PATREON COULD DISSAPPEAR

[Discount_Blade]

There is a hitler rising right now, and they aren't a democrat. You speak of learning from history, yet ignore current parallels. The US is currently copying the path Germany once took. Of course, you'll just dismiss what I say here, which is why I didn't bother speaking more strongly earlier. However, when you're gonna be this blatantly blind to current events in such a direct manner, I feel a need to say something, even if it is only going to fall on deaf ears. The US is going down a very bad path, and it's being led there by CURRENT leadership.

Lol another "Orange man is bad!!!" type person. I was kind of hoping you people were back in your "safe spaces" but nope. Still popping up like whack-a-moles. Yep, done with this conversation now. Like I said before, dems and libs deserve everything they get when their self-inflicted crap finally comes crashing down on them. I hope its bloody and brutal. Kind of like those "peaceful protests" they did. XDDDD

Won't be responding anymore.

 

[jabathehut]

Here's the thing, how do you know who's going to be the next Hitler? You don't, which means you just ban someone on suspicion of harboring negative intent. Then, once that decision has been made, you ban supporters of those people. Then, you start banning people who sound like they might be supporters of those people. Then, you start banning people who other people have reported to be supporters of those kinds of people, based on no or little evidence.

shut up nazi

 

[jabathehut]

Lol another "Orange man is bad!!!" type person. I was kind of hoping you people were back in your "safe spaces" but nope. Still popping up like whack-a-moles. Yep, done with this conversation now. Like I said before, dems and libs deserve everything they get when their self-inflicted crap finally comes crashing down on them. I hope its bloody and brutal. Kind of like those "peaceful protests" they did. XDDDD

Won't be responding anymore.

ok nazi

 

[jabathehut]

Your profile pic does make you look like an OOP- better not say that

object oriented programmer?

 

[Jemini]

There is a hitler rising right now, and they aren't a democrat. You speak of learning from history, yet ignore current parallels. The US is currently copying the path Germany once took. Of course, you'll just dismiss what I say here, which is why I didn't bother speaking more strongly earlier. However, when you're gonna be this blatantly blind to current events in such a direct manner, I feel a need to say something, even if it is only going to fall on deaf ears. The US is going down a very bad path, and it's being led there by CURRENT leadership.

You can easily fabricate Hitler Parallels for literally every single world leader in history. There's really only one point that matters though. Do they have "Brown Shirts?" No potential Hitler reincarnate can come to power without Brown Shirts.

FYI: Brown Shirts are fanatical volunteer civilians who will finger-point out anyone who says anything even slightly against "the party" or "the ideology," report it, and likely even take voluntary action to vandalize the physical property or threaten the livelihood of common people who attempt to speak up in dissent.

So far as spotting who has brown shirts backing them, it's a simple 2 step process. Step 1. Identify whether or not there are active Brown Shirts in the community. To do this, look for whether or not people are afraid to voice their political opinions. Step 2. If you have identified the presence of Brown Shirts with step 1, then look for what political party is NOT afraid to voice their political opinions.

At this time, the far-right, moderate right, centralists, and moderate left are all afraid to voice their political opinions. The one and only group who is not afraid to voice their political opinions is the far-left.

EDIT: The exception to this rule is military dictators. Military dictators though have to come to power via a military coup. I do not see Trump having enough power or support within the military to swing that, and the US infrastructure is too compartimentalized to manage a military coup without the full 100% support of every single level of the military.

 

[Kldran]

@Jemini, You seem to be ignoring the enormous history of violence in the US, and focusing on one tiny piece that hasn't even been killing anyone.

 

[Jemini]

@Jemini, You seem to be ignoring the enormous history of violence in the US, and focusing on one tiny piece that hasn't even been killing anyone.

The US has a rather sordid history, yes. However, your argument here has shifted in a rather odd direction. I thought you were trying to argue that Trump would be the next Hitler with your last post. I rather effectively called out the fact that Trump, regardless of what ambitions he may or may not have and you might want to ascribe to him, he absolutely does not have the particular sort of backing he would need in order to take things in that direction.

We can go into anything about the US history of violence if you like, I'm rather well versed in the history, but the argument you brought up was about Trump in counter to my point that the next Hitler will probably be a Democrat out of the US. If you are shifting the argument into the US in general having a history of voilence, that point seems to support my stance a lot more firmly than it does yours.

 

[Kldran]

@Jemini My point is that your counter argument is on a completely different scale. I'm talking about issues in which peoples lives are at stake, and all you bring up are issues of people being insulted and shunned. You complain about "brown shirts" that cause no physical harm while reporters and journalists get shot in the face with rubber bullets by cops. These are not comparable.

 

[jabathehut]

You can easily fabricate Hitler Parallels for literally every single world leader in history. There's really only one point that matters though. Do they have "Brown Shirts?" No potential Hitler reincarnate can come to power without Brown Shirts.

FYI: Brown Shirts are fanatical volunteer civilians who will finger-point out anyone who says anything even slightly against "the party" or "the ideology," report it, and likely even take voluntary action to vandalize the physical property or threaten the livelihood of common people who attempt to speak up in dissent.

The US has a rather sordid history, yes. However, your argument here has shifted in a rather odd direction. I thought you were trying to argue that Trump would be the next Hitler with your last post. I rather effectively called out the fact that Trump, regardless of what ambitions he may or may not have and you might want to ascribe to him, he absolutely does not have the particular sort of backing he would need in order to take things in that direction.

We can go into anything about the US history of violence if you like, I'm rather well versed in the history, but the argument you brought up was about Trump in counter to my point that the next Hitler will probably be a Democrat out of the US. If you are shifting the argument into the US in general having a history of voilence, that point seems to support my stance a lot more firmly than it does yours.

democrats and republicans are both right wing, so...

 

[Jemini]

@Kldran Brown shirts pave the way for systematic extermination and genocide. They are the archetects of death. They are the VITAL and indispensable piece that allows genocide to happen. What you are talking about are bad police tactics, and frankly they are softer than what was done in the 60s. What we are seeing today represents a de-escalation of tactics if anything.

You are showing a very disturbing failure to grasp the weight of the situation. If Hitler did not have his brown shirts, 6 million more Jews would be alive today. I'm talking about mass death. You're talking about a few accidental injuries among rioters, who would have caused more damage than the police if the police were not present. (Watch some of the local news stations out of Portland rather than the national news, you will see the kinds of damage rioters do. The proof in the pudding here is that most of the neighborhoods where riots happen come to be very strong supporters of the police afterward.)

 

[Kldran]

You are showing a very disturbing failure to grasp the weight of the situation.

So are you. Did you notice that the US has been committing genocide according to geneva convention definitions for a while already? You keep talking about how one group will eventually do bad things, that are already being done by other groups.

 

[Jemini]

So are you. Did you notice that the US has been committing genocide according to geneva convention definitions.

State the definition in question as well as the incident. If you say something about the Native Americans in the 17 and 18 hundreds, well, I think you know how much weight that has to the current day. Yes, that was genocide by definition, as you say. However, that's not happening today. Yes, the reservations are terrible places so far as living condition goes, it is shameful, but what is going on there is the policy is essentially designed because the government doesn't want to be giving away all that free money to people. As such, they are mostly left alone once they leave the reservation. There's no longer an asserted effort to eliminate the gene pool as there was in the early days, and I hardly see how that can be used as an argument that Trump is Hitler.

If you say Tuskegee Experiment, well, that's even shakier. Gonna talk about the banana republics propped up in the 80s? That's unconscionable once again but doesn't qualify as genocide, and once again it's not the foreign policy of today.

The only active Genocide going on today is against the Muslim population in China. Something we've been doing shamefully little to fight against.

 

[Kldran]

The only Genocide going on today is against the Muslim population in China. Something we've been doing shamefully little to fight against.

Somehow I'm not surprised you didn't think of the separation of children from parents being done by ICE. Lots of people don't seem to think it counts.

United Nations Office on Genocide Prevention and the Responsibility to Protect

Genocide Prevention and the Responsibility to Protect

www.un.org

Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

would be the line of interest.

U.S. Detention of Child Migrants | Council on Foreign Relations

Tens of thousands of unaccompanied children have been arriving at the U.S.-Mexico border each year, sparking debate over how to respond. How is the Joe Biden administration handling it?

www.cfr.org

in April 2018, the Justice Department announced a new zero-tolerance policy, which directed authorities to detain and criminally prosecute all adults caught entering the United States without authorization, instead of releasing most of them to await an immigration court date. Minors by law cannot be held alongside guardians awaiting trial, and officials separated at least 4,300 families and recategorized the minors as unaccompanied children between July 2017 and June 2018. Following public outcry, the administration revoked the policy and a federal judge ordered the families reunited. However, separations—which were carried out informally before the zero-tolerance policy—have continued.

The detaining of immigrants in terrible conditions is a problem that has been growing in the US for decades, and the current administration seems more interested in making things harsher for immigrants than trying to be humane. Yet I see people here telling me I'm supposed to be more worried about people getting fired due to social media scandals, than the ever growing reach of ICE.

 

[Jemini]

@Kldran It's pretty clear the preference would have been to lock the whole family up together like Obama did before Congress (at a time it was controlled by Democrats) passed a motion that children couldn't be kept for more than 24 hours, thus leading to a "catch and release" policy that effectively encouraged people to bring their families across the desert or under the care of Cyoties who would rape women and children of all ages.

Strong borders discourage families from exposing their children to death, violence, and rape in the methods they use to cross the border. Separating children was a lesser evil in this scenario, and it was always meant to have the children returned to their parents after their cases were judged and handled. However, they implementation was poorly handled, which lead to children getting lost in the system. Very bad, and worthy of a lot of criticism. However, considering the complexity of the situation, it is a gross oversimplification to criticize it as genocide.

 

[Kldran]

Strong borders discourage families from exposing their children to death, violence, and rape in the methods they use to cross the border.

Did it occur to you that they might be fleeing some pretty bad circumstances in the place they came from? You are basically saying: "We must do them harm to discourage others from making bad choices." So instead of these people being merely the victims of their own decisions, they shall also be the victims of our decisions as well. I fear if I try to express my feelings about what you've said here, it would just devolve into very colorful insults as you seem completely oblivious to the true meaning of your own words. Really, all I can do without going that way is to repeat:

You are saying that because people are doing things you think they shouldn't do, the correct response is to make the consequences of their choices even worse than it already is.

 

[Jemini]

Did it occur to you that they might be fleeing some pretty bad circumstances in the place they came from? You are basically saying: "We must do them harm to discourage others from making bad choices." So instead of these people being merely the victims of their own decisions, they shall also be the victims of our decisions as well. I fear if I try to express my feelings about what you've said here, it would just devolve into very colorful insults as you seem completely oblivious to the true meaning of your own words. Really, all I can do without going that way is to repeat:

You are saying that because people are doing things you think they shouldn't do, the correct response is to make the consequences of their choices even worse than it already is.

That's what we have an asylum process for. I never said they shouldn't be able to come into the country and should stay in their bad situations, I'm saying don't have them trecking across a desert with their children with a VERY high risk of death or exposing themselves to human trafficking and getting their children sold into sexual slavery to do it. Did you know that in those child protection facilities, they gave pregnancy tests to the girls during the intake process and several of the girls as young as 7 tested positive? 80% of all females who cross the border are raped in the process. That's all females, birth to elderly. Also, how about the football stadium filling quantities of human remains of men, women, and children they collect from the desert every year from the desert along the border? You seem to be the person who doesn't care about the perverse insentives the democratic party set up here in a truly heartless manner that was ignorant to the consiquences in the form of a massive destruction of human life.

Slavery exists in the west now, it is a thriving industry of greater proportions than any time in history, and most slaves in the US today come from the US, Mexico border. They were taken advantage of during the border crossing and sold into slavery. Most do not even make it a year afterward because it's cheaper to just buy a new slave than to make sure their current slaves stay alive.

Saying illegal immigration is bad is not the same as saying immigration is bad. You're completely conflating these points together, and I'm only addressing the arguments you've presented. You said child separation specifically, which ONLY happened to the ones immigrating illegally. This discussion wasn't on the legal method, you defined the terms and now you're acting as though illegal immigration is the only method of immigration. You seem to just be continuously shifting the focus of the discussion while casting aspersions on me in the least charitable manner, when you are the one who failed to define the terms of the discussion and seem unable to stay on topic. In other words, I'm assuming you are ignorant while you're assuming I'm evil. You're being very unreasonable here.

Now, if you want to have a discussion about the LEGAL immigration process, that's a worthy venue with it's own complicated list of complex issues. However, I will now focus your attention back on the topic at hand. How does what you're discussing here constitute genocide? If anything, I've been making the very strong case that the democrats have racked up a body count equal to a Nazi death camp along the border and Trump is the one trying to shut it down. Meanwhile, you refuse to stay on topic and keep moving the goal posts, all the while you are sticking words in my mouth.

 

[Kldran]

You said child separation specifically, which ONLY happened to the ones immigrating illegally.

This is not true at all. You seem to not know how the Asylum process works. The first step is to somehow reach the US and cross the border. The second step is turning themselves in to the border authorities. Yet you describe that process as if only illegals and fools do it. You seem to think there's a separation between Asylum seekers and illegals that simply doesn't exist. Many within those ICE camps haven't even been accused of illegal entry.

My goal post isn't moving. My goal is very simple: The SJWs are insignificant. There are much bigger things to worry about. You have not shown me any evidence to the contrary, other than claims of a slippery slope that may someday be terrible. I point to problems that exist right now instead of in some distant future, and you either insist they aren't problems (claiming police are getting better) or that democrats are somehow at fault (for things currently happening when they aren't even in power). Plus you are entirely blind to your own severe prejudice which you plainly demonstrated in the previous post about immigrants.

Not to mention: You are literally blaming America for people trying to come here. As if we are somehow responsible for what other people choose to do with their lives. You somehow think hurting people is a good way to reduce how much people get hurt. This entire conversation has just gone off the deep end of crazy and you still somehow think this is evidence that people getting kicked off Patreon is a scary thing I need to be afraid of,

No, what I'm afraid of is people like you, insisting I need to be hurt for my own good, or the good of the country, like you clearly think those immigrants do. You don't understand what it is you are doing wrong, and are convinced you are the one who is righteous. People will suffer, people will die, and you will watch on insisting it's necessary just like you already have in this very thread.

If anything, I've been making the very strong case that the democrats have racked up a body count equal to a Nazi death camp along the border

I mean, you don't even get how horribly condescending, arrogant, and insulting statements like this are. Your entire argument relies upon the idea that somehow Democrats are at fault for Foreigner's trying to come here. Completely neglecting the idea that maybe these foreigners are people with motivations and will and individual ability to make their own decisions. Not to mention that, if we really wanted to save lives of immigrants, it'd probably work better to offer safer travel accommodations, instead of making arrival less safe. It's not like the ones trying to get here will even hear the stories of what's happening here anyway, when the ones telling them about the trip are the ones selling the "service" of getting them here.

You've been using the same logic that's used for the drug war: Harsh punishments to deter people. It hasn't been working. Instead the cartels just get stronger.

 

[Jemini]

Let's inject a little bit of rationality into this conversation, shall we? NPR has finally started focusing on deconstructing and speaking out against call-out culture. There was a program I actually heard today in the car in which the host said how messy a subject this was to approach that they have been wanting to dig into, but it's only recently they felt they had all the information they needed to really make some meaningful in-roads into it. I couldn't find the program I heard today, but upon doing some searches I found some slightly older podcasts. Give this one a listen, it's pretty good on the subject.

Calling Out Callout Culture : 1A

"Labels always come with baggage, baggage that society chooses ... let's not use those labels as finish lines. Don't decide I have nothing to learn from that person," author Irshad Manji told us.Want to support 1A? Give to your local public radio station and subscribe to this podcast. Have...

www.npr.org

 

[Jemini]

This is not true at all. You seem to not know how the Asylum process works. The first step is to somehow reach the US and cross the border. The second step is turning themselves in to the border authorities. Yet you describe that process as if only illegals and fools do it.

Ok, I'm going to stop you right here because you are simply wrong about this one and anything further you might have to say is therefore going to be twisted by this starting incorrect basis.

You can apply for Asylum by crossing the legal ports of entry, without risking death in the desert, rape, or slavery. It truly WOULD be Naziesque to have that as the official Asylum application process.

No, they can go to one of the legal ports of entry and apply for asylum. What YOU are describing is the catch-and-release process. The very thing I was calling out with the perverse incentives that the democrats created. The policy where if you crossed the border with a child, they would only hold you for 24 hours. The policy that exposed children to all this danger. The policy that had children taken as slaves specifically to be used as border-crossing mules, selling them to people who were not their parents just to cross the border and then sent back across the border in order to repeat the process again.

You are making it immensely clear here that your lack of information runs quite deep here. It is no wonder I'm the only one readily volunteering specific examples here while I have to tease them out of you like pulling teeth.

 

[Jemini]

Asylum aplication process.

Obtaining Asylum in the United States | USCIS

To obtain asylum through the affirmative asylum process you must be physically present in the United States. You may apply for asylum regardless of how you arrived in the United States or your current immigration status.

www.uscis.gov

To obtain asylum through the affirmative asylum process you must be physically present in the United States. You may apply for asylum status regardless of how you arrived in the United States or your current immigration status.

So, yes, illegal imigration is one method, but legal channels are an accepted and far more safe method. Therefore, if they wanted asylum and were really fleeing from something dangerous, why not just apply at the border? It makes their case rather shaky that they would instead risk to use illegal border crossing methods. That's not to day they aren't fleeing from something bad, but it definitely harms their case that they were unwilling to let it stand on it's own legs and had to drag their child across the desert and expose them to guaranteed extreme danger in order to cheat their way in and take advantage of the former catch-and-release policy of the Obama era.