domain:lesswrong.com
birb_cromble
2hr ago
At this point even important institutions are ringing the alarm bell.
hydroacetylene
2hr ago
I would have opposed prohibition, and perhaps violated it wantonly. I don’t think I would have tried the stunts we see in reference to ice.
KMC
2hr ago
Incorrect. Ethnicity is absolutely real and exists in the material world, unlike laws or morality.
You can, in fact, sieve it out.
The_Nybbler
If you win the rat race you're still a rat. But you're also still a winner.
2hr ago
Unfortunately, you don't get the former without the latter. A law that is not being violated will not be repealed.
4bpp
Now I am become a Helpful, Honest and Harmless Assistant, the destroyer of jobs
2hr ago
· Edited 2hr ago
I shared the sense of other posters that he was arguing to inflame/grandstand rather than to either explain or understand, which often presages a dramatic departure and certainly indicates people have "checked out" of the community (as they are no longer willing to exercise the thankless self-discipline it asks for for its sake).
Primaprimaprima
Aliquid stat pro aliquo
2hr ago
I mean, I think that's the motte and bailey.
I think a majority of leftists believe that their official mission is illegitimate, and borders in general are basically unethical, but outright saying that is still a bit outside the Overton window of mainstream political discourse (insofar as you still care about trying to convince conservatives and "centrists" and put on good optics for them).
KMC
2hr ago
The fugitive slave act was meant to bring a recalcitrant north in line with the south's slavery policies.
No, the FSA was meant to bring the recalcitrant North in line with what they agreed to in the Constitution.
Article IV, Section 3
No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.
If the North didn't want to return fugitive slaves, then they shouldn't have agreed to it in the first place. If they changed their mind, they should change it via the constitution instead of lawlessly defying federal authority, authority which they themselves agreed to and submitted themselves to. These concessions were necessary for the South to continue in union with the North in the first place.
The morality of slavery is irrelevant, because unlike the Constitution, it is not agreed upon between all parties.
Slavery is perhaps about 80-90% of why the civil war started.
Northern defiance of the constitution is why the civil war started. The South, correctly, thought the North couldn't be trusted to abide by their own agreements.
fmac
Ask me about bike lanes
2hr ago
It's unfortunate that it seems like you have chosen to flame out
What does this mean? Is disagreeing with the motte hive-mind "flaming out"? I thought that was the point of this website.
fmac
Ask me about bike lanes
2hr ago
the conduct of ICE but the legitimacy of their official mission seems fine?
I really thought this was the whole point of this thread / argument but everyone really loves to conflate the two
netstack
Texas is freedom land
2hr ago
Plausible, I guess.
But something can be wildly biased without being representative. Outside of the Squad, how many members of Congress really care about it?
This is a genuine question.
07mk
2hr ago
Masked and armed bouncers dragging people away at gunpoint has horrible optics.
This is happening, and the optics do suck. You can tell they suck because people hate and fear ICE officers in a way they didn't a year ago.
The core issue here is that there's no causal relationship between the optics sucking and the behavior of ICE, though. The optics are defined primarily by 2 things: what people see, and how they respond to what they see. Former is primarily determined by people who hate Trump and hate the core mission of ICE, and the latter is highly determined by those people as well. And the past decade or so has established a pattern that these people will always make the optics bad when it comes to Trump, in a way that's entirely orthogonal to truth and fact. So it makes sense that ICE and the people who lead it, like Trump, have decided to focus little on the optics.
Credibility takes a lifetime to earn and a millisecond to destroy, and unfortunately, the media and political organizations that are against Trump pretty much blew their load within his first presidency (I'd argue within his first campaign) and are still in the refractory period 8 years later, furiously rubbing the poor flesh and wondering why it just hurts instead of shooting another rope.
sun_the_second
could survive a COD lobby and a gay furry discord server
2hr ago
Neither are there molecules of laws, or any particular ethnicity or nationality, or states.
TK-421
2hr ago
| ...however I'd wager you see the fight against Prohibition and its reduction in freedom as a good one.
Really depends on how we're defining "fight against Prohibition".
If you mean the political efforts to generate support for and pass the 21st Amendment - yeah, totally.
If you mean the efforts of smugglers and criminals to violate the law, sometimes violently - absolutely not, no.
KMC
2hr ago
I don't think moral legitimacy exists at all.
To paraphrase Pratchett's Death, take the universe and grind it down to the finest powder and sieve it through the finest sieve and then show me one molecule of moral legitimacy.
And yet you act as if there is some rightness in the universe by which it may be judged.
fmac
Ask me about bike lanes
2hr ago
there are no elite groups in America that actually want to limit immigration
Thank you for speaking the core truth
Trump is very conveniently ignoring the many illegal migrant farmers that keep food prices down
He's not just ignoring them, he's telling us (and them, and the Americans who pay them) he's ignoring them. Also hotel workers for some weird reason... maybe because he owns hotels? Lmao
KMC
2hr ago
The Fugitive Slave Act was 100% legitimate, and in fact there would be no United States without the federal authority to pass such an act and enforce it.
It's literally right there, Article IV, Section 2:
No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.
Without this clause, we don't get a United States, we get whatever else could have come from the Articles of Confederation when the South broke from the North (and likely the West from the North, too).
It's my opinion that if you make concessions to your partners that they require as a basis for partnership, you cannot then renege on those concessions simply because you don't like them.
sun_the_second
could survive a COD lobby and a gay furry discord server
2hr ago
We do that, in a sense. We keep them as pets in strange dwellings, feeding them strange food, castrating them and arranging their entire lives around our enjoyment. Were an alien do that to humans we'd probably consider it torture.
fmac
Ask me about bike lanes
2hr ago
Comments on Twitter you don't like is quite literally the definition of "algorithmic rage bait slop" because the Twitter algorithm specifically shows you things that'll make you unhappy because that makes you engage more.
If you take the opinions of a clown (liberal cuck? He's actually pathetic) like Patton Oswalt you are being rage baited.
gattsuru
2hr ago
My impression is that the stuff about voluntary vs involuntary search is that it mainly has to do with what evidence is admissible in court - law enforcement agents are going to be able to go where they want whether or not your cooperation is voluntary.
The California bill has absolutely zero to do with what's admissible in court -- not just because immigration courts are federal processes where it can't apply, but also because it includes a fine aimed at employers who voluntarily cooperate with federal agents, or voluntarily provide documentation to federal agents.
And in terms of documents, documents that are actually relevant to work eligibility are already covered as things that employers should cooperate with if there's an administrative warrant.
The law requires employers to ignore administrative warrants for personnel records. It's in the FAQ you're quoting!
My understanding is that what you can't do is hand over the Workday login to ICE and invite them to go on a fishing expedition unless you are compelled to do so.
Or access to a nonpublic area of a workplace. Or specific employee records. Even if given an administrative warrant, you can not do so without risking tens of thousands of dollars per instance. Or to reverify existing employees, such as, just as a theoretical exercise, an employer isn't quite sure if they did that initial eVerify check.
fmac
Ask me about bike lanes
2hr ago
one of your trantifa insurrectionists trying to kill his family over it?
I have no connection, affiliation, or agreement with whatever portmanteau of trans(?) and Antifa you made here. I find both of those groups insufferable.
I don't understand your quote/allegory of my words to be honest.
As does your eliding that, per your own link, immigration is still Trump's best polling policy.
That has nothing to do with my thesis, which is that optics (perception) of ICE is horrible, and it's clearly shown by the fact his approval on immigration, relative to earlier, has been dropping.
Just because he's even more underwater on his other awful ideas doesn't challenge this.
A solid majority of Americans still want every illegal deported
Yes they do, which is fine, I don't blame them, but they're clearly not thrilled with how it's happening WHICH IS LITERALLY THE OPTICS THING LMFAO
Also as an aside but it's just so blatantly clear they don't actually want to "solve" immigration because as stated infinity times, they're not taking any action to make employers use e-verify more and they're EXPLICITLY AND DELIBERATELY not going after hotels or farms, which are two of the biggest low hanging fruit for tons of illegal immigrants in obvious places.
If they wanted to, they would, and they aren't, so they don't.
This entire forum is so allergic to admitting this. If they actually wanted to address immigration, they'd punish the American citizens who give illegal immigrants money to do jobs. THE ILLEGALS ARE HERE BECAUSE YOU PAY THEM. Just go after the people who pay them, it's that simple. Again, this forum is wildly allergic to admitting that.
When people tell me it exists, I like taking a look.
I guess I'm just not sure how to define or quantify a fuzzy object like "optics" which by nature is opinion based, without pointing at measures of people's opinions.
Also on a real human level, they're just obviously bad? Partisanship aside can we not agree that dudes in face coverings abducting people and sending some of them to 3rd world prisons run by dictators is really fucking off-putting?
To be honest, I actually feel like you're being willfully ignorant here. When people in this thread say "Optics" they obviously mean "the public perception or appearance of an action, decision, or policy. How it looks rather than what it is."
Perception is everything here, and polls measure perception/opinion.
Why are polls a lame argument?
The Economist is generally regarded as a reliable source, and Nate Silver is a very talented pollster, so it is highly likely these pills are a real indication of how the American people feel. If you have a different hypothesis as to how the American people feel, you should present it.
By the way, did you just type out the same 2-3 paragraphs in 3 different comments? Are you ok?
I'm pretty sure I'm responding to 3 different people, so I wanted to make sure they all saw the stats that back my hypothesis. Copy and pasted so it was pretty easy, but I appreciate you checking.
Jiro
2hr ago
Of course, we understand now that John Brown was in the right when he attempted to secure his moral values through direct, murderous violence against those who disagreed, and of course we understand that similar murderous violence is acceptable when confronted by evil, implacable tyranny backed by force of law. The only wrinkle is that we cannot agree on what constitutes "evil" or "tyranny"
If the left thinks it was good to assassinate Charlie Kirk because it is okay to assassinate evil public figures, and that the only disagreement was whether he was evil, they can say "we think it is okay to assassinate evil public figures, we just disagree whether Charlie Kirk was evil". They won't do this. (And I don't think that's out of fear of being arrested, either, given the rhetoric that is acceptable.)
gattsuru
2hr ago
It looks like people here were pretty close to universal in saying the ATF was incompetent, malicious, or most likely both here.
Would you like to demonstrate where, exactly, Rov_Scam said that, rather than moe about gun owners not wanting to compromise?
Yeah, it is an unfortunate truth that "someone did an unambiguously terrible thing and now the world is worse :(" doesn't get nearly as much engagement as "someone did a thing, maybe it's very bad, maybe it's not so bad, but everyone has an opinion and thinks anyone who disagrees with them is an evil mutant".
Oh, if everyone agreed it was awful, then there must be a whole ton of sympathetic coverage from mainstream and even progressive sources, right? I must be able to find some Honest Gun Control Advocate who talked about how they wanted enforcement, but Not Like This, rather than just memory hole or completely ignore the matter? President Biden, who was willing to speak out personally about an immigration officer using reins on a horse, must have spoken on the matter: it was the middle of election season and an excellent opportunity to Sister Souljah nutjobs. Or if his brain was too applesauce at the time, perhaps Kamala "I own A Glock" Harris did so? The officers in question -- who unquestionably did violate policy, and near-certainly violated a lot of constitutional protections in addition to the not-getting-shot-in-head-bit -- must have been fired or at least demoted, right, even if they couldn't be prosecuted?
Ah, no.
In (to pick an arbitrary Biden year) 2022, ICE deported about 70,000 people. Not more than a handful of those people were cause celebres. Likewise in 2018 (to pick an arbitrary Trump 1 year), and likewise this year.
Did you follow the link? Because a good part of the complaint here is that those 2018-2019 period did get a massive amount of often-not-honest outrage, even when the some of photos predated Trump. Yes, no one cared about Biden deportations, that's the punchline.
That's the joke, and that's why the outrage here is a joke.
He has been transparently trolling across about a dozen comments over hours in flagrant violation of site discussion rules. Users have been asking him pointed questions clearly and politely and he has been deliberately obtuse and made no effort to discuss aside from low-effort snide dismissals
More options
Context Copy link