domain:asteriskmag.com
But honestly, the fact that such a story is even believable speaks volumes about the situation on the ground
Please put this juvenile argument to bed, permanently. If something didn't happen, the fact that it could have is irrelevant.
Primaprimaprima
...something all admit only "TRUMP", and the Trump Administration, can do.
8hr ago
Although these types of retorts are exquisitely tempting, these are also exactly the sorts of reactions that Count is attempting to provoke, which he then parlays into accusations of bias and incivility.
self_made_human
Grippy socks, grippy box
8hr ago
He is a beneficiary of the UK immigration policy, and therefore sees it as a smashing success.
I am a beneficiary of the UK immigration policy. I very much don't see it as a smashing success. Count makes us look bad, and even if he didn't, I have great distaste for people who bite the hand that feeds them.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
8hr ago
Thank you for responding!
gattsuru
8hr ago
It's plausible, and I'll reserve judgement before making any specific assessments, but I'll point out some red flags beyond the Guatemalan denial:
She [Leon's wife] herself was kept in the building for 10 hours until relatives picked her up.
What, exactly, is this claim? Was she arrested or detained for ten hours? Is she a citizen, and that's the only reason she wasn't deported herself? If she's a non-citizen, did they attempt to deport her? Those things are all possible, but the sentence would also be technically honest if she just didn't have a ride home.
Then, sometime after Leon was detained, a woman purporting to be an immigration lawyer called the family, claiming she could help – but did not disclose how she knew about the case, or where Leon was. On 9 July, according to Leon’s granddaughter, the same woman called them again, claiming Leon had died.
This is some incredibly precise phrasing. No one knows the first date this woman called, and the Guardian doesn't know what the claims were? Other sources say this was probably somewhere around 6/23ish, but don't expand on the claims. Three weeks ago, she called again, gave the family false information, and then no one knows her name or even if she's actually an immigration lawyer?
More critically, while Guatemala is one of the countries that has agreed to receive third-country deporations (albeit not of people from Chile), it is not a country that has (or is known to have) received Alien Enemies Act deportations. The time period from 6/20 to 7/3, the claimed range, was after both AARP v. Trump and Trump vs. JGG, which clearly established AEA deportations still had judicial review. And neither the Guardian nor other media I can find say he was deported under the AEA. Indeed, it's not clear how many, if any, LPRs have been deported under the AEA.
Any other deportation would require a (admittedly waiveable) hearing with an administrative law judge. It's possible that the Trump administration just fucked things up, or that the immigration judge involved was just rubber-stamping papers. Or for a more borderline (or scissory) example his LPR was revoked; unlike naturalization, green cards can be revoked for a pretty wide variety of reasons, some serious and some less so. But few of these answers give a result compatible with "Instead some power tripping ICE worker two grades above the rank of janitor decided to act as judge, jury and executioner and sent a vulnerable 82 year old man off to a country with which he has no links whatsoever."
And some of that other reporting gives other reasons to put your antenna up:
Perhaps that's just a reasonable reaction to what could well have been an extremely traumatic experience. Perhaps.
But honestly, the fact that such a story is even believable speaks volumes about the situation on the ground, five years ago this story would have been seen as too absurd for The Onion.
naraburns
nihil supernum
8hr ago
I genuinely can't.
I genuinely believe that you can. It's not about your experiences, it's about your insistence that your experiences are sufficiently bad to excuse inflammatory rhetoric, boo outgroup posts, writing like you actually do not want everyone to participate in the conversation, and so forth. Don't write angry posts! Don't write screeds! Don't come here to vent your spleen. This is a place for discussing the culture wars, not waging them. And yeah, we're kind of bad at making that happen. But we're trying, and I genuinely think that you can succeed, too, if you're willing to try.
At least two moderators have broadly recused themselves from even bothering to moderate you, because they are just fed up with your antics. I'm a much less active moderator than I used to be, but there's a very good chance that if you do get perma-banned, I am the one who is going to have to write the mod message. I don't want to write that message. At minimum, it's likely to require a bunch of effort I would rather put into writing things people enjoy reading instead.
Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe you really just... cannot... open yourself to the possibility that you are in some way mistaken about your outgroup and the views you have developed as a result of your experiences. Or maybe you just can't stop yourself from expressing it in maximally vitriolic ways. But if that's right, then--for all your many quality contributions--maybe this space is, in the end, a poor fit. That's a possibility. But I will be sad about it, if so.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
8hr ago
Honestly, this makes me think it is more likely to have happened - and there is some kind of mistaken identity at the source. Some guy messed up his own DOB or something (maybe he didn't have a known DOB, picked one when coming into the country, picked another one that was more significant later and didn't remember the one he used on his paperwork, IDK.) Maybe the government mixed up the files.
My prior is that people typically don't outright lie but rather twist the truth. It's a heck of a story to make up whole cloth. Stranger things have happened, so I wouldn't be too put out if it turned out to be someone's imaginary Grandpa. But Bureaucratic mistake seems more likely to me.
iprayiam3
8hr ago
It's neither of those things. Burdensome Count is not a leftwinger. He is a beneficiary of the UK immigration policy, and therefore sees it as a smashing success.
Imagine a socially conservative Mexican immigrant, sitting outside of a taco truck, with his friends and family after Catholic Mass, celebrating his life in what was 3 decades ago, a strongly Protestant community and condemning the disruption of a recent ICE raid. This guy might be very glad for the liberal immigration policies of the past few decades and distressed by the recent reversal, while still being otherwise more aligned with MAGA populism on most other issues.
daguerrean
8hr ago
- I have no reason to believe this. It may or may not be true but at this point it is not convincing me.
- Any sufficiently large-scale action is going to have a few mistakes, there will always be false positives. If we insisted on zero false positives the only solution would be to deport no one (or something approaching zero). Similar to how cops enforcing the law will periodically result in an innocent person being shot. It is unfortunate, and we should work to minimize mistakes but to some extent mistakes are a sign of things actually being done as opposed to total inaction. If we insist on 30 appeals for every person we will simply never be able to match the incoming rate of illegal immigrants.
oats_son
8hr ago
I found the video disturbing. Sometimes I have to recall how I felt watching that first video to give any credence to the other side at all, especially as it relates to the conviction of Derek Chauvin, whom I usually think should have been acquitted, but sometimes, the thought of that video pops up again and I think twice.
Obviously, it didn't justify any of the rioting, though. That was an insane year.
Iconochasm
2. Bootstrap the rest of the fucking omnipotence.
8hr ago
"The fact that I would believe bad things about my enemies proves they're bad" is an UR example of a horrendously bad faith argument. This post was more worthy of a ban than the original.
naraburns
nihil supernum
8hr ago
That's not how you get a reputation. This is a reputation economy. If you contribute valuable things to it, that will increase your credibility. What is valuable in this reputation economy? Lots of stuff! Insight, novelty, effort. Original research, eloquence, reasoned argumentation. Steelmanning, deep dives, critical self-reflection. And yes--the beating heart of this space is the Culture War thread, where we discuss the culture wars--but, at our best, refrain from waging them.
We also have quiet lurkers! If that's more your jam, that's fine. Even there, you can contribute through meta-moderation and user reports.
What we don't need is more people trying to characterize this space, to place it within the culture wars rather than to keep it outside of them. We don't need more accusing mods of thumbing the scales one way or another, complaining that there are too many bad posters, too many bad comments, too much left wing content, too much right wing content, whatever--we already have entirely too much of that. The best--often the only--thing you can do to make this place better, is to write good posts.
To be blunt: I am skeptical that you "FoundViaTwitter." Right now I would guess at about 30% odds that "you" are a Turok alt. You don't write as if you are unfamiliar with this space; you write as if you are someone who has already been banned previously. But I've been wrong about this sort of thing before, and quite possibly I'm wrong now, so instead I'm trying to treat you like a new user who just found this space.
We welcome your effort, insight, etc. on whatever topics you care to write about, provided you do so within the spirit of the foundation and the intention of the rules that support it. We are less interested in having yet more off-base aspersions cast on the mod team or the site.
iprayiam3
8hr ago
That's not what I meant, Im not even that frequent a commenter here these days.
Just defending that the moderation policy isn't really along a left/right divide.
I'd say rather, it's biased against arguments that amount to 'You are moral monster and cannot be tolerated'. This was, at least online, pretty strongly associated with the progressive advance over the last decade, so I thikn reaction against this gets pattern matched to reaction against leftism.
But 3 recent moderation debates have been around:
Alexader Turok: sneering contempt for populist conservatives, from a viewpoint within the general 'right', but a libertarian/EHC perspective.
Burdensome Count: moral outrage against American nationalism from a globalist, EHC perspective, though socially somewhat conservative
Contra Whinning Coil: somebody flaming out because Whinning Coil was allowed to express racist views.
The third was kind of liberal adjacent? But more like centrist disgust at racialist remarks. All three kerfuffles though, were not about left/right, but about reacting to an argument that amounts to 'how dare they!'
To be super clear, I also flamed out of here several years ago, because I too hold some how dare they views. I don't agree with the general philosophical aims of theMotte, and think it is founded in self-destructive tolerance-maxxing. I do not agree with the axiomatic viewpoints that found the philosophy of the motte and it;s moderation.
But I simply defend that it's not left-vs-right.
Iconochasm
2. Bootstrap the rest of the fucking omnipotence.
8hr ago
Who is "our", Kemosabe? Didn't you show up in the West basically yesterday?
DTulpa
8hr ago
Oh, don't misunderstand me. I was being rather suggestive with that post, pointing out that "the fact that I COULD believe it" is really, really terrible guidepost.
I didnt believe Jussie either - my only failing being the extent of my disbelief not going far enough. I was prepared to say drug deal/prostitution gone wrong. Performative self-lynching wasn't on the menu.
Iconochasm
2. Bootstrap the rest of the fucking omnipotence.
8hr ago
That's the opposite of what you're being asked to do. Post. Engage. Discuss. But maybe give it a few months before getting into every mod decision.
Chrisprattalpharaptr
Ave Imperaptor
8hr ago
Just lurk for a while, or participate without criticizing the mods imo. The context is that people bitch about the mods' decisions (whether that is to ban or not) on a weekly basis, and I'm sure they're sick of it. People have been here for nearly a decade.
There's plenty of dysfunction in the community, but it's not driven by incompetence or ideological bias on the part of the mods. Even if, I have to say, I share your frustration for the Turok ban.
If he expressed his Great Replacement desires in more formal language, perhaps referring to genetic groups instead of "mayos", would his posts be under less scrutiny?
Yes. 100%. It would be quite trivial to rephrase everything he has to say in a manner that is minimally inflammatory. Some opinions will inherently piss people off, no matter how politely stated. We account for this, and let them stand.
I'm going to sacrifice even more of my lunch-break, and take on the burden of providing an example of how Count could have made the same point without breaking the rules:
This incident highlights what I see as a structural weakness in the American legal system regarding accountability for government agents. It's interesting to contrast the US concept of "sovereign immunity" with legal frameworks like the UK's, which allows for "exemplary damages" specifically to punish "arbitrary and oppressive conduct by a servant of the government." The latter seems to provide a stronger check on potential executive overreach by creating a more direct path for redress.
If the reporting is accurate, the false notification of the man's death is particularly concerning. It points to a breakdown in process and professionalism that seems severe, even accounting for the complexities of immigration enforcement. It raises questions about the institutional culture within ICE and what safeguards are in place to prevent such grievous errors.
This seems to align with critiques, like those once made by Lee Kuan Yew, that American institutions can sometimes lack the deeply ingrained cultural norms that act as informal checks on behavior in older states. My read is that this isn't an issue of malice, but perhaps a cultural immaturity where adherence to formal process can sometimes override basic considerations of human decency, leading to outcomes that are both unjust and counterproductive.
The second version makes the exact same three points:
- The US legal system has structural flaws for redressing government misconduct compared to the UK.
- The agency's actions demonstrate a shocking lack of professionalism.
- This may be symptomatic of a broader American cultural issue related to its relative youth as a nation.
The difference is that the rewrite focuses on systems, policies, and ideas. It critiques without insulting. It frames the point about national character as an analytical observation from a historical figure, not a childish insult. It invites a counter-argument ("Actually, sovereign immunity is vital because...") rather than a flame war ("How dare you call us a steaming pile of shit!").
That is the standard. It's not about what you say, but about making a good-faith effort to say it in a way that contributes to a discussion. Count consistently and deliberately chooses not to.
The civility requirements do seem to be more stringent on the left than the right, probably because when someone insults the Left there's not a lot of push back.
We can't please everyone, but even the perception of such bias is concerning. Take it from me, that we take this concern seriously, and have been debating it internally. I'm not going to name names, but a certain someone, who is a right-wing darling, will not enjoy it if we decide that we need to make an example.
Of course, that's an extreme outcome, and we generally try not to make examples for the sake of it. Many lengthy explanations have been written about why the perception of anti-leftist bias might exist here, including even in its absence. I can't rule out that it isn't, in fact, absent, but take my word for it that we care about fairness as well as the appearance of fairness.
Mantergeistmann
8hr ago
I'd say it's more coming into a bar, and wondering why some of the regulars are discussing with the bartender whether another of the regulars (who, over the course of many nights before you got here, established a rep as a bit belligerent once they've had too many) should be cut off. Doesn’t mean it's not a drinking establishment, or that you're not welcome to belly up and order, but that there's backstory and conflict (like with any established group!) that you weren't around for. Don't let that worry you.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
8hr ago
I'm sad that this has been your first week here. It's not every week that two prolific posters are banned. This is actually one of the only places left on the Internet where you can say any idea, as long as it's said civilly. Unfortunately, it can be hard for some people to keep it civil, to the point where I think many posters have forgotten what civility even looks like.
I could make an effort post on why gay sex is morally terrible and it wouldn't be moderated - as long as I wrote it as if I was trying to convince a close gay friend, using the friendly language one would use with someone you will inevitably see every day. It would be downvoted terribly, because that kind of sentiment is wildly unpopular here. But it wouldn't be moderated. If I made the same post, with the same argument structure, but with some homophobic slurs added in and in the tone of a drill sergeant, it would be moderated in much the same way you see here.
Primaprimaprima
...something all admit only "TRUMP", and the Trump Administration, can do.
8hr ago
We’d really prefer it if you didn’t leave… we need new people to prevent this place from slowly withering away.
In any smaller and more tight-knit space it takes some time to get acclimated to the local customs, but that’s just like… normal.
yofuckreddit
8hr ago
God, just the review summaries at the bottom. The way American LLMs simp the user to is just viscerally disgusting at this point.
The_Nybbler
In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.
8hr ago
I'm getting a "you barged into our secret club" kind of vibe.
I for one do not believe you barged into our secret club.
birb_cromble
8hr ago
RFK Jr. fires two top staffers in leadership shakeup
Health and Human Services Secretary Robert Kennedy Jr. has fired two of the department’s top aides in a leadership shakeup, a spokesperson confirmed Wednesday.
There are two things I'd like to discuss here: the procedural and the inside baseball.
One of the most interesting aspects of the second Trump presidency is that unelected officials are being fired, and that the news is reporting on it.
Historically, firing high ranking officials was not uncommon. In recent years, however, it seems like it has gotten more difficult to do so, up until 2025.
What has changed? Is this entirely downstream of recent court precedent, or has the executive fundamentally changed in some way compared to Biden and Trump I?
There's a lot of supposition and kremlinology below, so if you're not into that, feel free to skip this section.
Moving on, I've seen a few rumors floating around that these firings are due to the officials in question approving the Moderna COVID vaccine while RFK jr was on vacation. If this is true, and that's a big if, it's interesting for a few different reasons.
Historically, federal officials had a lot of power to ignore and subvert the will of their bosses. Usually though, it's passive behavior. Appointed bosses come and go, so sandbagging on unpopular orders is a common strategy. Sometimes (like military leadership lying about force dispositions in Syria), they'll go so far as to elide or bend the truth on topics that won't get back to the president until its too late to matter. Rarely though, do they engage in something that would go against the will of their appointed Boss in a way that is both active AND verifiable.
Give all that - if the reason for the firing is true, it has some interesting implications.
- It's possible that these officials knew RFK jr didn't want the approval to go through but did it anyway, with full knowledge of the consequences
- The officials thought they could get away with contravening the wishes of the appointee Boss without consequences
- They genuinely thought that the approval was in accordance with the wishes of their appointed Boss.
- Somehow the bureaucracy is so automated that these officials didn't even know the approval happened at all.
To be honest, I'm not sure which possibility is most interesting, because they all have a lot of downstream implications for federal government.
- If #1 is true, this is a rare case of a public official making a principled stand and accepting the consequences. I respect that, even if I disagree with the stand itself. It makes me wonder if it might cause other officials to take similar stands.
- This possibility (#2) is interesting because it makes me realize that I don't actually know what the stated purpose of agency officials is. Is their highest goal to serve the purpose of the agency, or the will of the electorate? Even if they claim one or the other, what processes do we have to ensure that's true?
- Possibility #3 is interesting because it implies that these individuals either see a VERY different RFK Jr than the public sees, or they have a fairly warped view of his positions. It seems odd that someone could climb the DC power ladder and lack the skills to suss out the intentions of their appointed Bosses, so if this is true, it suggests that RFK jr has very different public and private positions.
- Possibility #4 is more terrifying than interesting. The fact that it's boring and awful and suggests that no one actually has a hand on the tiller makes me think it's also the one that's most likely to be correct.
I see. He benefits from liberal policy, champions it, but only insofar as it benefits his own kind.
More options
Context Copy link