[Politics] Trump and Concentration Camps

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NEXT
 

Saelune:
'But Europe is more left-wing than the US'. Fine, no country has socialism. Still proves my point that this BS argument of 'When has Socialism ever worked' is well, bullshit. No country has ever actually truly tried to give a fuck about its people, and that needs to change.

Europe is more left-wing than the US.

But Europe also is a huge number of nations, most with their own language limiting cross-border cultural influences, each also with theirr own history, own laws and own politics. Generalisations are dangerous.

Of all Scandinavic countries, Denmark has a reputation of being somewhat xenophobic and is certainly the least friendly towards refugees.

But that doesn't mean they are not left wing. Just the opposite, their mainstream leftwing parties are stronger than in most other European countries. But they kind of get keeping majorities by not fighting xenophobic tendencies in the population. They kind of throw refugees under the bus, xenophobes are happy enough to elect them and in turn they can implement other social politics making the life for Danish citicens more fair and equal.

Satinavian:

Saelune:
'But Europe is more left-wing than the US'. Fine, no country has socialism. Still proves my point that this BS argument of 'When has Socialism ever worked' is well, bullshit. No country has ever actually truly tried to give a fuck about its people, and that needs to change.

Europe is more left-wing than the US.

But Europe also is a huge number of nations, most with their own language limiting cross-border cultural influences, each also with theirr own history, own laws and own politics. Generalisations are dangerous.

Of all Scandinavic countries, Denmark has a reputation of being somewhat xenophobic and is certainly the least friendly towards refugees.

But that doesn't mean they are not left wing. Just the opposite, their mainstream leftwing parties are stronger than in most other European countries. But they kind of get keeping majorities by not fighting xenophobic tendencies in the population. They kind of throw refugees under the bus, xenophobes are happy enough to elect them and in turn they can implement other social politics making the life for Danish citicens more fair and equal.

Pretty much every country is super bigoted. There are no left-wing countries.

Saelune:
Pretty much every country is super bigoted. There are no left-wing countries.

If every country is super bigoted, then none is. If no country is left-wing, then no country is right wing.

Satinavian:

Saelune:
Pretty much every country is super bigoted. There are no left-wing countries.

If every country is super bigoted, then none is. If no country is left-wing, then no country is right wing.

That is not how that works at all.

Satinavian:
If every country is super bigoted, then none is. If no country is left-wing, then no country is right wing.

That depends on your reference points, because it's perfectly viable to set reference points that aren't dependent on every current nation.

Nedoras:

Are you being serious? The administration has openly stated that the purpose of these camps is to be a deterrent. They literally DID decide to make this policy. John Kelley literally was saying this out loud when he was in charge of this and still in the administration. They were arguing that they needed to be cruel as a warning. They've said this over and over awhile back and it's like no one remembers.

It's not a lack of remembering, it's that those claims of setting them up as a deterrent were complete and total BS of the highest order. Separating adult and child detainment was determined by court order in the 90s. More separations is just the unavoidable consequence of stopping catch and release, I don't believe there is any other reason for the family separation situation. And the rate of family unit arrivals went up at the same time they were "deterring" people, so the proof is sort of in the pudding on that one.

They didn't institute family separation as a deterrent. That was a lie, a boldfaced political lie. Because (and I know this may sound ridiculous to this forum) it's politically better to say "this is all part of our plan to reduce illegal immigration" than it is to say "we are incapable of enforcing the laws on the books without making a huge mess."

The immigration laws as passed by congress (along with court orders) have given the executive branch a completely impossible task. The laws are untenable and self-conflicting, and are going to remain that way until congress fixes them. It's been like this for decades. The Obama administration's solution to this problem was to just not enforce some laws, to allow people who theoretically should be detained freely into the US while they wait for their turn in immigration court. Or DACA is a great example, those people are still in the US illegally as far as actual laws passed by Congress are concerned, DACA is deferred action. The executive branch decided to just not enforce the laws if Congress wouldn't fix them.

The Trump administration attempted to enforce all the laws as written. Apparently they didn't realize the absurdity of that attempt. So when they made a big mess, they played cover-up and tried to act like the problems they ran into were all part of the plan. They weren't part of the plan. It was basically this scene.

But that incompetence isn't the root cause of the current crisis. The laws written were already unenforceable, and now we're seeing an unprecedented rise in asylum seekers. Literal caravans of people. It's not cruelty that made us unprepared for that.

Agema:

Satinavian:
If every country is super bigoted, then none is. If no country is left-wing, then no country is right wing.

That depends on your reference points, because it's perfectly viable to set reference points that aren't dependent on every current nation.

That was a shorthand to complain about setting referrence points in a way that the actual message becomes meaningless.

If no leftwing country exists, then "not-leftwing country" has the same information value as "country".

Satinavian:

Agema:

Satinavian:
If every country is super bigoted, then none is. If no country is left-wing, then no country is right wing.

That depends on your reference points, because it's perfectly viable to set reference points that aren't dependent on every current nation.

That was a shorthand to complain about setting referrence points in a way that the actual message becomes meaningless.

If no leftwing country exists, then "not-leftwing country" has the same information value as "country".

No. Replace 'exists' with 'is possible' and your second sentence becomes true-- and also extinguishes the premise of your complaint.

Satinavian:

Agema:

Satinavian:
If every country is super bigoted, then none is. If no country is left-wing, then no country is right wing.

That depends on your reference points, because it's perfectly viable to set reference points that aren't dependent on every current nation.

That was a shorthand to complain about setting referrence points in a way that the actual message becomes meaningless.

If no leftwing country exists, then "not-leftwing country" has the same information value as "country".

'If all countries are sexist against women, then no countries are sexist against women'.

Double post, disregard.

Saelune:
Still sounds like you think we should not solve problems cause other problems exist.

No, I want actual solutions to problems and their underlying causes, not band-aids for the sake of opinion polling that guarantee bigger, worse problems in five to ten years' time. This is the problem with your perspective, and the American archetypal perspective in general; you're only looking at what benefits your argument and confirms your biases for the moment, as presented in the exclusive context of careful curation by American corporate media (in other words, propaganda).

If Trump's booted in 2020 for a Democratic president, do you seriously believe "KiDs In CaGeS" will be any bigger of a deal under his successor than it was under Obama? Will you be here posting 2+ new threads per day calling out the evils of that administration? I can guarantee you that shit won't go away, it'll just stop being front page and top-of-the-hour news.

Currently, we're dealing with a wave of economic and political refugees from predominantly Honduras and El Salvador. We already have a refugee wave coming from our latest shenanigans in Venezuela. Within a decade we're going to have a migrant wave that dwarfs everything that came before, due to now-irreversible effects of climate change on Central and equatorial South America. We can either keep fuckin' around, or try to fix the problem and hold the federal government accountable to fix the problem.

tstorm823:

Detention centers are not concentration camps. That's the point I care about, because claiming that they are leads to the wrong solution.

And what wrong solution would that be? These detention centers are being used as similarly as concentration camps that they are indistinguishable between each other by anything but semantics. What would be the "not wrong" solution for that?

EDIT:

tstorm823:

But that incompetence isn't the root cause of the current crisis. The laws written were already unenforceable, and now we're seeing an unprecedented rise in asylum seekers. Literal caravans of people. It's not cruelty that made us unprepared for that.

Unless that unpreparedness was intentional, so the bad conditions served as a warning message for future immigrants.

In the R&P forum I posted a citation from an ICE agent describing the separation of families as such tactic. So I'm a little less than willing to see this as a case of incompetence over malice.

CaitSeith:

And what wrong solution would that be? These detention centers are being used as similarly as concentration camps that they are indistinguishable between each other by anything but semantics. What would be the "not wrong" solution for that?

The wrong solution would be taking funding away from the centers and exacerbating the problem. The wrong solution would be workers holding a walkout because they found out they were selling the beds that would keep people from sleeping on dusty floors. There's no sane world where people would think "oh, these places are tragically overwhelmed and it's hurting children, so lets refuse to give them beds." No, those people walked out because they genuinely believe facilities to house migrant children are concentration camps that shouldn't exist. Dishonest rhetoric has real consequences.

tstorm823:

Nedoras:

Are you being serious? The administration has openly stated that the purpose of these camps is to be a deterrent. They literally DID decide to make this policy. John Kelley literally was saying this out loud when he was in charge of this and still in the administration. They were arguing that they needed to be cruel as a warning. They've said this over and over awhile back and it's like no one remembers.

It's not a lack of remembering, it's that those claims of setting them up as a deterrent were complete and total BS of the highest order. Separating adult and child detainment was determined by court order in the 90s. More separations is just the unavoidable consequence of stopping catch and release, I don't believe there is any other reason for the family separation situation. And the rate of family unit arrivals went up at the same time they were "deterring" people, so the proof is sort of in the pudding on that one.

They didn't institute family separation as a deterrent. That was a lie, a boldfaced political lie. Because (and I know this may sound ridiculous to this forum) it's politically better to say "this is all part of our plan to reduce illegal immigration" than it is to say "we are incapable of enforcing the laws on the books without making a huge mess."

The immigration laws as passed by congress (along with court orders) have given the executive branch a completely impossible task. The laws are untenable and self-conflicting, and are going to remain that way until congress fixes them. It's been like this for decades. The Obama administration's solution to this problem was to just not enforce some laws, to allow people who theoretically should be detained freely into the US while they wait for their turn in immigration court. Or DACA is a great example, those people are still in the US illegally as far as actual laws passed by Congress are concerned, DACA is deferred action. The executive branch decided to just not enforce the laws if Congress wouldn't fix them.

The Trump administration attempted to enforce all the laws as written. Apparently they didn't realize the absurdity of that attempt. So when they made a big mess, they played cover-up and tried to act like the problems they ran into were all part of the plan. They weren't part of the plan. It was basically this scene.

But that incompetence isn't the root cause of the current crisis. The laws written were already unenforceable, and now we're seeing an unprecedented rise in asylum seekers. Literal caravans of people. It's not cruelty that made us unprepared for that.

But...but they've said both. Trump has both stated that this is all part of the plan, and that this is a disaster because how everything is set up is a mess. It's what I meant when I said that they changed their tune. It hasn't hurt him politically to do so either. Why would it?

I'm aware that during the 90's the things we were allowed to do by law expanded, but I have never heard of a court deciding that separation must happen under all circumstances. I can't find any information on such a case either. I can find things related to the subject, but nothing outright stating that it needs to happen regardless of the situation. I know this was happening before, but making it a manner of policy to separate for the sake of it, was their decision. They've also been ignoring things like detainment periods, so it's not like they're even following the laws as written.

I'm not just talking about the separation either. The conditions that they're in aren't because of an overwhelmed system. They're supposed to be that way. The administration doesn't want funding, they don't want to improve things, and they've argued that they don't have to. I'm aware of poor conditions from years past, but they've actively gone out of their way to make things worse. They've improved nothing, made things worse, and Congress can't and won't do anything about it. McConnell won't allow it, and hasn't for a long time. Not that I think the Democratic leadership would do anything anyway. They're too afraid to, and the Republicans know it. I'm fully aware how how fucked our immigration system is, and it needs to be reformed. I just don't see that happening though, not at this rate and with the direction that we're going in.

And yes, all of this cruelty still isn't stopping them, but of coarse it won't. Nothing short of literally gunning them down at the border will stop them from coming. And even then, some will still try. It's why this is all pointless to begin with. As someone else keeps pointing out, it's the actions of this country that have caused this in the first place and nothing is being done to address that either. Nothing is really being done to address anything about any of this. It wasn't done under Obama because he was a fool who did nothing but capitulation, and it's not being done under Trump because this is the ideal situation for them. They want this.

tstorm823:

CaitSeith:

And what wrong solution would that be? These detention centers are being used as similarly as concentration camps that they are indistinguishable between each other by anything but semantics. What would be the "not wrong" solution for that?

The wrong solution would be taking funding away from the centers and exacerbating the problem. The wrong solution would be workers holding a walkout because they found out they were selling the beds that would keep people from sleeping on dusty floors. There's no sane world where people would think "oh, these places are tragically overwhelmed and it's hurting children, so lets refuse to give them beds." No, those people walked out because they genuinely believe facilities to house migrant children are concentration camps that shouldn't exist. Dishonest rhetoric has real consequences.

What would be the "not wrong" solution for that? The guards don't care about the detainees' well-being enough to prevent children's deaths (which didn't happen before 2016), and constantly dehumanize them. Nevermind ICE; the CBP itself is slowly getting rotten to its core.

Nedoras:

I'm aware that during the 90's the things we were allowed to do by law expanded, but I have never heard of a court deciding that separation must happen under all circumstances. I can't find any information on such a case either. I can find things related to the subject, but nothing outright stating that it needs to happen regardless of the situation. I know this was happening before, but making it a manner of policy to separate for the sake of it, was their decision. They've also been ignoring things like detainment periods, so it's not like they're even following the laws as written.

You've got it backwards. The things they were allowed to do didn't expand, they contracted. A migrant minor was detained in a detention facility with adults with the intention of holding her until her parents were found to release her into their custody. A lawsuit emerged, as treating a minor as a detained adult was unacceptable. After a bunch of court rulings, the federal government signed an agreement with regards to the treatment of minors in the custody of immigration services. Among the standards the government agreed to meet, they agreed to "release children from immigration detention without unnecessary delay". That's the policy that leads to a 72 hour limit on detainment for children. They have to release the kids to someone or somewhere within a few days of picking them up, they can't keep them in detention. So if their parents are in detention, the only option is to release them to someone who isn't their parents. That's family separation. The Obama Administration avoided this by releasing parents with their kids, but that's just meeting one requirement by ignoring another.

Family separation didn't come about as a punishment, it didn't come about as a deterrent, it came about specifically to protect children from having to suffer through the same conditions as the adults.

Eacaraxe:

Saelune:
Still sounds like you think we should not solve problems cause other problems exist.

No, I want actual solutions to problems and their underlying causes, not band-aids for the sake of opinion polling that guarantee bigger, worse problems in five to ten years' time. This is the problem with your perspective, and the American archetypal perspective in general; you're only looking at what benefits your argument and confirms your biases for the moment, as presented in the exclusive context of careful curation by American corporate media (in other words, propaganda).

If Trump's booted in 2020 for a Democratic president, do you seriously believe "KiDs In CaGeS" will be any bigger of a deal under his successor than it was under Obama? Will you be here posting 2+ new threads per day calling out the evils of that administration? I can guarantee you that shit won't go away, it'll just stop being front page and top-of-the-hour news.

Currently, we're dealing with a wave of economic and political refugees from predominantly Honduras and El Salvador. We already have a refugee wave coming from our latest shenanigans in Venezuela. Within a decade we're going to have a migrant wave that dwarfs everything that came before, due to now-irreversible effects of climate change on Central and equatorial South America. We can either keep fuckin' around, or try to fix the problem and hold the federal government accountable to fix the problem.

Trump 100% made bad problems worse, and made more problems that wasn't there before.

Democrats have only been moving left. 1990's Dems may not have been the bastion of LGBT rights, but 2008 on, especially with Obama as the ONLY SITTING PRESIDENT to be actively Pro-LGBT, have been, well, pro-LGBT.

Things will only get better if we move FORWARD, not back. Trump and the Republican party has set us back DECADES! Fucking hell, I actually fucking miss George Bush cause of Trump and that is messed up!

You claim to want progress while being ok with regress. There is literally no defense of Trump, full stop.

tstorm823:

Family separation didn't come about as a punishment, it didn't come about as a deterrent, it came about specifically to protect children from having to suffer through the same conditions as the adults.

This is literally not true at all and you know it.

Saelune:

tstorm823:

Family separation didn't come about as a punishment, it didn't come about as a deterrent, it came about specifically to protect children from having to suffer through the same conditions as the adults.

This is literally not true at all and you know it.

It is true. The Obama administration put families into family detention and got sued based on a settlement from the 90s for having kids in prolonged detention. Now we're not allowed to detain families together. That leaves the options of releasing whole families or detaining the parents and not the kids. And even ignoring the moral issues with just releasing people caught committing a crime, choosing to not detain only people with children just incentivizes doing stupid things like swimming across the Rio Grand with a small child. It wasn't evil people trying to rip children from their parents arms who put forward that lawsuit, it was advocates for migrants and children trying to have the child safety rules enforced.

tstorm823:

Saelune:

tstorm823:

Family separation didn't come about as a punishment, it didn't come about as a deterrent, it came about specifically to protect children from having to suffer through the same conditions as the adults.

This is literally not true at all and you know it.

It is true. The Obama administration put families into family detention and got sued based on a settlement from the 90s for having kids in prolonged detention. Now we're not allowed to detain families together. That leaves the options of releasing whole families or detaining the parents and not the kids. And even ignoring the moral issues with just releasing people caught committing a crime, choosing to not detain only people with children just incentivizes doing stupid things like swimming across the Rio Grand with a small child. It wasn't evil people trying to rip children from their parents arms who put forward that lawsuit, it was advocates for migrants and children trying to have the child safety rules enforced.

Citation needed.

Saelune:

tstorm823:

It is true. The Obama administration put families into family detention and got sued based on a settlement from the 90s for having kids in prolonged detention. Now we're not allowed to detain families together. That leaves the options of releasing whole families or detaining the parents and not the kids. And even ignoring the moral issues with just releasing people caught committing a crime, choosing to not detain only people with children just incentivizes doing stupid things like swimming across the Rio Grand with a small child. It wasn't evil people trying to rip children from their parents arms who put forward that lawsuit, it was advocates for migrants and children trying to have the child safety rules enforced.

Citation needed.

https://www.vox.com/2015/7/29/9067877/family-detention-immigration-flores

July 2015

There are strict legal standards for when and how the government could legally keep children in immigration detention. Those were set in 1996, when the government settled a lawsuit filed by advocacy groups, an event known the Flores settlement. Under the terms of the Flores settlement, the government has to hold children in the least restrictive conditions possible. That generally means "unsecured" facilities (in other words, places that run more like shelters than prisons) that are licensed for taking care of children.

Immigrant rights advocates invoked the Flores settlement to challenge the current detentions. The government argued that key parts of Flores didn't apply because the children were being detained with their parents. But on Friday, after months of negotiation, federal Judge Dolly Gee sided with the advocates. She ruled that the government was holding children in secured, prison-like, unlicensed facilities, and that violated the 1996 agreement.

The irony is that it's the Obama administration itself that ended the last experiment in detaining immigrant families: the Hutto Residential Center in Texas... It was the Obama administration that actually stopped detaining families at the Hutto facility, in 2009 - which advocates took as an admission that "there's no way to detain families humanely."

If Trump could detain families together, I guarantee he would. But that practice has been smacked down multiple times by the courts. Meaning the only way to detain parents is to separate them from their children. Which sort of makes sense from a certain perspective, you don't throw kids into jail when their parents get arrested. And now courts have determined family separation itself is illegal, which means there's no way in court compliance that you can detain people who jump the border if they bring their kids with them. The rules right now are formulated such that bringing your child with you through the desert is a get out of jail free card, and that's somewhere between problematic and heinous.

Our immigration laws are a disaster, they need major reforms from the legislature. The laws were made with good intentions, but they're an unworkable mess. Obama went with the spirit of the law, trying to give kids the best environment by leaving them with their parents, and got chastised for it. Trump went with the letter of the law, having separate children's facilities licensed for child care, and got even more chastised for it. There currently is no legal solution to the problem. We need massive changes in laws to get people to stop border-crossing illegally.

tstorm823:

Saelune:

tstorm823:

It is true. The Obama administration put families into family detention and got sued based on a settlement from the 90s for having kids in prolonged detention. Now we're not allowed to detain families together. That leaves the options of releasing whole families or detaining the parents and not the kids. And even ignoring the moral issues with just releasing people caught committing a crime, choosing to not detain only people with children just incentivizes doing stupid things like swimming across the Rio Grand with a small child. It wasn't evil people trying to rip children from their parents arms who put forward that lawsuit, it was advocates for migrants and children trying to have the child safety rules enforced.

Citation needed.

https://www.vox.com/2015/7/29/9067877/family-detention-immigration-flores

July 2015

There are strict legal standards for when and how the government could legally keep children in immigration detention. Those were set in 1996, when the government settled a lawsuit filed by advocacy groups, an event known the Flores settlement. Under the terms of the Flores settlement, the government has to hold children in the least restrictive conditions possible. That generally means "unsecured" facilities (in other words, places that run more like shelters than prisons) that are licensed for taking care of children.

Immigrant rights advocates invoked the Flores settlement to challenge the current detentions. The government argued that key parts of Flores didn't apply because the children were being detained with their parents. But on Friday, after months of negotiation, federal Judge Dolly Gee sided with the advocates. She ruled that the government was holding children in secured, prison-like, unlicensed facilities, and that violated the 1996 agreement.

The irony is that it's the Obama administration itself that ended the last experiment in detaining immigrant families: the Hutto Residential Center in Texas... It was the Obama administration that actually stopped detaining families at the Hutto facility, in 2009 ? which advocates took as an admission that "there's no way to detain families humanely."

If Trump could detain families together, I guarantee he would. But that practice has been smacked down multiple times by the courts. Meaning the only way to detain parents is to separate them from their children. Which sort of makes sense from a certain perspective, you don't throw kids into jail when their parents get arrested. And now courts have determined family separation itself is illegal, which means there's no way in court compliance that you can detain people who jump the border if they bring their kids with them. The rules right now are formulated such that bringing your child with you through the desert is a get out of jail free card, and that's somewhere between problematic and heinous.

Our immigration laws are a disaster, they need major reforms from the legislature. The laws were made with good intentions, but they're an unworkable mess. Obama went with the spirit of the law, trying to give kids the best environment by leaving them with their parents, and got chastised for it. Trump went with the letter of the law, having separate children's facilities licensed for child care, and got even more chastised for it. There currently is no legal solution to the problem. We need massive changes in laws to get people to stop border-crossing illegally.

Sometimes I ask for citation cause I doubt the person can provide any. Other times though, such as this one, I ask for citation expecting it will prove the person wrong.

You have provided evidence that Trump has made things worse. Obama opposed seperating children from families and decided AGAINST torturing children. Trump decided torturing children was fine by him.

And your guarentee is unfounded.

Trump and his children are more dangerous to this country than all these families combined.

Saelune:
Sometimes I ask for citation cause I doubt the person can provide any. Other times though, such as this one, I ask for citation expecting it will prove the person wrong.

You have provided evidence that Trump has made things worse. Obama opposed seperating children from families and decided AGAINST torturing children. Trump decided torturing children was fine by him.

And your guarentee is unfounded.

Trump and his children are more dangerous to this country than all these families combined.

I'm not sure you read that right. Obama opposed separating children from families, correct, and got sued over it. And lost the suit. In the ruling stating they couldn't detain families together: "Gee's ruling was harsh. She called it "astonishing" and "shocking" that 20 years after the Flores agreement, the government still hadn't figured out how to meet its own standards for humane treatment of children."

Because the Flores settlement dictated that migrant minors essentially had to be transferred to child care facilities if there wasn't a parent or guardian in America to release them to, and the rulings against the Obama Administration established that this applied to minors detained with their parents as well as unaccompanied minors. These rules were not made to torture children. They were made to protect children.

tstorm823:

Saelune:
Sometimes I ask for citation cause I doubt the person can provide any. Other times though, such as this one, I ask for citation expecting it will prove the person wrong.

You have provided evidence that Trump has made things worse. Obama opposed seperating children from families and decided AGAINST torturing children. Trump decided torturing children was fine by him.

And your guarentee is unfounded.

Trump and his children are more dangerous to this country than all these families combined.

I'm not sure you read that right. Obama opposed separating children from families, correct, and got sued over it. And lost the suit. In the ruling stating they couldn't detain families together: "Gee's ruling was harsh. She called it "astonishing" and "shocking" that 20 years after the Flores agreement, the government still hadn't figured out how to meet its own standards for humane treatment of children."

Because the Flores settlement dictated that migrant minors essentially had to be transferred to child care facilities if there wasn't a parent or guardian in America to release them to, and the rulings against the Obama Administration established that this applied to minors detained with their parents as well as unaccompanied minors. These rules were not made to torture children. They were made to protect children.

No, I read that right. Yes, the rules were made to protect children. That is why Obama followed them and stopped. Trump on the other hand, decided to torture children by following these rules in a 'Fine, if I cant punch them, I will kick them' way.

When Kyle Gaddo came in and verified these were concentration camps, I thought it meant that defending concentration camps and child torture would then be considered against the rules. I guess not. But no, defending concentration camps and child torture is apparently A-OK here.

Saelune:
When Kyle Gaddo came in and verified these were concentration camps, I thought it meant that defending concentration camps and child torture would then be considered against the rules. I guess not. But no, defending concentration camps and child torture is apparently A-OK here.

If you think we can do better, good, I agree with you. If you make no attempt to understand the situation because comparing Donald Trump to Hitler is more important to you than helping and protecting people, then I'm going to have to disagree.

tstorm823:

Saelune:
When Kyle Gaddo came in and verified these were concentration camps, I thought it meant that defending concentration camps and child torture would then be considered against the rules. I guess not. But no, defending concentration camps and child torture is apparently A-OK here.

If you think we can do better, good, I agree with you. If you make no attempt to understand the situation because comparing Donald Trump to Hitler is more important to you than helping and protecting people, then I'm going to have to disagree.

You defend concentration camps and child torture.

Letting all immigrants run free is the better option to concentration camps and child torture. And the option better than both wont be reached until we stop thinking emulating the Nazis is reasonable.

Saelune:

And the option better than both wont be reached until we stop thinking emulating the Nazis is reasonable.

I could not disagree with this more.

I mean firstly, I clearly disagree with the claim that we're emulating Nazis. But for the sake of argument, I'll take the statement as it is. If we're emulating nazis, it's because the laws are written in a way that emulates nazis. That's a problem on its own. Those laws need to be changed, not ignored. I'm sure you agree with me on lots of changes I'd like: quicker asylum processing, easier attained US residency regardless of asylum status, better communication with illegal entrants about their rights on US soil, fewer incentives to risk lives crossing the border in the wilderness. I'd like to think taking more asylum claims not just literally at the border would help, but even then, people don't want to wait homeless in Mexico for their appointment to come up.

Imagine a theoretical with me: imagine the US made an arrangement with Mexico. We took the same sorts of detention facilities we have, but built them just a bit into Mexico. Have people living in the same conditions as now, waiting for their asylum case to be heard, the only difference is that they can walk out the front door into Mexico as they please. Change that one aspect, instead of having to leave for good if they want to leave for Mexico, they can leave and come back as they see fit. Still hostel conditions. Still run by armed border patrol. Still likely regulations on the treatment of children. Is that still a concentration camp? Is that still emulating Nazis?

tstorm823:

Saelune:

And the option better than both wont be reached until we stop thinking emulating the Nazis is reasonable.

I could not disagree with this more.

I mean firstly, I clearly disagree with the claim that we're emulating Nazis. But for the sake of argument, I'll take the statement as it is. If we're emulating nazis, it's because the laws are written in a way that emulates nazis. That's a problem on its own. Those laws need to be changed, not ignored. I'm sure you agree with me on lots of changes I'd like: quicker asylum processing, easier attained US residency regardless of asylum status, better communication with illegal entrants about their rights on US soil, fewer incentives to risk lives crossing the border in the wilderness. I'd like to think taking more asylum claims not just literally at the border would help, but even then, people don't want to wait homeless in Mexico for their appointment to come up.

Imagine a theoretical with me: imagine the US made an arrangement with Mexico. We took the same sorts of detention facilities we have, but built them just a bit into Mexico. Have people living in the same conditions as now, waiting for their asylum case to be heard, the only difference is that they can walk out the front door into Mexico as they please. Change that one aspect, instead of having to leave for good if they want to leave for Mexico, they can leave and come back as they see fit. Still hostel conditions. Still run by armed border patrol. Still likely regulations on the treatment of children. Is that still a concentration camp? Is that still emulating Nazis?

I know you disagree. That's my point and my problem. All of your views on this issue are bad ones.

Saelune:
I know you disagree. That's my point and my problem. All of your views on this issue are bad ones.

So you don't want asylum to be easier? You don't want migration to be easier? You don't want people to stop dying in the wilderness?

It's bold of you to say all my views are bad in a post expressing those things.

tstorm823:

Saelune:
I know you disagree. That's my point and my problem. All of your views on this issue are bad ones.

So you don't want asylum to be easier? You don't want migration to be easier? You don't want people to stop dying in the wilderness?

It's bold of you to say all my views are bad in a post expressing those things.

This is what I mean when I say you don't argue in good faith.

Saelune:

tstorm823:

Saelune:
I know you disagree. That's my point and my problem. All of your views on this issue are bad ones.

So you don't want asylum to be easier? You don't want migration to be easier? You don't want people to stop dying in the wilderness?

It's bold of you to say all my views are bad in a post expressing those things.

This is what I mean when I say you don't argue in good faith.

This exchange is really bugging me, because it's a symptom of a much larger pattern I've noticed with you. So I'm just going to address this as calmly as I can.

No one in this thread is in favor of children being harmed. No one here is in favor of suffering. No one here wants fascism. Can you please for the love of god, understand this main idea?

When you tell people they're "defending" nazis or "defending" concentration camps or "defending" child abuse, that feels like a baseless personal insult. Let me show you what this looks like from the other side.

https://v1.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.1057252-POLITICS-Incident-in-Canada-regarding-a-transgender-woman-sueing-for-not-getting-a-brazilian-wax?page=3

This thread consists of you "defending" a pedophile and defending sexual assault against women. I'm sure you find that accusation insulting. But calm down for a second, take your finger away from the capslock button, and at least try, bare minimum, try to follow me here. You defend LGBT rights to your last breath and detest Religion. This absolute, immovable moral stance coats your perception of everything, which will inevitably lead to bias. Everyone there is trying to tell you how this situation is not all fessible, and your only issue appears to be "fuck religion" while finding excuses as to why the woman you feel emotional hatred towards is somehow wrong. Exactly what you accuse others of doing.

(This is not to indicate that I'm not also guilty of bias at times, because I've on this forum I recently had an incident of having inaccurate data which was corrected by people arguing against me. That's the point though. You need to be open to discussion and be willing to reexamine thing)

Assholes and bigots have tried to twist your words. I'm sorry about that. But you're honestly being paranoid. Not everyone is out to manipulate you. They just don't see the world the way that you do. You take an absolute moral stance and have already made up in your mind the exact actions that need to be taken to get things fixed. When people disagree with you. They are not always defending the atrocities. They disagree with either your problem solving methods, or think you've oversimplified a complex problem and haven't identified the root causes and how to fix them in a practical way. Its a problem of idealism vs realism. Not everyone that disagrees with you is a bigot. People may well be arguing in good faith, but because you fail to put your emotions aside and think about what they're actually arguing, you likely miss it.

Saelune:
When Kyle Gaddo came in and verified these were concentration camps, I thought it meant that defending concentration camps and child torture would then be considered against the rules. I guess not. But no, defending concentration camps and child torture is apparently A-OK here.

No. No. 100 times No. I don't know Kyle personally, but I doubt he's an absolute authority on this matter. In his post he even welcomed opposing opinions provided they had evidence. If people you're upset with haven't gotten warnings or bans, they likely haven't violated the forum rules. The Bias here is that they've commited an infraction worthy of punishment. And because they haven't been punished, the system must obviously be corrupt. You keep getting infractions but you obviously did nothing to deserve it. Your feelings aren't being validated, so it must be everyone else's fault. I would honestly go as far as to call this a victim complex.

I empathize with what you go through. I understand the fear and the hostility. I have to live with the repercussions of an asshole president, in the middle of a red state, as a minority, knowing if she gets as bad as you think it will get, I'll be on the chopping block. But I don't let that interfere with my day to day life. I don't let that take away my happiness. And I try to not let it affect my judgement or coat my perception of people. And obviously I fail at that, and let my judgement be clouded. But I actively work on it. You appear to just let yourself get bitter and full of hate and expect everyone to just deal with it because you're being oppressed. Life doesn't work this way.

I'd like for you to feel safe in this country. I'd like to see you happy. But you're holding onto a lot of bitterness and resentment and its not doing you any favors. People around here go easy on you because they're sympathetic. But as a result they coddle you. You need to stop being a victim. And no, this isn't victim blaming. It's about empowerment.

Shadowstar38:

If I may?

What you did here is something that we need more of. Attempts of Empathy. It will actually serve us better as a race if we could do this more often.

However.

I can not imagine what is going through Saelune's head now. The broad spectrum of people, from intelligent to bigot spend a lot more time trying to curb Saelune's speech than Neo-Nazi's. Than white nationalist movements that have been cropping up in this country with frightening regularity.

The Party of Family Values seem to be ok with what's happening to families and children in their own country. There has been no one who has visited this Detention Camps without being affected, they just twist the conditions for their political gains. The Hypocrisy is staggering. Yet when certain bigot parties claim that these Illegals don't have rights because they aren't citizens, The Constitution already foresaw said claims to dismiss them.

The First Amendment prevents the government from censoring noncitizens' speech or suppressing the practice of their religion. The Fourth Amendment protects them against unreasonable searches and seizures. The Fifth Amendment ensures that noncitizens' property can only be taken by the government for a public use, and only if just compensation is paid.

Should a noncitizen be charged with a crime, he has exactly the same Fifth and Sixth Amendment procedural rights as a citizen, including the right to a jury trial, the right to counsel, and protection against self-incrimination. If convicted, the Eighth Amendment prevents the government from subjecting aliens to ?cruel and unusual punishment? in exactly the same ways as it does with citizens.

And if we wouldn't stand for nearly 400 grown male citizens smushed together in a cage, only receiving water when it was asked for... then we can not stand for it when it's done to any other person on our soil.

But we do.

And we tell people like Saelune to quiet down, or to not be so testy, or whatever.

I honestly think more people need Saelune's fire over this. As with the rise and acceptance of Neo-Nazis, who seek to harm everyone's rights that aren't white male.

The Truth is, we're more likely to confront a Saelune over a white nationalist because out of the two, we expect more trouble from a white nationalist and we don't want to deal with that. And without naming names (I don't know if I'd get a warning for doing so), we've all seen people who skirted that definition as hard as they could in this very forum.

And it's much, MUCH more pressing for Saelune than just 'regular minorities' because this Administration has already taken it upon itself to start stripping LGBTQ rights.

The Trump administration has banned transgender people from the U.S. military, cut funding for HIV and AIDS research, supported the right of medical providers and adoption agencies to deny services to LGBTQ people, and aborted plans to gather data about sexual orientation and gender identity in the 2020 census.

Women, not to have it devalued in anyway, 'only' has had their reproductive rights challenged. Women have won some victories. The Trump Adminstration has been looking to rollback Civil Rights by looking to changing or outright removing the concept of Disparate Impact. While these fights are ongoing, the LGBTQ community has been handed more Definite L's than wins.

But here's the thing. I have to evoke Niem?ller because it's never been more true than it is today.

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out... because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out... because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out... because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me?and there was no one left to speak for me.

Look around. They are coming at all of us at once with big movements for these groups (Illegal Aliens, LGBTQ), while trying to sneak in smaller incidents with the others (Women, Civil Rights). And we look to people like Saelune and say "Hey, take it easy".

Why are ANY of us taking it easy? Saelune can't play the victim when being continued to being Victimized by this Government. That's called "Just being a Victim"

No, people are not less likely to confront a white supremacist than Saelune. There just aren't nazis here to confront. Anyone who is even perceived to defend white supremacy here gets dogpiled, and rightly so. My adamance that I'm not defending concentration camps or bigotry is because I respect the righteousness of rejecting those things.

I promise from experience that being even marginally conservative gets you an unmanageable quantity of refutations here. Neo-nazis aren't getting a free pass anywhere, but especially not here.

Shadowstar38:

Saelune:

tstorm823:

So you don't want asylum to be easier? You don't want migration to be easier? You don't want people to stop dying in the wilderness?

It's bold of you to say all my views are bad in a post expressing those things.

This is what I mean when I say you don't argue in good faith.

This exchange is really bugging me, because it's a symptom of a much larger pattern I've noticed with you. So I'm just going to address this as calmly as I can.

No one in this thread is in favor of children being harmed. No one here is in favor of suffering. No one here wants fascism. Can you please for the love of god, understand this main idea?

When you tell people they're "defending" nazis or "defending" concentration camps or "defending" child abuse, that feels like a baseless personal insult. Let me show you what this looks like from the other side.

https://v1.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.1057252-POLITICS-Incident-in-Canada-regarding-a-transgender-woman-sueing-for-not-getting-a-brazilian-wax?page=3

This thread consists of you "defending" a pedophile and defending sexual assault against women. I'm sure you find that accusation insulting. But calm down for a second, take your finger away from the capslock button, and at least try, bare minimum, try to follow me here. You defend LGBT rights to your last breath and detest Religion. This absolute, immovable moral stance coats your perception of everything, which will inevitably lead to bias. Everyone there is trying to tell you how this situation is not all fessible, and your only issue appears to be "fuck religion" while finding excuses as to why the woman you feel emotional hatred towards is somehow wrong. Exactly what you accuse others of doing.

(This is not to indicate that I'm not also guilty of bias at times, because I've on this forum I recently had an incident of having inaccurate data which was corrected by people arguing against me. That's the point though. You need to be open to discussion and be willing to reexamine thing)

Assholes and bigots have tried to twist your words. I'm sorry about that. But you're honestly being paranoid. Not everyone is out to manipulate you. They just don't see the world the way that you do. You take an absolute moral stance and have already made up in your mind the exact actions that need to be taken to get things fixed. When people disagree with you. They are not always defending the atrocities. They disagree with either your problem solving methods, or think you've oversimplified a complex problem and haven't identified the root causes and how to fix them in a practical way. Its a problem of idealism vs realism. Not everyone that disagrees with you is a bigot. People may well be arguing in good faith, but because you fail to put your emotions aside and think about what they're actually arguing, you likely miss it.

Saelune:
When Kyle Gaddo came in and verified these were concentration camps, I thought it meant that defending concentration camps and child torture would then be considered against the rules. I guess not. But no, defending concentration camps and child torture is apparently A-OK here.

No. No. 100 times No. I don't know Kyle personally, but I doubt he's an absolute authority on this matter. In his post he even welcomed opposing opinions provided they had evidence. If people you're upset with haven't gotten warnings or bans, they likely haven't violated the forum rules. The Bias here is that they've commited an infraction worthy of punishment. And because they haven't been punished, the system must obviously be corrupt. You keep getting infractions but you obviously did nothing to deserve it. Your feelings aren't being validated, so it must be everyone else's fault. I would honestly go as far as to call this a victim complex.

I empathize with what you go through. I understand the fear and the hostility. I have to live with the repercussions of an asshole president, in the middle of a red state, as a minority, knowing if she gets as bad as you think it will get, I'll be on the chopping block. But I don't let that interfere with my day to day life. I don't let that take away my happiness. And I try to not let it affect my judgement or coat my perception of people. And obviously I fail at that, and let my judgement be clouded. But I actively work on it. You appear to just let yourself get bitter and full of hate and expect everyone to just deal with it because you're being oppressed. Life doesn't work this way.

I'd like for you to feel safe in this country. I'd like to see you happy. But you're holding onto a lot of bitterness and resentment and its not doing you any favors. People around here go easy on you because they're sympathetic. But as a result they coddle you. You need to stop being a victim. And no, this isn't victim blaming. It's about empowerment.

I did not just decide my views, I came to them after experience and evidence proved what is and is not. People call it bias to realize religion is used to justify terrible things, but it is as biased to say 2 + 2 = 4. Silent Protagonist claims it is my bias that makes me defend trans people when it is their bias that makes them believe I am unable to make informed opinions.

With the exception of LilDevils, who I believe I know why they disagree with me, the people opposing me in that topic are the same people who oppose me in every other topic. CM156, Silent Protagonist, Leg End, dirty hipster. And only CM156 is making any actual legit attempt to debate me (along with Devils).

The CoC here says bigotry is against the rules, but I am more likely to be punished for pointing out bigotry than bigotry is punished. I do not think the rules here are fairly followed. That defending concentration camps and child torture is more acceptable than being mad at bigotry is absurd.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Posting on this forum is disabled.