4 ms·

The irony of doing this while covering their own faces

by elicash 1y ago

throwaway48476 1y ago
[flagged]
- elicash 1y ago
  All of the replies to my comment are focusing on the definition of irony. It's like I'm 12 years old again hearing all my classmates talk about why having spoons when you need a knife isn't "actually" irony.
  - crooked-v 1y ago
    I think the nitpicking is because the phrasing implies that it's not an intentional choice on the part of the government.
    - elicash 1y ago
      It does not imply that. Source: me, the person who wrote it.
    - KalMann 1y ago
      I don't think his phrasing implies that.
  - Freedom2 1y ago
    What did you actually expect from commenters on this site?
- walletdrainer 1y ago
  I have a cashmere balaclava from Rick Owens if high fashion masking is what you’re after Boris Bidjan Saberi also has hoodies with face coverings
Noumenon72 1y ago
That's about as ironic as carrying a gun while wearing a bulletproof vest. If the tech exists and works it changes both defense and offense.
- tracker1 1y ago
  That latter part isn't ironic at all... just because you carry a gun, doesn't mean you aren't going to be shot at.
  - Noumenon72 1y ago
    That's the comparison I was making -- just because you target people with facial recognition, doesn't mean people won't target you with facial recognition. Gangs or Abolish ICE
crooked-v 1y ago
[flagged]
davidw 1y ago
It's not ironic, it's saying "the rules are for you, not for me, fuck you".
- belter 1y ago
  People voted for this...some of them three times...
  - anigbrowl 1y ago
    Humans display a reduced set of consistent behavioral phenotypes in dyadic games https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.1600451 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.1600451
  - more_corn 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - krapp 1y ago
      >People voted for a bait and switch. There was no "bait and switch." Nothing Trump is doing now should be a surprise to anyone who paid attention to him or the Trumpist movement over the last decade. >If we give them room to say “this isn’t what wanted” we give them room to say “next time I want something different.” The problem is, this is exactly what many of them wanted, and now they're just trying to cover their ass because the revolution didn't work out the way they expected.
      - nobody9999 1y ago
        >The problem is, this is exactly what many of them wanted, and now they're just trying to cover their ass because the revolution didn't work out the way they expected. That's as may be, but if you give these folks the room to act differently next time, at least some of them will. Which might well be enough to turn the tide in the next elections. As such, writing off everyone who didn't support exactly what you support as a racist, fascistic, bloodthirsty scumbag who should be put down isn't the best strategy. I'm incensed by what's been going on and I never supported Trump or his (now) hangers on. That said, I'm sure that you and I disagree about a bunch of things. Does that make me an unredeemably evil human being? In fact, the vast majority of Americans agree about much more than they disagree. Your "othering" of folks is just as bad as those who "other" folks who believe what you do. No. This isn't a "both sides" argument. Rather it's a "your fellow Americans are humans too and mostly want the same things. Why don't we agree on those things and work to come to amicable resolutions where possible?" kind of argument.
stronglikedan 1y ago
That's fine, as long as they aren't making anyone remove face coverings. People are allowed to cover their faces in public places. And we can't tell from this biased article whether they had probable cause to stop anyone that they did.
- fabian2k 1y ago
  What they have said previously is that they consider someone looking hispanic as probable cause. I don't see any reason to give them the benefit of the doubt here.
- fn-mote 1y ago
  Nahhh… hiding the identities of public officials isn’t ok in my book. It’s not an “ok for me if it’s ok for you” situation.
- dashundchen 1y ago
  Government officials arresting people should be required to positively identify themselves and provide the legal reason they are detaining someone. Otherwise there is no difference between a kidnapper and ICE agent.
kragen 1y ago
What's ironic about it? That's like saying it's ironic for soldiers to fire their guns while in a trench. They're doing things unto others that they would not have done unto them.
- ASalazarMX 1y ago
  Except law is not a battle field, otherwise lawyers would decide the victors, or guns the outcomes of trials. Law is supposed to strive for justice, war is as lawless as it can get away with.
  - kragen 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - peterfirefly 1y ago
      [flagged]
      - nobody9999 1y ago
        > But they are trying very hard to not throw all brown people with an accent into detention centers Are you sure about that? There's quite a bit of evidence to the contrary, starting with the really high false-positive[0][1[[2][3][4][5] rates of facial recognition, especially among people of color. In fact, as the studies linked below show, people of color are misidentified (i.e., false positive) more than 1/3 of the time. That's not nearly accurate enough to round folks up if 10 of every 30 arrested, detained and potentially deported actually aren't the folks you're looking for. What could possibly go wrong? [0] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/police-facial-recognition-technology-cant-tell-black-people-apart/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/police-facial-rec... [1] https://www.aclu-mn.org/en/news/biased-technology-automated-discrimination-facial-recognition https://www.aclu-mn.org/en/news/biased-technology-automated-... [2] https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/facial-recognition-race-1.5403899 https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/facial-recognition-race-1.54... [3] https://jusmedia.co.uk/riotandreason/2025/06/02/face-the-bias-how-facial-recognition-fails-people-of-colour/ https://jusmedia.co.uk/riotandreason/2025/06/02/face-the-bia... [4] https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2019/12/nist-study-evaluates-effects-race-age-sex-face-recognition-software https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2019/12/nist-study-eva... [5] https://civilrights.org/edfund/2024/09/25/advocates-ring-alarm-on-civil-rights-abuses-of-facial-recognition-technology-in-policing/# https://civilrights.org/edfund/2024/09/25/advocates-ring-ala...
throw0101c 1y ago
> The irony of doing this while covering their own faces It’s best to understand that fascists see hypocrisy as a virtue. It’s how they signal that the things they are doing to people were never meant to be equally applied. It’s not an inconsistency. It’s very consistent to the only true fascist value, which is domination. It’s very important to understand, fascists don’t just see hypocrisy as a necessary evil or an unintended side-effect. It’s the purpose. The ability to enjoy yourself the thing you’re able to deny others, because you dominate, is the whole point. For fascists, hypocrisy is a great virtue—the greatest. * https://mastodon.social/@JuliusGoat/109551955251655267 https://mastodon.social/@JuliusGoat/109551955251655267 * Via: https://kottke.org/25/03/for-fascists-hypocrisy-is-a-virtue https://kottke.org/25/03/for-fascists-hypocrisy-is-a-virtue
- dragonwriter 1y ago
  Or, put more succinctly, Wilhoit’s Law (which is framed as about “conservatism” rather than “fascism”, but the latter can be viewed as, within the context of the description, a complex of ideas which includes the former as its central element): Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.
  - ASalazarMX 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - dragonwriter 1y ago
      That conservatism (including fascism) foundationally rests on something that involves explicitly unequal standards does not mean that every hypocrite is a conservative, correct. (p implies q) does not imply (q iimplies p). Also, though, a lot of groups with some degree of leftist rhetoric are substantially right-wing hierarchy-promoting groups (even promoting fascist-style leader-centric structures) that are simply trying to replace one heirarchy with another rather than eliminate hierarchy, a tradition of deceptive rhetorical positioning which has included fascists as far back as the early days of the National Socialist German Workers Party.
jaco6 1y ago
[dead]
marcusverus 1y ago
[flagged]
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- cozzyd 1y ago
  The evidence of their malevolence goes far behind face coverings (which let's face it, is probably to avoid embarrassment in their community the next time they teargas a children's Halloween parade).

The irony of doing this while covering their own faces

throwaway48476 1y ago

[flagged]

elicash 1y ago
All of the replies to my comment are focusing on the definition of irony. It's like I'm 12 years old again hearing all my classmates talk about why having spoons when you need a knife isn't "actually" irony.
- crooked-v 1y ago
  I think the nitpicking is because the phrasing implies that it's not an intentional choice on the part of the government.
  - elicash 1y ago
    It does not imply that. Source: me, the person who wrote it.
  - KalMann 1y ago
    I don't think his phrasing implies that.
- Freedom2 1y ago
  What did you actually expect from commenters on this site?
walletdrainer 1y ago
I have a cashmere balaclava from Rick Owens if high fashion masking is what you’re after Boris Bidjan Saberi also has hoodies with face coverings

Noumenon72 1y ago

That's about as ironic as carrying a gun while wearing a bulletproof vest. If the tech exists and works it changes both defense and offense.

tracker1 1y ago
That latter part isn't ironic at all... just because you carry a gun, doesn't mean you aren't going to be shot at.
- Noumenon72 1y ago
  That's the comparison I was making -- just because you target people with facial recognition, doesn't mean people won't target you with facial recognition. Gangs or Abolish ICE

crooked-v 1y ago

[flagged]

davidw 1y ago

It's not ironic, it's saying "the rules are for you, not for me, fuck you".

belter 1y ago
People voted for this...some of them three times...
- anigbrowl 1y ago
  Humans display a reduced set of consistent behavioral phenotypes in dyadic games https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.1600451 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.1600451
- more_corn 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - krapp 1y ago
    >People voted for a bait and switch. There was no "bait and switch." Nothing Trump is doing now should be a surprise to anyone who paid attention to him or the Trumpist movement over the last decade. >If we give them room to say “this isn’t what wanted” we give them room to say “next time I want something different.” The problem is, this is exactly what many of them wanted, and now they're just trying to cover their ass because the revolution didn't work out the way they expected.
    - nobody9999 1y ago
      >The problem is, this is exactly what many of them wanted, and now they're just trying to cover their ass because the revolution didn't work out the way they expected. That's as may be, but if you give these folks the room to act differently next time, at least some of them will. Which might well be enough to turn the tide in the next elections. As such, writing off everyone who didn't support exactly what you support as a racist, fascistic, bloodthirsty scumbag who should be put down isn't the best strategy. I'm incensed by what's been going on and I never supported Trump or his (now) hangers on. That said, I'm sure that you and I disagree about a bunch of things. Does that make me an unredeemably evil human being? In fact, the vast majority of Americans agree about much more than they disagree. Your "othering" of folks is just as bad as those who "other" folks who believe what you do. No. This isn't a "both sides" argument. Rather it's a "your fellow Americans are humans too and mostly want the same things. Why don't we agree on those things and work to come to amicable resolutions where possible?" kind of argument.

stronglikedan 1y ago

That's fine, as long as they aren't making anyone remove face coverings. People are allowed to cover their faces in public places. And we can't tell from this biased article whether they had probable cause to stop anyone that they did.

fabian2k 1y ago
What they have said previously is that they consider someone looking hispanic as probable cause. I don't see any reason to give them the benefit of the doubt here.
fn-mote 1y ago
Nahhh… hiding the identities of public officials isn’t ok in my book. It’s not an “ok for me if it’s ok for you” situation.
dashundchen 1y ago
Government officials arresting people should be required to positively identify themselves and provide the legal reason they are detaining someone. Otherwise there is no difference between a kidnapper and ICE agent.

kragen 1y ago

What's ironic about it? That's like saying it's ironic for soldiers to fire their guns while in a trench. They're doing things unto others that they would not have done unto them.

ASalazarMX 1y ago
Except law is not a battle field, otherwise lawyers would decide the victors, or guns the outcomes of trials. Law is supposed to strive for justice, war is as lawless as it can get away with.
- kragen 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - peterfirefly 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - nobody9999 1y ago
      > But they are trying very hard to not throw all brown people with an accent into detention centers Are you sure about that? There's quite a bit of evidence to the contrary, starting with the really high false-positive[0][1[[2][3][4][5] rates of facial recognition, especially among people of color. In fact, as the studies linked below show, people of color are misidentified (i.e., false positive) more than 1/3 of the time. That's not nearly accurate enough to round folks up if 10 of every 30 arrested, detained and potentially deported actually aren't the folks you're looking for. What could possibly go wrong? [0] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/police-facial-recognition-technology-cant-tell-black-people-apart/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/police-facial-rec... [1] https://www.aclu-mn.org/en/news/biased-technology-automated-discrimination-facial-recognition https://www.aclu-mn.org/en/news/biased-technology-automated-... [2] https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/facial-recognition-race-1.5403899 https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/facial-recognition-race-1.54... [3] https://jusmedia.co.uk/riotandreason/2025/06/02/face-the-bias-how-facial-recognition-fails-people-of-colour/ https://jusmedia.co.uk/riotandreason/2025/06/02/face-the-bia... [4] https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2019/12/nist-study-evaluates-effects-race-age-sex-face-recognition-software https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2019/12/nist-study-eva... [5] https://civilrights.org/edfund/2024/09/25/advocates-ring-alarm-on-civil-rights-abuses-of-facial-recognition-technology-in-policing/# https://civilrights.org/edfund/2024/09/25/advocates-ring-ala...

throw0101c 1y ago

> The irony of doing this while covering their own faces It’s best to understand that fascists see hypocrisy as a virtue. It’s how they signal that the things they are doing to people were never meant to be equally applied. It’s not an inconsistency. It’s very consistent to the only true fascist value, which is domination. It’s very important to understand, fascists don’t just see hypocrisy as a necessary evil or an unintended side-effect. It’s the purpose. The ability to enjoy yourself the thing you’re able to deny others, because you dominate, is the whole point. For fascists, hypocrisy is a great virtue—the greatest. * https://mastodon.social/@JuliusGoat/109551955251655267 https://mastodon.social/@JuliusGoat/109551955251655267 * Via: https://kottke.org/25/03/for-fascists-hypocrisy-is-a-virtue https://kottke.org/25/03/for-fascists-hypocrisy-is-a-virtue

dragonwriter 1y ago
Or, put more succinctly, Wilhoit’s Law (which is framed as about “conservatism” rather than “fascism”, but the latter can be viewed as, within the context of the description, a complex of ideas which includes the former as its central element): Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.
- ASalazarMX 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - dragonwriter 1y ago
    That conservatism (including fascism) foundationally rests on something that involves explicitly unequal standards does not mean that every hypocrite is a conservative, correct. (p implies q) does not imply (q iimplies p). Also, though, a lot of groups with some degree of leftist rhetoric are substantially right-wing hierarchy-promoting groups (even promoting fascist-style leader-centric structures) that are simply trying to replace one heirarchy with another rather than eliminate hierarchy, a tradition of deceptive rhetorical positioning which has included fascists as far back as the early days of the National Socialist German Workers Party.

jaco6 1y ago

[dead]

marcusverus 1y ago

[flagged]

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
cozzyd 1y ago
The evidence of their malevolence goes far behind face coverings (which let's face it, is probably to avoid embarrassment in their community the next time they teargas a children's Halloween parade).