SinAdjetivos

That is different from being picked up on the street and sent to another country, no courts, no lawyers, no nothing.

We're in a de facto vs. de jure argument.

Nazis in Poland; de facto I agree with you. De jure not so much. It was an apartheid system where (depending in when in the timeline) Jews, Poles and Blacks had a distinct set of rights that were routinely violated.

US legal system; de jure I agree with you. De facto not so much. The US has a looooong history of blatant rights violations and use of black sites (GTMO, Homan square, Camp Kościuszko etc.). The specific things your referencing is a relic from the Obama era (article from 2014 talking about legislation from 2012) .

My annoyance comes from the conflating of de facto vs de jure and then picking which one you focus on depending on what scenario best boosters your claim and not realizing de facto =/= de jure.

That's not to say it isn't fucked up, but that pining for the old days of law and order isn't what you think it is. 'return to status quo' is not a fix.

Lol, I definitely didn't interpret you coming in hot at all. I made the mistake of engaging in on a few other 'hot button' threads the last couple of days and you have been, by far, the most pleasant, insightful and willing to engage in good faith. It's very much appreciated <3.

Action for action's sake just makes everyone tired and unable to act when it's necessary. I'm not advocating "doing nothing" I'm advocating for intentionality, thoughtfulness, a hefty dose of cynicism and acting out of evidence instead of idealism.

I'm not saying don't vote, I'm saying be realistic about what it can and cannot accomplish. The reason I often end up in these sorts of conversations is due to the common trend of people refusing to engage or help those directly in front of them because of some variation of 'they voted for things to be different' and so feel entitled to not get their hands dirty as well as a smug "not my problem, I did my part" or "that problem has already been solved, it's just not fully implemented". In either case it often leads to them being an active barrier to helping others and intentionally choosing to harm others. Which makes even doing small things like providing food, first aid, escape etc. sooooo much harder than it needs to be.

The problem though is it doesn't matter how many individual fires you put out, it doesn't scale up and doesn't affect the root cause of any of them and that's what I was replying "I don't have a good answer to" to. Especially since each individual problem is probably going to end up needing a different approach.

So until we can figure out how to turn off the 'light everything on fire machine' it seems like we're pretty aligned on putting out fires where we can, when we can. Keep fighting the good fight, and good luck!

I don't have a good answer for you, I have a:

Your thesis is fundamentally flawed, if we are ever going to get an answer you need to stop getting mad at the people working to help you find a solution.

What I (and others) are trying to tell you is that the christofascist fuck cult goes much deeper than the surface level that you are fixated on. The "deep flaws" you see in the Democratic party aren't bugs, they're 'features'.

The current status quo is deeply broken, I think we can both agree on that, yes?

The threat of violence (along with capability) has historically been a very effective tool for change (for better and worse), but I do no not see it being effective in a world where drone strikes, autonomous murder copters and nuclear weapons are a thing.

I also argue that the concept of electoralism is fundamentally broken and so electing more Republicans, Democrats, 3rd parties, goldfish, etc. is not going to solve/change anything either.

Accelerationism replaces current problems with worse ones, but my understanding is that if you're focus is on your grandchildren and thinking in the timescale of centuries then maybe. IMO it's one hell of a big gamble with an incredibly high cost and low odds of substantial/any progress.

What are your thoughts?

You talked right past the inherent contradictions and did not see them.

Assuming the US election process remains unchanged for the foreseeable future how do you get electoral reforms using the electoral process that you agree needs reforms?

They aren't the same, one's a sword and one's a shield. The shield can't effectively stab, but the sword can't either if it's forced to parry instead.

I engaged because it seemed like there was agreement, just miscommunication. Glad I was able to help cut through it :D. Appreciate you!

I don't think it is intrinsically wrong to deport someone who has entered the country illegally and a supermajority of Americans agree with that.

Then you believe in a system where you can be sent to a place where there is no appeal process to return.

With that being said I find the American approach to dealing with immigration self-defeating regardless of what the actual goal is.

Agreed!

There is a fundamental difference between the laws in occupied Poland and the United States. There were no judges or appeals processes. Just Party functionaries whose hands needed greasing.

That's kind of like saying "There were no judges or appeals processes for prisons in 21st century America, there were only plea deals made by law firms whose hands needed greasing." It's not functionally wrong, but it is technically and legally laughable.

The appeal process within occupied Poland was that first you needed to appeal to your local Judenräte who would negotiate on your behalf to the German occupation authorities. Except most of the time the individual was left out of the process and it was simply negotiations between the Judenräte and the Occupation authority. They were explicitly setup as judges within a form of lower court to manage these sorts of things and one of their strongest forms of resistance was to aquire documentation (sometimes falsified) in order to get those already within the ghettos to be classified as "mischlinge" and allowed out of the ghetto.

The difference is the viewpoint:

attacking the Dems aren't helpful because they currently have no power. The other party is causing a lot of damage and there seems to be no stopping them

If you buy into the underlying premises of how a liberal democracy functions (liberal used here as a technical term, not as a perjorative) then the only ones who have the power to stop the other party is the Dems and they actively choose not to. They're neither down, nor out they're doing their job of controlled opposition exactly as they are supposed to.

A good tool/exercise for analyzing your (and other's) beliefs is logic trees, with the goal of taking any complex belief and determined what your core axioms are, being on the lookout for tautologies (God is real -> because the Bible says so -> because God is real...) and axioms that don't hold up to scrutiny.

If you do the exercise correctly then you should find that most of those "beliefs that can’t be objectively proven or disproven" have belief dependencies that can be objectively (and often easily) proven/disproven.

Lol, while technically true there's a big picture you're missing... The start of his presidency did co-incide with some things like the child tax credit etc. that did drop the official measurement to a historic low of 5.2% in 2021, but was then quickly repealed by bipartisan support in Congress causing it to skyrocket to 12.4% in 2022.

In the US the child poverty rate had been slowly, but steadily, declining since the peak of the great recession... Until the Biden presidency circa ~2022 at which point it skyrocketed by the end of his presidency reaching ~2012 levels.

While technically true that "Biden came into office and reduce[d] child poverty [sic] by half as his first action." It ignores that immediately afterwards he did "destroy the economy". Don't get me started on 'removing due process, open up national parks, cutting departments with corruption, invading other countries' because also yes!

Not to say Trump is better (we can all agree fuck that guy and all his cronies), but Jim Crow Joe is/was also evil, you've just been tricked into thinking otherwise...

Do you have a plan for that "electoral reform" that doesn't involve said ballot box?

Do you not see the inherent contradictions there?

Haven't read the book, but the article linked (and a lot of political neuroscience in general) makes it appear the author believes there are only 2 ideologies; liberal and conservative which is itself a wild idealogy... Can anyone who has read it or other work by her confirm/deny that?

Is the argument "getting sent to" or "getting returned from", 2nd argument is stronger but still a bad definition for the same reasons. The legal argument is that you can't de-deport someone and it's the responsibility of the other party to deport them back to the USA if they have been mistakenly deported. That being said maybe said laws and deportations in general are a fucked up concept to begin with?

It was an incredibly corrupt process (like most appeals processes are) but most famously it was the legal mechanism by which Oskar Schindler was able to protect his workers and expand his workforce.