have ameliorated somewhat. Then Trump cynically torpedoed that bill with MAGA promising he'd deliver a much stronger bill if he became President. Then he did almost nothing statutorily.
It is a trainwreck because one side just ignores the law. Look at your example of Biden's parole abuse. The law says that the pres admin can temporarily parole individuals into the US on a case by case basis. Biden admin parole in millions of him over his term, this was done categorically, not at all case by case.
Why rely on another law to fix parole? The original law is already clear and is ignored. Trump was able to shut down the border with the laws on the books, what is another law that gives concession to the pro side going to do?
phosphorus2
2mo ago
Maybe you should try to consider why those muslims hate you, and no, scantily clad blondes munching on burgers and freedom fries is not the reason.
e.g.:
The second thing we call you to, is to stop your oppression, lies, immorality and debauchery that has spread among you.
(a) We call you to be a people of manners, principles, honour, and purity; to reject the immoral acts of fornication, homosexuality, intoxicants, gambling's, and trading with interest.
We call you to all of this that you may be freed from that which you have become caught up in; that you may be freed from the deceptive lies that you are a great nation, that your leaders spread amongst you to conceal from you the despicable state to which you have reached.
...
You are the nation who, rather than ruling by the Shariah of Allah in its Constitution and Laws, choose to invent your own laws as you will and desire. You separate religion from your policies, contradicting the pure nature which affirms Absolute Authority to the Lord and your Creator. You flee from the embarrassing question posed to you: How is it possible for Allah the Almighty to create His creation, grant them power over all the creatures and land, grant them all the amenities of life, and then deny them that which they are most in need of: knowledge of the laws which govern their lives?
...
You are a nation that exploits women like consumer products or advertising tools calling upon customers to purchase them. You use women to serve passengers, visitors, and strangers to increase your profit margins. You then rant that you support the liberation of women.
phosphorus2
2mo ago
Do you have any evidence that this was the ayatollah's personal policy, as opposed to a broader regime policy?
Per Article 110 of Iran's Constitution, the ayatollah's personal policy IS the regime policy.
phosphorus2
2mo ago
What’s your evidence he wasn’t acting in their national self-interest?
I actually got Khamenei and Khomeini mixed up, but I don't think it changes much as they were both islamic fundamtalists who did stupid things.
Going back to Khomeini, the hostage crisis. Which Khamenei strongly supported. What did they get kidnapping a bunch of diplomats? They got to feel great sticking it to the great satan? What did they lose? They pissed off a superpower who then donated a bunch of military equipment to Iraq, a country that invaded them like a year after Iran pissed off its old superpower ally. To quote la wik:
If Iran had wanted to just throw of the American yoke and not been so annoying about they'd be in much better shape. Look at the Vietnamese - they kicked the US out, they did it without Ho Chi Minh yelling "death to America" for 50 years, and today in 2026 the US and Vietnam get along just fine, we're even somewhat friendly. But of course Iran can't help themselves, paramount is defeating the great satan. This is the general theme - they just can't help themselves.
Another example - the Fatwa against Salman Rushdie. What does Iran get from this? I can't think of anything but to satisfy some internal muslim purity demand. What did they lose? A decade of sour relations with the UK and Europe. And they made him famous, and he sold a ton of books.
More recently - some girl doesn't wear her hijab right so they kill her. What does Iran gain from this? International condemnation, international sanctions, half a year of internal protests where they shoot hundreds more. Shocking that Iran's most educated and (what would be) their most productive citizens don't want to live in that envornment. Shocking their elite human capital doesn't want to live in an islamic theocracy. Really serves the national interest to scare those people off, but hey - at least allah is happy.
Honestly there are like a million things like this of Iran being stupid because they're led by islamic fundamentalists. Is it in Iran's interest to keep picking fights with Israel? What exactly is the root of that conflict, Iran's security needs? Or because they don't like da Joos? How exactly is their nuclear weapons program going? They endure decades of economic isolation, for what? Where are the nukes? Did they stick it to the great satan with the nukes, or did they get no nukes and get bombed? There are ways to defend yourself without making yourself an international pariah, but they can't help but fund every terrorist org in existence. Like oh my god, shocking they get regularly bombed.
phosphorus2
2mo ago
Ok to engage in realpolitik / geostrategic logic the first assumption is that states are rational actors acting in their own self interest. I dont think khomeni was a rational actor, he was an islamic fundamtalist. I think the junta giving direction to the clerics would be a much better situation, if that is actually the case.
phosphorus2
2mo ago
No, I think killing muslims who hate me is a good thing in and of itself. But tbh if I were president I dont think I'd have started this war and I dont think as it stands the benefits have been worth the costs.
phosphorus2
2mo ago
Do they believe the exact same thing? It doesnt seem so to me. The IRGC strikes me as a military outfit before a religious one. Khomeni was primarily a cleric. Dealing with a military junta seems leagues better than an theocracy, even if they both hate america.
phosphorus2
2mo ago
None of this has benefitted a single American that is not a zionist.
Killing the "death to america" leader whose foreign policy was "export islamic revolution" seems prima facie to benefit me a lot
phosphorus2
2mo ago
most of them are not sexual predators within their own families.
Tangental, but third worlders in the yookay and in general have wildly different and alien social mores.
The majority of UK pakistani marriages are to their first cousins
phosphorus2
3mo ago
Where are these news and think tank articles with evidence that Israel is funding NGOs to convince Morocco to invade Ceuta? I have yet to see any.
How much money did Israel give? To what think tanks? How is it known that the money was for this purpose and not some other? How is it known that such and such NGO or think tank convinced the Moroccan government to act?
Why does a tweet from Yair convince you? Do you believe everything people say on twitter?
phosphorus2
3mo ago
is it really so hard to understand why some people might believe that countries with think thanks openly writing articles about precisely how something like this could be done, might have dropped a few helpful hints for Morocco's scheme?
The evidence Israel is behind this a 7 year old troll tweet from Yair Netanyahu.
phosphorus2
3mo ago
I am sure there is much scheming on the parts of Morocco and Belarus, I don't think that's really contested by anyone. So I don't really get what point you're trying to make.
phosphorus2
3mo ago
Why are Moroccans flooding into Spanish Ceuta?
Is it because the Spain:
- makes it hard to remove them
- gives them all citizenship and money
- is generally a much nicer place than Morocco
OR
Is it because:
- a bunch of random jews post things on twitter
- jews in 711 betrayed Toledo to invading Arabs
Jeez, I don't know!
phosphorus2
3mo ago
We should make our atmosphere 100% CO2 to maximize life, what could go wrong?
phosphorus2
3mo ago
I don't think that's remotely comparable. You are talking about an employment contract, the fact that you think this can be placed in the same category as motherhood is already morally repugnant to me.
I know its not remotely comparable, that's why I said lumping them all together as "selling people" was obtuse. Selling slaves and surrogacy for money and MLB trades can all be described as "selling people", that those things are not (morally) comparable is my point. Because these "selling people" scenarios have wildly different moral valences "It's morally wrong to sell people" obviously has a little bit of nuance to it.
But even if you think consent is the only valid moral factor, these contracts were entered into voluntarily, and the player / worker can refuse to be "sold".
First thing is that's not even true, a MLB player can be sold against his will to another team. It happens all the time, and it not possible for him to refuse.
Second is that in both the particular surrogacy in question and the practice at large are also contracts entered into voluntarily. If you are going to argue that the baby gets a say - no, it doesn't. Does a baby get a say on if it is adopted? No. Has any baby ever had a say as to if or when or how they are born? No. Its never been the case, so why is it here?
"Selling people" is understood to be bad for reasons like the people being sold don't have a say in the matter
Like the children...
Ok this one by me was maybe not precise, but I have a feeling you get the gist of what I am saying. I am referring to something like Kunta Kinte being shipped off to the deep south against his will, people generally think that is mean and bad. Given that no newborn child at any point in history has ever had a say in any matter I hoped that you realized that I was referring to something like Kunta instead of something unremarkable and due to the inherent nature of newborns.
they have less rights than others
like the children...
I am going to assume you weren't talking about the fact that children and adults have different rights because that's not remarkable or the point of contention here.
What right does a non surrogate child have that a surrogate child does not? The right to a mother? Baby has a mother. How could it be born if it didn't have a mother? That it is adopted by two gay men, one being the father, does not strike the mother from existence.
there is typically violence or coercion involved.
the only reason it doesn't is that the child is too weak to put up any kind of violent resistance.
Really? I don't believe you. You couldn't possibly know this, its not falsifiable, did a baby tell you this? No, you just made it up.
Also the mothers' material situation is often taken advantage of, which may be on the softer side of coercion, but it still plausibly fits in the same category.
- The woman in question is not the babies mother. The egg was not hers, it was a donor's.
- The woman in question was not coerced or pressured into surrogacy, per the article in Canada surrogates are not allowed to be paid anything beyond costs for their surrogacy.
- You are making a fully general argument here - anyone can be coerced about anything, you can argue against anything by saying that "oh someone's martial situation could be taken advantage of here so its coercive"
They absolutely do. Slavery is not considered abhorrent because the masters always and everywhere mistreat their slaves, in fact "but we always treat aware slaves with kindness" was a staple pro-slavery argument back in the day, and it was rejected because treating people as ownable and sellable was considered immoral. That argument applies to surrogacy 1:1.
The surrogate was not any given money for the kid. Per the article she was not even given money for the costs she incurred.
The parents don't own the kid beyond the extent every parent or guardian "owns" their kid. One of them is the actual father! Its his kid!
If that argument applies to surrogacy 1:1 then why doesn't it here?
This is not fair. That it happened over years does not make it fair.
You get to be unfair to me but I don't get to be unfair to you. Nice.
More options
Context Copy link