I'm tired of people protecting these murderous criminals who don't give two sh*s about any laws. This lack of empathy (for the victims of these criminals) is appalling.
The thing that annoys me most about such thoughts is not the callousness - it’s the extremely short sighted opinion that the same tactics won’t eventually be used on them, or people they care about. It never even occurs to them that can happen until it does.
Erosion of anyone’s rights is an erosion of everyone’s rights.
Absolutely, we older types used to argue with the term, "slippery slope". ICE is a classic slippery slope that will most likely be used, eventually, against all of us if the current administration isn't stopped breaking the law.
ICE and the use of the National Guard is very terrifying. The current administration could use them both to try to hold onto power when it terms out. The lunacy of SCOTUS and congress is beyond the pale. If, and I do mean if, the Epstein situation blows up on the big orange dummy, no one should doubt he will try to declare some type of marshall law to stay above the law. Then we will find out if the National Guard members really pledged allegiance to the Constitution.
I would point out that as of 3 years ago, green card holders felt completely safe in their legality as long as they were not committing crimes. This has now changed.
The balance has already slid and change that people never expected has happened. Assuming it won't happen more is foolish IMO.
There's also been recent talk about going after 'recently naturalized' individuals the admin considers criminals. How many years is 'recently'?
Wanting our government to treat our neighbors like human beings rather than vermin is not "partisan brainrot", it is actually a clear-eyed reaction to both the current circumstances, and human history over the last 90 years.
Signed, a Jew with a personal background in these matters.
> No, Immigration isn't going to be sent door to door to do something bad to citizens.
You've got a whole lot of history to read. Because this is exactly what has happened in the past. You don't think this has happened to the Romans? The Russians? The Italians? The Germans? The Spanish?
This is a classic maneuver of a state sliding into autocracy -- if you cannot find enemies outside the state, you find them within the state. Go read Umberto Eco's Ur-Fascism then come back.
The Supreme Court literally just signed off on doing just this based off of racially profiling people. Trump has threatened to deport even some of his biggest sycophants like Elon Musk. They've been harassing people that DO have a legal basis to be in the country and finding ways to deport them anyways. Hell, they've even admitted, openly, to looking for avenues to denaturalize people so that they can be deported.
This isn't 'partisan brainrot', this is literally and explicitly what they are saying and doing.
“It is better, so the Fourth Amendment teaches us, that the guilty sometimes go free than the citizens be subject to easy arrest.” - Former Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas
> I'm tired of people protecting these murderous criminals who don't give two sh*s about any laws. This lack of empathy (for the victims of these criminals) is appalling.
wait, are you talking about this guy and the people they killed in Venezuela or ICE?
Do deaths in detention count? [0] 12 so far since the administration began through August (data only being published after 90 days.) Of course, nothing's stopping the administration from using "probable cause" to detain anyone suspicious - like citizens (or at least brown citizens.) [1]
No, ICE did not kill those people. I looked through the latest six this year. Two were suicides (one suicide was of a man who had state charges against him for several crimes including child molestation), one was someone who had diabetes and refused to take insulin, and the others seem to have had other health issues. They got medical care many different times.
I think it is misleading to conflate murder with people dying of health issues in detention after medical care.
I think it's also misleading to call it people dying of health issues. But after years of knowing, under multiple administrations, that even the pre-Trump ICE detention regime killed detainees due to medical assessment delayed and care denied [0], the weight of the evidence points currently points to ICE being malicious, not ignorant: ICE currently knowingly detaining medically frail individuals, without care corresponding to their needs, knowing that a random subset would die due to circumstances that ICE could have chosen to change, but didn't.
Therefore, I think that what is happening does rise to extrajudicial killing - killing that ICE chose not to prevent but to maintain; and inevitable killing without any corresponding sentence.
Forgive me for not taking ICE at face value. I looked through the next four accounts – assuming that, at that point there would be sufficient independent reporting that would either complement or contradict ICE's accounts.
The next four individuals died preventable deaths due to care ignored (e.g. in the case of Nhon Nguyen, who was detained with dementia), or denied (e.g. in the case of Maksym Chernyak, who was unconscious after fainting for hours until detention guards provided medical attention too late.)
- Marie Ange Blaise's death (#7) was blamed by ICE on blood pressure medication noncompliance. The narrative stitched together from Broward County medical examiner reporting, along with detainee testimony, instead argues that she fainted after taking blood pressure medications, and it took at least 8 minutes for medical attention to arrive (after a guard walked away) [1].
- Nhon Nguyen (#8) was, according to his family, detained while living with advanced dementia, and according his death report, bounced backwards and forwards between hospitals and his detention processing center before dying of avoidable pneumonia [2].
- Brayan Garzón-Rayo (#9) died by suicide after repeatedly being denied a mental health evaluation - once due to short-staffing, next due to contracting COVID-19. [3]
- Maksym Chernyak (#10) fainted - possibly due to overdose - but was denied care for hours despite attempts by others detained with him to draw attention; his death was attributed to a stroke. [4]
Most likely in the hundreds if you count the deaths in detention, the deaths due to deportation to unsafe or unsanitary locations, and the suicides attributable to their actions.
This is based on a historical accounting of ~1 death a month in their direct care over the past 5 years, plus assuming at least as many due to other root causes. I expect that number to increase as they continue to expand operations and worsen protections for detainees.
Of course the answer is that people cheer for protests they like and punish riots they don’t. This is politics and that’s why there is so much fighting about how news and history chooses to frame them. The headline we have received today is telling me it’s a good protest.
It's almost like it's a country of 300 million people with a diverse set of views.
The group that outright wants social media banned in the US, talks down Zuckerberg, etc, by and large will be perfectly fine with other countries banning it if not celebrate it. You have built a strawman.
The "free speech" cohort is largely anti-banning. They want platforms like X, where anything goes, and are often quite militant about their views on this subject.
I for one think both "social media is bad" and "free speech is important" which puts me in a real bind. Turns out when you let bad faith actors accumulate billions, the outcomes of the systems they create aren't always great.
It's just people here deciding pretty blindly that the two are mutually exclusive, but they're not, any more than eg "Nestle is a bad company" and "I like Nescafe" would be mutually exclusive.
And there's always the question of who gets to be the arbiter of those things.
If the latter were consistent it'd be much more interesting. X banned most large leftist accounts after Musk took over, so like most "free speech" advocates they really mean they want to be able to say hateful rightwing speech.
Social media causes active harm to people, we know that. Social media has also been demonstrably used to help overthrow authoritarian governments. Thus you have a context-dependent dichotomy in how we view it, and if you eschew the context (and pretend it is purely nationalistic / ethnic), it feels a bit like you are intentionally trying to derail an otherwise productive conversation that could be had instead.
I was just thinking the same thing. This looks like a healthy dose of intervention. I am biased however in that I believe smaller groups of people should run their own forums and chat servers to slightly minimize the Corporatocracy social manipulation especially before AI gets a strong foothold. Most have a few geeks in their own social circle that can run a tiny forum and chat server. Less birds of a feather [1]
