5 ms·

It says it in the title, he's Palestinian. Nevermind that it's likely illegal, we don't live in a world where that matters any more.

easytiger 2y ago
The title does not say that
- sour-taste 2y ago
  You're right updated
matthewdgreen 2y ago
To be very clear, we do live in a world where the distinction between legal and illegal, right and wrong, matters. And we will always live in that world. Not to pick a fight with you. It obviously does not matter to the people running this administration, I agree with you.
- RIMR 2y ago
  What the difference? Legal vs. Illegal only matters if it is enforced. If it isn't being enforced, then there is no meaningful distinction between legal and illegal. You acknowledge that this distinction doesn't matter to our government, so why pretend that the distinction matters? We should be screaming from the rooftop that it doesn't, because it's important to understand that right now. If the government has no interest in the rule of law to attack its people, than the people need to abandon rule of law laws to resist their government. If we keep pretending that the rules matter to us while the government doesn't even pretend that the rules matter to them, we will be destroyed.
  - adgjlsfhk1 2y ago
    > You acknowledge that this distinction doesn't matter to our government, so why pretend that the distinction matters? We should be screaming from the rooftop that it doesn't, because it's important to understand that right now. We should be screaming from the rooftops that it does (or else).
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > If the government has no interest in the rule of law to attack its people We got here in part due to this brand of lazy nihilism. Courts are restraining Trump. It takes time. But they’re doing it, all the way up to SCOTUS. Trump remains popular, but it’s slowly eroding. Want to know what nukes all of that? A couple of idiots going out on a joy riot.
    - 9283409232 2y ago
      Trump being popular is insane in itself.
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        People take time to admit they fucked up. And the effects of his policies haven’t yet manifested widely for the people who support him.
        hayst4ck 2y ago
        That assumes that people exist within a shared reality influenced by facts, but people aren't connected to reality and aren't influenced by facts. We can see that with vaccinations. The system that divorces people from reality is social media, so as long as social media is pumping un-reality into people's lives, I think you're being rather optimistic. What's happening right now is directly empowering social media oligarchs, so they have absolutely no reason to stop. The foundation of their power is un-reality. Hope is not a strategy.
        9283409232 2y ago
        This is what I was trying to say but wasn't sure how to say it. You can't deprogram people while they are drinking from the firehose and they have no incentive to disconnect. You would like family and friends, children cutting ties would be thing to force people to reevaluate but they just keep going as normal.
      - acdha 2y ago
- hayst4ck 2y ago
  That's also incorrect in a certain way. All societies exist on a "law" to "rule" spectrum, what determines whether you have law or rule is who the final arbiters of justice are. If citizens themselves are the final arbiters of justice, you ironically live in a law based society. If those with power are the final arbiters of justice, then you live in a society with rules, not laws. The absence of law is rule by those who are most powerful. The explicit purpose of law is to prevent arbitrary wielding of power. With this understanding he's correct, because law is an entirely self fulfilling prophecy. If GP does not wish to enforce the rule of law himself, then there is no law. The preamble of the declaration of independence states this idea more eloquently. The person you are responding to doesn't feel any personal responsibility for protecting a law based government, and if everyone feels that way, whoever has the most power gets their way, because who is going to stop them, who will provide consequences when the legal system is a weapon of the powerful, rather than a check on power?
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > If citizens themselves are the final arbiters of justice, you ironically live in a law based society No, this is mob rule. > who will provide consequences when the legal system is a weapon of the powerful, rather than a check on power? This is a bad case for making this claim. While at record lows, the sympathy gap for Israel over Palestine among American voters remains in the double digits [1]. The argument you’re looking for is the judiciary’s role in protecting minority rights [2]. In overruling popular will. [1] https://www.newsweek.com/american-support-israel-hits-record-low-poll-2040978 https://www.newsweek.com/american-support-israel-hits-record... [2] https://pennstatelaw.psu.edu/_file/Ross/Chapter_Five.pdf https://pennstatelaw.psu.edu/_file/Ross/Chapter_Five.pdf
    - hayst4ck 2y ago
      > No, this is mob rule. I understand why you would say that, but I don't think you've thought it through, understood the point I'm making, and tried to disarm the strongest version of it possible. Go and read the preamble to the declaration of independence, seriously. America was founded by citizens of Great Britain stating that they are the final arbiters of justice, not British courts. The British courts would have said the founding fathers are violating the law. They would have found them participating in mob rule, and they did try to put down that mob with an army. You should answer a few questions: (1) What is a right, and what is the relationship between law and rights. Does law grant rights, or does law protect rights? (2) How does a government go from absolute monarchy (king is able to make all the laws and enforce them arbitrarily) to a law based society? (3) How do you bootstrap a law based society? Can you make a law based society without breaking the law? (4) Was the civil rights movement under MLK a form of mob rule?
- tgma 2y ago
  > It obviously does not matter to the people running this administration, I agree with you. How is it so obvious? What is an example where they broke a law and they continued to do so after courts ruled otherwise? There have been a number of cases that were judicially reversed both in Trump 1.0 and 2.0. They may have non-traditional interpretations of the law, but to say they don't care about laws at all is filed under TDS. Obviously they do as it dictates the boundaries and therefore their tactics.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

easytiger 2y ago

The title does not say that

sour-taste 2y ago
You're right updated

matthewdgreen 2y ago

To be very clear, we do live in a world where the distinction between legal and illegal, right and wrong, matters. And we will always live in that world. Not to pick a fight with you. It obviously does not matter to the people running this administration, I agree with you.

RIMR 2y ago
What the difference? Legal vs. Illegal only matters if it is enforced. If it isn't being enforced, then there is no meaningful distinction between legal and illegal. You acknowledge that this distinction doesn't matter to our government, so why pretend that the distinction matters? We should be screaming from the rooftop that it doesn't, because it's important to understand that right now. If the government has no interest in the rule of law to attack its people, than the people need to abandon rule of law laws to resist their government. If we keep pretending that the rules matter to us while the government doesn't even pretend that the rules matter to them, we will be destroyed.
- adgjlsfhk1 2y ago
  > You acknowledge that this distinction doesn't matter to our government, so why pretend that the distinction matters? We should be screaming from the rooftop that it doesn't, because it's important to understand that right now. We should be screaming from the rooftops that it does (or else).
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > If the government has no interest in the rule of law to attack its people We got here in part due to this brand of lazy nihilism. Courts are restraining Trump. It takes time. But they’re doing it, all the way up to SCOTUS. Trump remains popular, but it’s slowly eroding. Want to know what nukes all of that? A couple of idiots going out on a joy riot.
  - 9283409232 2y ago
    Trump being popular is insane in itself.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      People take time to admit they fucked up. And the effects of his policies haven’t yet manifested widely for the people who support him.
      - hayst4ck 2y ago
        That assumes that people exist within a shared reality influenced by facts, but people aren't connected to reality and aren't influenced by facts. We can see that with vaccinations. The system that divorces people from reality is social media, so as long as social media is pumping un-reality into people's lives, I think you're being rather optimistic. What's happening right now is directly empowering social media oligarchs, so they have absolutely no reason to stop. The foundation of their power is un-reality. Hope is not a strategy.
        9283409232 2y ago
        This is what I was trying to say but wasn't sure how to say it. You can't deprogram people while they are drinking from the firehose and they have no incentive to disconnect. You would like family and friends, children cutting ties would be thing to force people to reevaluate but they just keep going as normal.
    - acdha 2y ago
hayst4ck 2y ago
That's also incorrect in a certain way. All societies exist on a "law" to "rule" spectrum, what determines whether you have law or rule is who the final arbiters of justice are. If citizens themselves are the final arbiters of justice, you ironically live in a law based society. If those with power are the final arbiters of justice, then you live in a society with rules, not laws. The absence of law is rule by those who are most powerful. The explicit purpose of law is to prevent arbitrary wielding of power. With this understanding he's correct, because law is an entirely self fulfilling prophecy. If GP does not wish to enforce the rule of law himself, then there is no law. The preamble of the declaration of independence states this idea more eloquently. The person you are responding to doesn't feel any personal responsibility for protecting a law based government, and if everyone feels that way, whoever has the most power gets their way, because who is going to stop them, who will provide consequences when the legal system is a weapon of the powerful, rather than a check on power?
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > If citizens themselves are the final arbiters of justice, you ironically live in a law based society No, this is mob rule. > who will provide consequences when the legal system is a weapon of the powerful, rather than a check on power? This is a bad case for making this claim. While at record lows, the sympathy gap for Israel over Palestine among American voters remains in the double digits [1]. The argument you’re looking for is the judiciary’s role in protecting minority rights [2]. In overruling popular will. [1] https://www.newsweek.com/american-support-israel-hits-record-low-poll-2040978 https://www.newsweek.com/american-support-israel-hits-record... [2] https://pennstatelaw.psu.edu/_file/Ross/Chapter_Five.pdf https://pennstatelaw.psu.edu/_file/Ross/Chapter_Five.pdf
  - hayst4ck 2y ago
    > No, this is mob rule. I understand why you would say that, but I don't think you've thought it through, understood the point I'm making, and tried to disarm the strongest version of it possible. Go and read the preamble to the declaration of independence, seriously. America was founded by citizens of Great Britain stating that they are the final arbiters of justice, not British courts. The British courts would have said the founding fathers are violating the law. They would have found them participating in mob rule, and they did try to put down that mob with an army. You should answer a few questions: (1) What is a right, and what is the relationship between law and rights. Does law grant rights, or does law protect rights? (2) How does a government go from absolute monarchy (king is able to make all the laws and enforce them arbitrarily) to a law based society? (3) How do you bootstrap a law based society? Can you make a law based society without breaking the law? (4) Was the civil rights movement under MLK a form of mob rule?
tgma 2y ago
> It obviously does not matter to the people running this administration, I agree with you. How is it so obvious? What is an example where they broke a law and they continued to do so after courts ruled otherwise? There have been a number of cases that were judicially reversed both in Trump 1.0 and 2.0. They may have non-traditional interpretations of the law, but to say they don't care about laws at all is filed under TDS. Obviously they do as it dictates the boundaries and therefore their tactics.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]