3 ms·

If you'd stop the ad-hominems and suggestions of malice you'd more effectively make your case. I'm not going to play this game of me investing my time in rando

by geertj 1y ago

If you'd stop the ad-hominems and suggestions of malice you'd more effectively make your case. I'm not going to play this game of me investing my time in random links posted to this discussion, but as a once time exception: - The first link claims a man got detained where ICE thought he had a fake ID but where he was actually a citizen. From the article: "It is not clear where the construction is located and efforts to find contact information for Venegas were not successful. Efforts to reach ICE representatives for comment were not immediately successful." So we have an unsubstantiated claim in an online publication. Is it true? Maybe. If it is, then the worst claimed here is that someone one detained. Not even arrested, let alone anything worse than that. This certainly does not rise to the claims you're making. If the article is true, this is likely an operational mistake that was corrected soon afterwards. - The second link claims that the mosquitoes in a new temporary detention facility amount to torture. Do I like the optics of the facility? No. Do I want people in detention to get treated with dignity? Of course. The claim of torture is quite extraordinary though. If the facility is not up to standards, I have trust in the system that it will get closed.

saubeidl 1y ago
Regarding the first point, you are leaning heavily on euphemisms ("detained") to make your case. Regarding the second point, you purposefully picked the least offensive part (the mosquitoes, as opposed to the starvation, the sleep deprivation, the quarters tigher than in concentration camps), to misrepresent what is happening here. It is exactly behavioral patterns like these that make it hard to assume good faith argument.
- geertj 1y ago
  This will be my last reply in this thread. We're not going to agree and you keep implying bad faith. I'll reply to one last factual point, and forgo replying to the continued implication of bad faith. > Regarding the first point, you are leaning heavily on euphemisms ("detained") to make your case. No, "detained" is a precise legal term that is used in the article in the intended legal way. It's a step prior to arrest, where an officer has stopped you for some probably cause. When detained, you are not allowed to leave, while the officer checks what's going on. The result can be that you are free to go, or that things escalate to an arrest (you are taken in custody).
  - saubeidl 1y ago
    "Detained" is also the term the Nazis used for people they put into concentration camps.

by geertj 1y ago

saubeidl 1y ago

Regarding the first point, you are leaning heavily on euphemisms ("detained") to make your case. Regarding the second point, you purposefully picked the least offensive part (the mosquitoes, as opposed to the starvation, the sleep deprivation, the quarters tigher than in concentration camps), to misrepresent what is happening here. It is exactly behavioral patterns like these that make it hard to assume good faith argument.

geertj 1y ago
This will be my last reply in this thread. We're not going to agree and you keep implying bad faith. I'll reply to one last factual point, and forgo replying to the continued implication of bad faith. > Regarding the first point, you are leaning heavily on euphemisms ("detained") to make your case. No, "detained" is a precise legal term that is used in the article in the intended legal way. It's a step prior to arrest, where an officer has stopped you for some probably cause. When detained, you are not allowed to leave, while the officer checks what's going on. The result can be that you are free to go, or that things escalate to an arrest (you are taken in custody).
- saubeidl 1y ago
  "Detained" is also the term the Nazis used for people they put into concentration camps.