3 ms·

It's only natural for you to try to deflect away from discussing your own clear struggles with neurosis and insecurities about your own mental health, but I rea

It's only natural for you to try to deflect away from discussing your own clear struggles with neurosis and insecurities about your own mental health, but I really do feel like you'd benefit from leaning into this moment and maybe discovering why you're unable to hold a discussion without resorting to overly transparent attempts at painting anyone that disagrees with you as mentally unwell rather than engaging with anything of substance. It speaks to a deeply rooted issue in your psyche where you must project your own fears and worries about your mental health on to others rather than face your own ignorance and a lack of basic maturity that is unbecoming of someone of your age. I'm guessing you struggle to keep longterm relationships because you blame all of your issues on other people rather than being able to self-reflect on your own flaws and, because of your own supreme confidence in your own flawed judgement, it drives everyone away that might care about you. Is it hard to be that miserable and unlikeable? I'm sure it is, but the good news is that you can work on yourself and you can improve your relations with your fellow humans. It is possible to change and grow.

frumplestlatz 9mo ago
Now you just seem ridiculous and mentally ill. Let me repeat. If we were really on the cusp of a new post-Weimar NSDAP Germany, almost any form of resistance would be ethically justified. Is that what you’re claiming?
- willmarch 9mo ago
  It’s revealing that you need that little morality-play false dilemma to avoid the actual topic. You’ve used “mentally ill” the way other people use citations: as a substitute for substance. It doesn’t make you the adult in the room, it just makes you look like someone who can’t defend a position without trying to pathologize disagreement. Here’s one fact you can’t hand-wave away: DHS/USCIS is proposing to expand biometrics collection (including DNA) to people merely “associated with” an immigration benefit request (explicitly including petitioners/sponsors/signatories, i.e., often U.S. citizens) regardless of age. So, you can either argue why sweeping citizens into government biometric/DNA collection for paperwork is normal and lawful, or you can keep doing the “everyone who disagrees with me is unstable” routine. One of those is an argument; the other is a tell.
  - frumplestlatz 9mo ago
    Plenty of people disagree with me who aren’t mentally unstable. They’re just not the ones talking about “boots on the throat” and this being the rise of a new Nazi regime. You don’t get to claim wild things like that and then immediately pretend you never did. Nobody buys your uno reverse attempt.
    - willmarch 9mo ago
      “Boot on the neck” is a metaphor for state power being applied to people who can’t meaningfully resist it, not a claim that we’re already living in 1933 Berlin. And “history rhymes” isn’t “Trump is literally Hitler”, it’s the (obvious) point that democratic backsliding happens incrementally, and the people enabling it always insist the alarm is “hysteria” right up until it isn’t. Also: notice how you still didn’t touch the substance. One concrete example: DHS/USCIS is proposing expanded biometrics collection (including DNA) for people merely “associated with” an immigration benefit request—explicitly including petitioners/sponsors/signatories (often U.S. citizens), regardless of age. So, answer the actual question you keep dodging: do you think sweeping citizens into biometric/DNA collection as a condition of filing paperwork is normal and lawful, yes or no? If yes, cite the authority and defend the scope. If no, congratulations: you’ve been arguing with my tone because you can’t defend the policy. Your “uno reverse” line is basically an admission that the only thing you’ve got is vibes and insult-work.
      - frumplestlatz 9mo ago
        > do you think sweeping citizens into biometric/DNA collection as a condition of filing paperwork is normal and lawful, yes or no? Maybe. If the proposed rule is adopted as-is after the comment period, it will almost certainly face legal challenges. I don’t know what the result of those challenges would be. I suspect it will very much hinge on the specifics of the rules as actually adopted. None of this is relevant to HN — or deserving of breathless remarks about boots, Nazis, or similar.
        willmarch 9mo ago

frumplestlatz 9mo ago

Now you just seem ridiculous and mentally ill. Let me repeat. If we were really on the cusp of a new post-Weimar NSDAP Germany, almost any form of resistance would be ethically justified. Is that what you’re claiming?

willmarch 9mo ago
It’s revealing that you need that little morality-play false dilemma to avoid the actual topic. You’ve used “mentally ill” the way other people use citations: as a substitute for substance. It doesn’t make you the adult in the room, it just makes you look like someone who can’t defend a position without trying to pathologize disagreement. Here’s one fact you can’t hand-wave away: DHS/USCIS is proposing to expand biometrics collection (including DNA) to people merely “associated with” an immigration benefit request (explicitly including petitioners/sponsors/signatories, i.e., often U.S. citizens) regardless of age. So, you can either argue why sweeping citizens into government biometric/DNA collection for paperwork is normal and lawful, or you can keep doing the “everyone who disagrees with me is unstable” routine. One of those is an argument; the other is a tell.
- frumplestlatz 9mo ago
  Plenty of people disagree with me who aren’t mentally unstable. They’re just not the ones talking about “boots on the throat” and this being the rise of a new Nazi regime. You don’t get to claim wild things like that and then immediately pretend you never did. Nobody buys your uno reverse attempt.
  - willmarch 9mo ago
    “Boot on the neck” is a metaphor for state power being applied to people who can’t meaningfully resist it, not a claim that we’re already living in 1933 Berlin. And “history rhymes” isn’t “Trump is literally Hitler”, it’s the (obvious) point that democratic backsliding happens incrementally, and the people enabling it always insist the alarm is “hysteria” right up until it isn’t. Also: notice how you still didn’t touch the substance. One concrete example: DHS/USCIS is proposing expanded biometrics collection (including DNA) for people merely “associated with” an immigration benefit request—explicitly including petitioners/sponsors/signatories (often U.S. citizens), regardless of age. So, answer the actual question you keep dodging: do you think sweeping citizens into biometric/DNA collection as a condition of filing paperwork is normal and lawful, yes or no? If yes, cite the authority and defend the scope. If no, congratulations: you’ve been arguing with my tone because you can’t defend the policy. Your “uno reverse” line is basically an admission that the only thing you’ve got is vibes and insult-work.
    - frumplestlatz 9mo ago
      > do you think sweeping citizens into biometric/DNA collection as a condition of filing paperwork is normal and lawful, yes or no? Maybe. If the proposed rule is adopted as-is after the comment period, it will almost certainly face legal challenges. I don’t know what the result of those challenges would be. I suspect it will very much hinge on the specifics of the rules as actually adopted. None of this is relevant to HN — or deserving of breathless remarks about boots, Nazis, or similar.
      - willmarch 9mo ago