I do not understand officers having qualified immunity. They are armed for of the government and they have much lower expectations placed on them the normal citizens.
The fact that cops can break laws, actually harm people and then make prosecution basically impossible is bonkers.
It’s a sticky issue. Without QI, it seems very plausible that many law enforcement departments would be seriously hamstrung by continual waves of legal action and thus cost taxpayers a lot more to operate effectively. Not only would many people use a court of law as a fallback from the court of public opinion, but the legal industry would support this given the lucrative monetary and reputational advantages of suing the government.
And I’m saying that as someone extremely pro-curtailment of police/TSA/CBP scope and resources, and extremely critical and aware of the law enforcement abuse and overreach epidemic. This one just doesn’t have an easy solve—not without a massive overhaul of the entire US justice system down to the roots.
> its important to understand the arguments being made if we are honestly interested in engaging in discussion and improvement.
Yes. But making their arguments into different, milder, sanitized and whitewashed ones is NOT understanding them. It is carrying water for them. As of now, both their rhetorics and actions match perfectly. There is zero reason to think this is about crime levels.
> The fact that the rate is lower for native-born or legal immigrants is immaterial to the argument advanced by those seeking more enforcement of immigration laws
When the deportations are done in an orderly manner and without visible abuses, these people are unhappy. When they are done with visible abuses, then they feel like they are getting what they wanted. They do not particularly like the focus on lawbreakers either, their own rhetoric casts violent law breaking as something good - if done by the right side. In fact, when only illegal immigrants are deported, they act like something was missing.
If we are honest to ourselves about what they want and openly talk about, they want white ethnostate. They have issue with legal migrants and with non white citizens too. They have issue with EU having non whites in it. Somehow, their primary targets are cities with relatively low illegal immigration rather then ... Texas with much higher illegal immigration.
Immigration is not a left-right issue, there are reasons to want to limit wanted and unwanted immigration, regardless of who one might vote for.
> If we are honest to ourselves about what they want and openly talk about [...] without visible abuses, these people are unhappy.
You seem to be talking about a subset of all people who do not want immigration: caricaturally-extreme racists. You and GP are not talking about the same people, and GP is not carrying water for anyone.
Reality check is that he has actual track record on delivering or trying to deliver on his anti-democratic impulses. In terms of personal monetary gain, he is the most successful president of history.
He is also actually successful at making Project 2025 reality. He is on the way to cause very real harm (economic, physical) to blue cities too.
> In terms of personal monetary gain, he is the most successful president of history.
And in terms of legislative impact he is the least successful president in history. I don't like the corruption one bit, but on balance it is probably the less damaging of the two.
> He is also actually successful at making Project 2025 reality
Not at all, though, on any kind of permanent basis. He is showing that you can make the executive branch do shitty things with executive orders. What he isn't managing to do is codify any of this in law. There's a reason that the universities and other 'elites' knuckle under and cut deals with him -- they know that these deals are informal and temporary, and go away with the next POTUS. If Trump took this agenda to Congress and got it enacted into law it would persist for many more years.
> Its depressing trying to steelman that behavior because you realize that the country you grew up in had these people there.
Maybe we should stop steelman them all the time. That is how they got enabled by centrists and pundits and moderates so much, they became the rulers. Steelmanning obvious bad faith actors is just another fallacy.
Steelmanning consists of ignoring disturbing claims conservative right says, not listening to what they are actually saying and replacing what they are saying by some feel good fiction of good intention.
The other method of challenging them and trying to prove your point does not work either. There is no solution it seems. They need to suffer the consequences of their decisions on their own.
Thats why I was so depressed. I have an engineering mindset of finding out how to improve things and there seems like there is no solution to this problem that involves remaining with this group as part of your society because it takes two to tango (ie. both sides need to put in genuine effort at growth).
Steelmanning is not challenging them at all. It is whitewashing them, making softer argument so that they are more palatable and frequently undistinguishable from support.
The only person challenged by such steelmanning is opposition to MAGA. They now have two opponents. They are made look as if they were exaggerating or were crazy when they accurately report to what MAGA does or says. They now have an additional, basically unintentional bad faith, rationalization to deal with against them.
> there is no solution to this problem that involves remaining with this group as part of your society because it takes two to tango (ie. both sides need to put in genuine effort at growth).
The problem is that what happens is that the opposition to MAGA is constantly asked to do growth, to steelman, to concede and move more to the right to accommodate MAGA. It is highly asymmetric and provably does not work.
> I have an engineering mindset of finding out how to improve things
I think that making it clear what MAGA wants says and supports to moderates and center is way better strategy then basically helping them.
>Steelmanning is not challenging them at all. It is whitewashing them, making softer argument so that they are more palatable and frequently undistinguishable from support.
I think you misread what I wrote. Yes Steelmanning them is not challenging them. What I said was that if you go the other direction and challenge them it does not work either. It might makes you feel good but no progress gets made.
You put way too much emphasis into my original comment of steelanning them. The original goal of sitting and observing them for two years was to try to understand their mentality, their point of view to then figure out how to convert at least some of them. Thats where the depression came in when I realized that there is no plan, no ideology, and no real end state: just vibes in the moment. This is not a cohesive vision for the future of a country.
Owner of the thirty-five employees company wants long term income and sort of security. They usually do not want huge peek in short term followed by death. They are also less comfortable with strategy that has 95% chance of destroying the company and 0.5% chance is earning a lot with 5% in between.
Outside investors are the exact opposite.
Also, smaller owners do not have that billionaire mindset of "any unethical or illegal action goes". It is not like they would be saints, but there is range of personalities and value systems among them. Billionaire became billionaires because not caring about any of that gives them advantage.
Our data in the cloud, hallowed be thy computation, your kingdom come, your will be done, on our devices as it is in the cloud. Give us today our daily feed.
You are ignoring Trump literally adopting Russian proposals and demands in that war as they are. Trump and america flipped sides, seeing Russia as admirable peer and Ukraine as someone who should shut up and put up.
Trump want deals with russia to enrich himself. For that he needs Ukraine to loose. Bad thing is Putin does not have enough, he wants the rest of Europe too.
Because they can focus on different movies. Americans few decades ago found internarional movies boring, did not focused, but could focus on American movies.
I don't think people can focus on any movies anymore, period.
I used to host movie night for the friend group, because I was the one with a decent home theater setup, but we stopped because people just can't get through movies anymore. Same with family. We'd always put on a movie at night when family were over for a visit, but we don't anymore. Within 5 minutes of the movie starting, everyone's on their phones or getting up to do other things. Why even bother hosting?
I even let the guest(s) choose the movie so they're not subjected to all that boring "character development" and "establishing shots" in movies I go for, and they still can't make it more than 5-10 minutes. My teenage kid can't even make it through movies with zero quiet parts, designed specifically for that age group. Not into it at all--she puts YouTube on at 2x-2.5x speed and "watches" two videos at a time while playing video games.
I was a film student in the 90s, I would watch a dozen films over a weekend. Now, if I want to sit through a film and give it my full attention I have to either go to a movie theatre or break the movie up into a series of bite-sized segments. If I want to get lost in a book I have to go camping somewhere away from any cell towers.
I don't think film students today are less interested in film. Their attention spans are shot.
The fact that cops can break laws, actually harm people and then make prosecution basically impossible is bonkers.
reply