• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Home Invasion by ICE Now Legal

Elixir said:
unapologetic said:
ZiprHead said:
Somebody is going to get shot over this.
Click to expand...
That is exactly what is needed.
Some will say that is what Rump wants. But he is not going to stop till he gets it. We need to fight back, or k*ll the repugnant party
Click to expand...
Another one murdered by Trump thugs. Now the excuse for summary execution is that he was armed.
I’m sure our 2A zealots will join the protests, right?
Click to expand...
This will be used as a recruitment tool by ICE. Join now and you too can openly and without risk to yourself kill someone. The 2A people are more likely to join ICE, and say 2A means a militia such as ICE has priority over individual rights.
 
Elixir said:
I must admit, this thread has served a purpose other than what I intended.
It has revealed the intellectual bankruptcy of both our libberpublican hypocrites as well as our “I’m not a trumpsucker” faux liberals. No outrage from Jason, Derec, Swiz, Emily, or any of the others.
I think this is a stark revelation of their dishonesty and/or confusion about their own contorted “positions”.
Click to expand...
I have trouble keeping up with threads I post in as it is due to time reasons.

And I do not have to comment in every ICE-related thread, since I already wrote that I disagree with the way Trump's ICE is going about immigration enforcement.
 
Patooka said:
Derec said:
And I do not have to comment in every ICE-related thread, since I already wrote that I disagree with the way Trump's ICE is going about immigration enforcement.
Click to expand...
You do always find a way to add "but" though. Funny how that works.
Click to expand...
An interesting thing about "honest" agreement and disagreement is that they can be fairly easily differentiated at times, and not just by traits involving their stinky buts.

It would certainly be helpful if people were more honest about opinions like those, but that's where we are.

I have to outright question the notion that occasional tepid lipservice drawn out at long length by repeated criticisms aren't exactly simply "writing that you disagree". The degree to which you disagree is called firmly and rightly into question that instead of just disagreeing here, you feel somehow compelled to point to the first tepid disagreement.

Compare this to when you disagree about many other things, and the difference with respect to consequences you would put behind other grievances would be stark.

Derec literally will not shut up to save their life when they want to talk about certain things. We watched Derec go on for pages criticizing things about laws designed to keep adult sex pests from pestering children. We regularly watch Derec and others go on clown show routines to ostensibly distract and split meaningful discussion; recently he made another attempt at educating is all on the definition of "ephebophile", after all. He is one of the site's more prolific posters and much of it is surrounding direct repetitions of his views.

So I have to wonder why, with issues like this, does he do that? Why does he go with posting a vague reference to some other post containing a tepid rejection with its own unwashed "but" stinking up the place? Hell, he can devote pages and pages and pages to discussion about how Rittenhouse was justified.

People generally discuss the things they care about, and in proportion to the care they have for those things. This happens with vanishingly few exceptions, mostly tied to technical barriers to discussion of certain advanced topics, and frankly few such barriers exist here in this place; I find it almost as useful as an academic environment for exploring philosophy.

And I do know there are so many threads on this forum that I have never even opened. But that's usually (shocker) down to the fact I don't care much to look.

This is the government murdering people without warrant, trial, or even charges using false pretense on several layers as retaliation over political opposition.

This is unreasonable search and seizure, by definition.

This is exactly what the 2A crowd talked about. Hell, someone got shot and the government used the fact he has a gun (on his person) as an excuse to shoot him dead. Not even pointing it at people or anything like that, just "he has a gun" despite his hands being up... and then he was dead.

And yet one of the staunchest defenders of the rights of "anyone" to bear arms (even illegally as 17 year olds going into areas of unrest with the intent to rack a body count) is managing to get get so worked up that he has to go through all the effort of pointing to some tepid and vague rejection of policy just so people don't think he's quite a complete hypocrite

I mean he could try admitting that the actions being taken here were considered so heinous by our forefathers that they wrote it into the Constitution that these are things government is restricted from doing by pain of overthrow by the people, but then where would he find the time to educate us all on how to differentiate people that want to fuck preteen children from people who want to fuck teen children?

I wonder how long it will take him to understand that his sense of priority is being called into question as much as everything else?

I can't recall, is Derec an immigrant? I know he has a history of engaging prostitutes. I'm not sure that will work out very well for them... Then again, being critical of the current regime could be detrimental to his health at this point. ICE have proven they aren't afraid to shoot second, third, fourth generation citizens for speaking out.
 
Patooka said:
crazyfingers said:
unapologetic said:
RVonse on 'ignore' months ago.
Click to expand...
Me too
Click to expand...
That's a mistake. Knowing what next ignorant MAGA stupidity can be an asset.
Click to expand...
I completely agree with you but for completely different reasons.

It is always a big mistake to ignore and self censor rhetoric of a different political ideology. Because as unpleasant as the experience may be for you, you will never learn or improve your awareness of what "the other side of the fence" knows or feels about the event taking place. You may not agree with someone but not hearing what they have to say but not hearing them will do nothing at all. Its not going to change how they feel or how you feel or everyone just begins the process of hate which IMO is generally a bad thing.

So I actively listen to an old high school buddy on facebook that makes most of you on this board look like Trump lovers. And although I can not say I agree with him ofte,n I can still appreciate the posts he has to offer because they share a view I would never imagine on my own. And believe or not we are still very good friends 50 years after graduating high school.

Censorship is a big mistake. Even self censorship. It is actually an anti-woke attitude that "your tribe is better than there tribe" so I just won't listen. And I won't learn a thing about their views.
 
Jarhyn said:
An interesting thing about "honest" agreement and disagreement is that they can be fairly easily differentiated at times, and not just by traits involving their stinky buts.
Click to expand...
Why are "buts" stinky? I don't know why your Ilk dislikes nuance so much.
It would certainly be helpful if people were more honest about opinions like those, but that's where we are.
Click to expand...
What use is being honest about one's opinions if they are going to get twisted like you have done below?
Compare this to when you disagree about many other things, and the difference with respect to consequences you would put behind other grievances would be stark.
Derec literally will not shut up to save their life when they want to talk about certain things.
Click to expand...
That has to do with the position taken by the other. There is not much use talking at length about how Trump's ICE is overreaching, when this forum is in broad agreement on this. Other, more controversial, issues invite more disagreement, and thus back-and-forth arguing.
We watched Derec go on for pages criticizing things about laws designed to keep adult sex pests from pestering children.
Click to expand...
Sorry, Jarhyn, but this borders on libelous. I have never defended "sex pests" pestering anybody. But at the same time, a 19 year old teenager dating a 16 year old teenager is not a "groomer", or a "sex pest". And laws that cannot distinguish between this and somebody like Epstein create more injustice than they solve. Especially since "sex pests" like Epstein can often evade a dragnet that has been cast too wide and catches a lot of people who should not have been criminalized in the first place.

There was a case where an English 18 year old started a relationship with a 17 year old English girl. Unfortunately for him, this happened in Dubai and Dubai has the kind of strict laws about this that you and Toni advocate for, and her mother pressed charges and he was imprisoned.
Briton, 18, sentenced in Dubai over sex with girl
To you and Toni, he is a "sex pest" and "groomer", while she is just a "child" with no agency to consent to sex with somebody of essentially the same age. :rolleyesa:
We regularly watch Derec and others go on clown show routines to ostensibly distract and split meaningful discussion; recently he made another attempt at educating is all on the definition of "ephebophile", after all. He is one of the site's more prolific posters and much of it is surrounding direct repetitions of his views.
Click to expand...
What's wrong with using words correctly?
So I have to wonder why, with issues like this, does he do that?
Click to expand...
Because people like you and Toni keep insisting on an absolutist, nuance-free position. A position that leads you to call a 19 year old consensually dating a 16 year old a "groomer" and "pedophile".
And the issue of agency of minor teenagers is hardly limited to just sex. If you claim that 16 or 17 year olds are mere children with no agency, then you can also argue that 16 or 17 year olds who commit murder or other serious crimes should not be tried in criminal court, but rather in juvenile court where they only face short custodial sentences. And fauxgressive DAs intent on "criminal justice reform" often think just that.
17-year-old previously tried as a minor for double murder now linked to another killing after release
Hell, he can devote pages and pages and pages to discussion about how Rittenhouse was justified.
Click to expand...
Note that I did not bring Rittenhouse back into discussion. But, as I said, disagreement invites back-and-forth arguing. As long as people keep repeating long discredited claims about this case, I will argue with them. Because yes, Ritt acted in self-defense.
People generally discuss the things they care about, and in proportion to the care they have for those things.
Click to expand...
There also needs to be some disagreement. I think you and Toni are wrong on this issue, and that your position does far more harm than good.
This is exactly what the 2A crowd talked about. Hell, someone got shot and the government used the fact he has a gun (on his person) as an excuse to shoot him dead. Not even pointing it at people or anything like that, just "he has a gun" despite his hands being up... and then he was dead.
Click to expand...
There is a different thread about this case, but yes, the shooting is unjustified. The ICE agents are not well trained and also not well led. That is a recipe for disaster.
And yet one of the staunchest defenders of the rights of "anyone" to bear arms (even illegally as 17 year olds going into areas of unrest with the intent to rack a body count)
Click to expand...
I do not know why it is so difficult for you to argue without misrepresenting either the facts or your opponents, but no, Ritt did not go to downtown Kenosha "with the intent to rack a body count". He only shot in self defense.
I do not know about others, but I am not a 2A absolutist. I think it's a bad idea to go to these protests/riots while armed. I don't think open carry laws are helpful.
That said, regardless of all mistakes Ritt made that night, he still has the right to self defense.
[some more repetitive ad hominem diatribes snipped]
I can't recall, is Derec an immigrant?
Click to expand...
I am. That does not mean I have to be an immigration absolutist.
I know he has a history of engaging prostitutes.
Click to expand...
Your Ilk likes to try to use that as a cudgel against me every time they run out of arguments. Argumentum ad meretrices?
I'm not sure that will work out very well for them...
Click to expand...
Republicans are bad for sex work and sex workers, sure. But are Democrats better on this issue? They tend to support the SWERF brand of feminism that wants to impose the Swedish Model - where mostly male clients are criminalized, while mostly female providers are treated like victims with no agency (there is a definite theme here of denying people agency). Btw, Sweden just outlawed Only Fans, but again, only subscribers are criminalized, not those who manufacture and offer that content. Typical sexist bullshit.
Then again, being critical of the current regime could be detrimental to his health at this point. ICE have proven they aren't afraid to shoot second, third, fourth generation citizens for speaking out.
Click to expand...
So far, nobody has been shot for simply speaking out. Both of the unjustified deadly shootings (Good and Pretti) have been of people that were in some way physically interfering with ICE operations. How much of that was incompetence vs. malice I am not prepared to say. Other shootings involved people like that Venezuelan illegal who attacked an ICE with a snow shovel. I think that one was justified. But then again, that is nuance, and many on this forum are deadly afraid of nuance.
 
I find it telling that Derec seems to be blind to the fact that being an immigrant from any country while being a criminal will not end well for anyone when there is a major push against immigrant criminals. He's too fuck ok ng blind to see ICE is going to be coming for him soon enough.

The point here is that ICE should be disarmed and disempowered, defunded, largely incarcerated, for the things that have already happened.

Then, for someone who thinks attacking a guy with a snow shovel with a gun is justified, I can't say much.

Does that mean that when ICE shoots me for "attacking them with a stick" that they are justified despite the fact that footage would show it's more I had the stick, drop it when I get shot, and it falls into whoever shoots me?

I can see that as one of the many murky futures where I get a bad end.

Its strange insofar as I have personally offered a model in which sex work is not criminalized, myself: prostitutes would have a minimum age, and a union, with union rules like registration of documents, specially protected immigration/asylum status, mandatory STD testing, government provided sexual health, and family planning services, check-ins, protection services, educational benefits, and so on to maintain the well-being of all the people involved.

I would offer just as much to anyone else who wanted it, but prostitutes in particular need protections for their opportunities, health, and well-being.

Anyone engaged in illegal prostitution outside of those bounds, I would treat the other way: prostitutes under a certain age, Johns have higher penalties than the prostitutes, and the specially protected immigration status for victims of sexual and trafficking crimes would make it easier to target traffickers for major crimes.

But that's the point isn't it? To take every opportunity to not just make a clean statement about the point at hand? That it's dangerous to be an immigrant from anywhere as a technical criminal?

You can write whole posts full of defense of sex pests, regardless of what you say, and yet you can't write a post, a standalone post, not including stinky buts!

If the ICE soldiers were operating in an ethical way, we would see their faces, know their identities, they would have badges and warrants, the people they were arresting under those warrants would have access to legal representation, would be given trials, and so on.

This implies not just something about their training issues, but about the purpose for their deployment: to terrorize the city.

Political dissent is both legal and encouraged in the US. We have every right to protest peacefully. None of the activities people engaged in warrant such attacks. The very presence of these murderers warrants ejection of such activities. The biased enforcement on Minnesota in particular, where there are few undocumented immigrants in the first place and even fewer criminal immigrants, when there are orders of magnitude more in Red Texas, it all amounts to the criminal use of government at state levels!

These were believed suitable and complete justification for the violent response of people against their government, specifically the cause for rebellion being the use of paramilitary forces against a populace for enforcement of suppressing political differences.

This is exactly the reason that the state is empowered with command over national guard units. It is cause to recognize federal crimes and to be as mad and active in your resistance to that as you are to the dubious resistance you offer to the idea that older kids shouldn't approach younger kids for sex because that activity is "pestering".

Personally, when situations become murky and complicated, I think that a social worker experienced and trained in getting good resolutions with hard cases should be assigned.

We could just stop discussing that, however, now that we know you can talk, even if you seem more interested in discussing teens having sex.

Still, there's no "but" to the fact that ICE needs to get the fuck out of Minneapolis, and many of them need to go to fucking prison all the way up the chain of leadership.

Perhaps we could discuss the fact that no justification is considered sufficient for ignoring the Constitution in this way, and in fact acting this way ignoring the rights of the people is Constitutionally indicated as a cause for seeking redress, as violent as necessary, against the government.

Technically, our declaration of Independence and Constitution recommend the firm and insistent ejection of such people from our midst and especially from the halls of power.

I find people who lack empathy to the point where they celebrate the failure to censure oneself to be quite telling.

... Also, If you can't tell yourself an idea is bad in preemptive examination or after action review, which is the very definition of self-censure, then you are an irresponsible idiot. If you encourage that kind of wanton behavior, you are a dangerously irresponsible idiot.

Part of being aware of oneself is being aware enough to recommend when you need to parent yourself. And frankly, being a good parent to others requires being a parent to yourself, too.
 
Jarhyn said:
I find it telling that Derec seems to be blind to the fact that being an immigrant from any country while being a criminal will not end well for anyone when there is a major push against immigrant criminals. He's too fuck ok ng blind to see ICE is going to be coming for him soon enough.
Click to expand...
Our Swiz had better not have a parking ticket in his history either. Those two could end up sharing a cell at Alligator Alcatraz.
 
The very ones who condemned the government for Waco and defended the Bundy rebels, now ARE the government eager to murder anyone who doesn’t like that fact.
Go figure.
 
Derec said:
Patooka said:
Derec said:
And I do not have to comment in every ICE-related thread, since I already wrote that I disagree with the way Trump's ICE is going about immigration enforcement.
Click to expand...
You do always find a way to add "but" though. Funny how that works.
Click to expand...
Yeah, any reasonably complex issue will have nuances. Funny how that works.
Click to expand...
It's adorable that you believe your stance is complicated or has nuance. If someones posts are predictable, they aren't complicated. And yours are the type to put AI to shame.
 
bilby said:
Jarhyn said:
I find it telling that Derec seems to be blind to the fact that being an immigrant from any country while being a criminal will not end well for anyone when there is a major push against immigrant criminals. He's too fuck ok ng blind to see ICE is going to be coming for him soon enough.
Click to expand...
Our Swiz had better not have a parking ticket in his history either. Those two could end up sharing a cell at Alligator Alcatraz.
Click to expand...
How myopic do these people have to be? A lot of the people they are going after are naturalized citizens same as Derec and Swizz.

It doesn't matter if you came "the right way".

As I said, I expect ICE to be attacking me for having a stick, soon enough.

I really fucking hope not? But Aristotle got stuck by a soldier occupying his city for drawing circles in the sand. Just thinking about that makes me so sad, and I think if I let myself feel all of it at once, I would weep about it. But it is history, best as we know. That's how people die, great and small, and my city is under occupation by a hostile paramilitary force.

Do they seriously think it stops with Minneapolis?!?

Minneapolis policy exists as it does to protect people like Derec and Swizz regardless of what winds politics blow or what minor personal flaws they have (so long as they aren't pestering children or buying mail order brides). And that's why we're being attacked.

To think they won't repeat this everywhere else is naive to say the least.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom