Funny Events of the "Woke" world

[crimson5pheonix]

Why do you guys care so much if they broke the law, that doesn't even matter.

This is one of those posts you frame, a reminder to people what MAGA does to the human brain. "Why do you care whether someone broke the law before stripping away all their rights and dignities?"

This is when we all hope it happens to you, because nothing protects you from being tossed into a hole and forgotten about right alongside Garcia. You can rant at him in person about how his case doesn't matter.

 

[Agema]

Not true for the US, which has plenty of land.

Sure. And yet also in a sense no it doesn't.

The reality is that a huge amount of that vast expanse of land in any country (not just the USA) is actually useless in this sense. Yes, it can give you a sense of space, you could own many acres of it, but you just wouldn't want to live there because it's wildly impractical.

For instance, you need a job. The jobs tend to be in the cities. Cities, where the property is expensive, small, and people are heaped together in masses. Lots of people can escape to the suburbs where they are less on top of one another, and spend 2h every morning and evening grinding 5mph down a 16-lane highway to commute.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Immigration status can be legally revoked with cause and judicial review. So you're now presuming they've violated the terms of their entry, even though there was no process to determine that?



This is a bit like saying, "any civilian can be arrested at any time". Uhrm, yes they can, if there are legal grounds.



You "said that posts ago", then never acknowledged it was wrong, and continued to argue. If you acknowledge it was mistaken, then we can move on, but you haven't-- you've just seamlessly shifted onto a different position.

All persons are entitled to certain protections by the Constitution. That position has not changed one iota. I've been arguing it from the start, consistently, and still am. Whereas you've shifted from 1: "protections don't apply", to 2: "protections apply but not THOSE protections", to 3: "those protections do apply but it doesn't matter that they were bypassed", and finally to 4: "I assume they violated something anyway". You have absolutely no consistency or principled position. You're arguing to argue.



Because they're in fucking maximum security prison.

Visas can be revoked at any time, that's what the law is. Simply admit you are wrong. You said these people were protected legal residents, they are not. Why don't you admit you're wrong?

I said everything I had to say about habeas a few posts ago, what else do you want me to say? What different position?

Where's the illegality is what I've been asking for. You guys made all these claims, I said you were wrong. If you wanna talk about morals/ethics of it all, then do that instead of making other arguments that are just false.

This is one of those posts you frame, a reminder to people what MAGA does to the human brain. "Why do you care whether someone broke the law before stripping away all their rights and dignities?"

This is when we all hope it happens to you, because nothing protects you from being tossed into a hole and forgotten about right alongside Garcia. You can rant at him in person about how his case doesn't matter.

Where's the illegality is what I've been asking for. You guys made all these claims, I said you were wrong. If you wanna talk about morals/ethics of it all, then do that instead of making other arguments that are just false.

 

[Eacaraxe]

No, he's that thing we can't call someone here, cuz we'll get a warning, eventhough that describes them to a tee. Though those people are also sociopaths.

Believe you me, the number of times I'd have loved to say something along the lines of "simp as hard as you want, Trump and Elon aren't rawdog spitroasting your wife while you watch" but couldn't thanks to the wiles of terms of services is beyond count. Mostly on Twitter, Facebook, and Reddit...mostly.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

Where's the illegality is what I've been asking for. You guys made all these claims, I said you were wrong. If you wanna talk about morals/ethics of it all, then do that instead of making other arguments that are just false.

Well the one thing I can at least be sure you're consistent about, you don't care about being tossed into CECOT. There's nothing illegal in doing it in your mind, so it's okay.

 

[Silvanus]

Visas can be revoked at any time, that's what the law is. Simply admit you are wrong. You said these people were protected legal residents, they are not. Why don't you admit you're wrong?

Immigration status can be revoked with grounds, with judicial review-- as can a citizen's freedom, as can your own freedom. It cannot be legally revoked with zero grounds and zero process, the recipients just thrown into prison overnight. That's what the law is.

You keep insisting I "simply admit" something that's utter hogwash. Even the Trump administration hasn't argued what you're insisting! Nothing you've provided has substantiated it! It's directly contradicted by the laws and court rulings already posted! It's bollocks, man.

I said everything I had to say about habeas a few posts ago, what else do you want me to say? What different position?

You were arguing that habeas didn't apply, even after the Supreme Court twice stated that it definitely did. You then stopped arguing that, and just started assuming that habeas petitions would fail if they were pursued. Not once have you acknowledged that original position fell through.

Where's the illegality is what I've been asking for. You guys made all these claims, I said you were wrong. If you wanna talk about morals/ethics of it all, then do that instead of making other arguments that are just false.

Multiple federal courts have said its unlawful to deny people these rights. They're guaranteed by the Constitution to all persons. There's the illegality.

Lest we forget, you said in Trump's defence, the immortal line: "a crime must be proven". You said that to defend against some online criticism. Yet when someone is incarcerated in a torture-prison (at Trump's request, no less), suddenly it's "why does it matter if they committed a crime?"

You have no principled bone in your body.

 

[Eacaraxe]

Where's the illegality is what I've been asking for.

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

It's the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Plain, complete, unaltered text.

We are not in a time of war or public danger. Regardless what that bloviating orange piece of shit says. Congress decides that, especially within US borders, not the president. So that's one way in which this case runs afoul of the Fifth Amendment.

Garcia's residential status had already been settled by the court once. That's two ways in which this case runs afoul of the Fifth Amendment.

Due process applies. It's "no PERSON", not "no citizen". In other words, everyone under United States jurisdiction is entitled to due process. Period. That's the third, final, and most important way in which this case runs afoul of the Fifth Amendment.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Racist studio gets shutdown

EA Cancels Black Panther Game, Closes Cliffhanger Games - IGN

Electronic Arts is canceling its planned Black Panther game and shutting down developer Cliffhanger Games, IGN has learned.

www.ign.com

 

[Bedinsis]

Racist studio gets shutdown

EA Cancels Black Panther Game, Closes Cliffhanger Games - IGN

Electronic Arts is canceling its planned Black Panther game and shutting down developer Cliffhanger Games, IGN has learned.

www.ign.com

How was Cliffhanger Games racist?

 

[Casual Shinji]

How was Cliffhanger Games racist?

Because they didn't treat white people as the default, I'm guessing.

You're asking Phoenixmgs - You REALLY think you're going to get an answer that isn't aggressively centrist (but very much in defense of white nationalist, bigoted, Nazi pieces of shit)?

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

Due process applies. It's "no PERSON", not "no citizen".

The MAGA zeitgeist holds that "brown" != "person".

 

[Eacaraxe]

How was Cliffhanger Games racist?

He thinks he's owning us by saying a game about a black comic book character got canned. So basically,

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

youtube.com

 

[tstorm823]

How was Cliffhanger Games racist?

A single "narrative designer" (I assume that just means writer) working on the game had previously led an indie studio with "no white people", saying she felt the best way to have a safe space to make games they love was to be surrounded by people just like her. It almost sounds plausibly innocent, but the implication that the criteria for being "just like her" is "don't be white" can't really be avoided.

This one person's statements as evidence of the whole studio being racist is a stretch at best, although unironically it could totally be evidence of that, cause like there's a very high chance that some white person token hired this woman because she's a race-minded black woman to work on the black superhero video game, which is actually probably kinda racist.

 

[Bedinsis]

You're asking Phoenixmgs - You REALLY think you're going to get an answer that isn't aggressively centrist (but very much in defense of white nationalist, bigoted, Nazi pieces of shit)?

I could imagine a studio head displaying race-based bigotry (although I imagine it as something that could be explained away as "colorful language" or what have you, otherwise I imagine they'd have to step down soon enough) that I never heard of, hence why I asked.

 

[Trunkage]

Labor is labor. The US has 330 million people vs China's 1.2-1.3 billion, and India's 1.3-1.4 billion.

There is a high possibility that the bean counters inflated China population by 100 million. A lower possibility is that the inflated by a half billion

 

[Trunkage]

Seriously, where do you even come up with this stuff? Half of what you claim has literally no basis in reality.

If there is no Habeus Corpus, all US citizens can be deported as illegal immigrants. The whole purpose of Due Process is allowing you to show documents to prove you are a US citizen. Without it, you can't prove anything

Thus has been the plan the whole time

 

[Gergar12]

There is a high possibility that the bean counters inflated China population by 100 million. A lower possibility is that the inflated by a half billion

True, but as 600-900 Million China is still powerful enough to be in the geopolitical arena.

Sure. And yet also in a sense no it doesn't.

The reality is that a huge amount of that vast expanse of land in any country (not just the USA) is actually useless in this sense. Yes, it can give you a sense of space, you could own many acres of it, but you just wouldn't want to live there because it's wildly impractical.

For instance, you need a job. The jobs tend to be in the cities. Cities, where the property is expensive, small, and people are heaped together in masses. Lots of people can escape to the suburbs where they are less on top of one another, and spend 2h every morning and evening grinding 5mph down a 16-lane highway to commute.

Or we can build strong towns and more walkable communities.

Strong Towns

Strong Towns, a bottom-up revolution to rebuild American prosperity. Make your community stronger and more prosperous.

www.strongtowns.org

YIMBY Action

yimbyaction.org

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

Why do you guys care so much if they broke the law, that doesn't even matter.

It actually does, quite a bit.

I'm going to just go ahead and quote another one of my posts from this thread because we've already gone over why you're wrong about this before:

Yes and no. Their legal status can be rescinded if they no longer meet the criteria that made them qualified for that status in the first place. For example, in the case of asylum seekers, one of the determinations that would allow their status to be rescinded is if they have been deemed to be "a danger to the security of the United States," which is the basis that the Trump administration is trying to argue. The problem is that they have presented no evidence for their claims. There's a pretty low barrier that needs to be met to deport someone (it's much lower than in a criminal case), but there is still a barrier, and the Trump administration is either too lazy, too inept, or just wants to break the law specifically to push boundaries and see what happens, so they haven't bothered to even attempt to meet that low standard.

And there's no reason why we can't provide these people with due process to weed out actual dangerous gang members from innocent people. You don't want to, and you've just decided that's a bad idea, without actually giving any reason as to why it's a bad idea.

The reason that the Trump administration keeps arguing that the people they're deporting are "criminals" is because that's the legal basis under which they can deport them, so yes, the fact that many of them entered the US legally and did not commit any crimes is indeed important.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

The reason that the Trump administration keeps arguing that the people they're deporting are "criminals" is because that's the legal basis under which they can deport them, so yes, the fact that many of them entered the US legally and did not commit any crimes is indeed important.

It's funny how Republicans- who are always, always warning us about government overreach- are perfectly okay with Trump arbitrarily declaring people to be criminals and putting them in prison.

 

[Schadrach]

It's funny how Republicans- who are always, always warning us about government overreach-

When they talk about "small government" they don't mean limited or minimal government, they mean government fine-grained enough that it can fit into small spaces like the classroom, the bedroom and the uterus while not being strong enough to push back against large entities doing whatever they want.