site banner
Advanced search parameters (with examples): "author:quadnarca", "domain:reddit.com", "over18:true"

Showing 25 of 314 results for

domain:eigenrobot.substack.com

Does nobody have respect for the rule of law?

Based on priors, I am doubtful that they were meaningfully violating the law.

So far, Trump has been less of a Kantian paladin who enforces the laws of the land whatever the consequences may be, and more of a petty tyrant who uses "I am just enforcing the law" as an excuse to punish his enemies.

  • You are in the US on a perfectly legal visa but ICE does not like your tattoos? Go to an El Salvador mega-prison without any due process.
  • You are employing illegals on your farm or in your hotel? Don't worry, wise king Donald has decided that he is fine with that, nobody will arrest your workers. (Also, as illegals lack social security numbers, I am wondering how you can even pay them without breaking federal labor law.)

In some cases, Trump seems to be targeting cities for harsh ICE enforcement simply because they did not vote for him.

Is it possible that Hyundai was blatantly cheating with their visa? Certainly.

But my money is on them being targeted because CW-wise, electrical cars (except for Tesla) are a technology of Trump's opponents, or because South Korea has lately not spread their ass-cheeks to Trump's satisfaction.

The South Koreans now probably wish they had built their factory in a more reliable partner country like China instead.

Thought I'd be clear by now but the mods will have to do it manually I suppose.

Top level posts must all be approved manually, no matter how long you've been posting. Unfortunately this has proven to be the only way to keep the site from being overwhelmed with botspam.

Only once did a black army inflict a major campaign-ending defeat on a white army: the Italians vs Abyssinia in 1896.

Abyssinians are white. As white as the Jews, the Arabs and the Nubians.

Prohibition was as much feminism and public order as it was religious though. Probably more.

The main complaints about alcohol were that drunks were beating their wives, neglecting their wives, and/or being disorderly on the street and slovenly at the workplace.

You assume that I'd keep my memories, but wouldn't them being scrambled as well be expected to go along with seeing chaos?

This is a basic axiom of English common law.

Of course, it's trivial to cheat at that simply by declaring the entire nation in violation of that law, then proceeding to selectively enforce it only against those that improved the place.

You're comparing the successes of woke in its ascendancy compared to the final days of the nagging god-botherers regime. I would say in the US you could chalk up Prohibition at least as an example of their powers of priggishness and moral busybodying, but I'm sure there are a lot more if you bother to look back.

Sorry, but no amount of sophistry is going to get me to pretend that a girl turning tricks to earn enough money to stay at an internet cafe for the night is not, in fact, homeless.

I think a key point here is whether the room's rented on a semi-permanent basis.

I got stuck in motels for a month and a half back in 2022 (after getting summarily ejected from college), and it sucked, because motels tend to have specific dates booked out well in advance forcing you to move motels on a weekly basis or so. It still beats being under a bridge, of course, but it's a hell of a lot worse than having a home.

If the girl can actually hold a specific room for many months, that solves a lot of the problem and is closer to renting than to being homeless. If she has to move regularly, then that brings a lot of the issues with homelessness back into play.

Has anyone else experienced the paradox of choice with LLMs? There was a tine when ChatGPT would suggest several follow-up topics after answering my question. I would usually pick none of them. Now it offers just one suggestion, and on softer topics I just say "please go on" 80% of the time. The suggestions are still not this useful when I'm asking a technical question, though.

Some do, sure. But there's no such thing as "Asian ethnic interests" - why Vietnamese, Indians, Koreans, Chinese, Sikh and Indonesians would have the same interests? I've met many people of different Asian descent, and they had very varied interests - I can't imagine how a single group would be able to represent them.

First generation yes. As you get further from the original immigration, people are much more likely to form pan-ethnic support groups for 'people who look kind of like me and have my kinds of issues'. A second-generation Indonesian is quite likely to feel they have a lot common with the second-generation Taiwanese and Japanese boys who can relate to overbearing parents, not really fitting in with your customs from the old place and the fact that white girls don't seem to go for Asian men, or whatever. Especially as they start marrying each other within that group.

Not in all cases, certainly, but in enough to matter.

(India and Sikh etc. are more different. I would expect to end up with a generic East Asian identity rather than anything).

Do they? Any substantiation of that?

I mean, there's an Issue with immigration from mainland China, which is that the CPC uses various means to weaponise its diaspora and the CPC is not our friend. There are legit reasons to want relatively few literal enemy agents in one's country.

This has nothing to do with racism; this issue doesn't apply to Taiwanese (many of whom are Han), (South) Koreans or Japanese, because Taiwan, South Korea and Japan don't have governments hostile to us and ruthless enough to pull this shit. It also mostly doesn't apply to ethnic Chinese whose ancestors immigrated way back, as they're culturally assimilated and don't typically have close family members in mainland China to be taken hostage.

The fact is that you almost never see homeless in Tokyo. I was asked for money perhaps three times in six years of living there. My understanding is that Japanese homeless are much more tractable than American homeless and the government mostly pays to keep them housed without too much trouble.

Anyone who is familiar with the Five Good Emperors and why it wasn't six.

True

I tried, but couldn't make it happen. Getting a hunting license is too expensive, and I don't have enough free time to go the sport shooting route. I still want to, but it's unlikely to happen in the forseeable future.

Protecting one's borders is no more violence than locking the door to your house is violence to your neighbors.

Of course it is. Unless nobody ever contests your borders in the first place, of course you need violence to protect the border. Whether you beat, shoot or tie people up to stop them from crossing illegally, it's still violence. Necessary, advisable, ethical and desirable violence, but violence nontheless.

Compassion without consideration of the consequence and harms imposed onto others is not compassion.

Isn't it still compassion, by definition, even if it is harmful? Not sure if the comparison is altogether valid, but violence used to prevent greater violence is still violence.

The naive white population of Georgia didn't ask to be replaced by foreigners.

The did ask to replace the native red population of Georgia, though.

If you came to this country and wanted to stay there and assimilate, would you go to Sunni or Shiite mosque?

I would go to the one that is not saying my kind is not welcome, duh!

This only proves that they are assimilating into the White European culture of the blue tribe.

Oh, I agree.

It's not BC's mantle. Practically no one outside the US makes the distinction between the Pilgrims, the Ellis Islanders and the post-Hart-Cellers. The line is drawn between the Indians (feather), the ADoS and everyone else, aka people chasing the American Dream.

Do we want to live in a country where the government ferociously enforces all laws unconditionally to the letter? Or should the executive have some discretion over how sharply it enforces them?

The alternative is living in a country where everyone is guilty, so the government can justify targeted persecutions by saying the persecuted were violating the laws.

Staffing a factory with hundreds of foreign workers on visas which don't allow them to work doesn't seem like an appropriate situation to apply executive discretion. This isn't a confused tourist jaywalking, this is industrial (literally) scale immigration fraud.

That's probably about right for the application processes. What is it for spot checks, which would (presumably) happen to immigrants with illegal coworkers? Also, it doesn't have to end with deportation. Just fighting through bureaucracy another time is annoying enough to merit mention.