4 ms·

Sure, if that’s your problem with my comment, feel free to rephrase it in your mind to something like "to promote fringe-right and anti-immigration parties and

by Sharlin 8mo ago

Sure, if that’s your problem with my comment, feel free to rephrase it in your mind to something like "to promote fringe-right and anti-immigration parties and movements that any sane observer recognizes as authoritarian and racist because they’re not even bothering to dogwhistle". If you need a source for that you haven’t been following the news.

reliabilityguy 8mo ago
> not even bothering to dogwhistle So, basically, you are saying that they are openly racist? Is there any evidence of this? > If you need a source for that you haven’t been following the news. Nice deflection. You are the one making outlandish claims, so the proof is on you and not the “news” that someone is supposed to follow.
- pdpi 8mo ago
  You want concrete proof? Vasquez Perdomo v Noem is your proof. The Supreme Court effectively legitimised racial profiling.
  - reliabilityguy 8mo ago
    > You want concrete proof? Yes. > Vasquez Perdomo v Noem is your proof. This court case has nothing to do with the claim made that US government explicitly stated that they want to promote racists and fringe-right ideology among our allies.
    - vel0city 8mo ago
      The court case established the ability for ICE to go and harass anyone who they think looks like they're potentially a migrant. Hmm, I wonder what they'll use to profile those people...
      - reliabilityguy 8mo ago
        And this domestic ruling is, in your view, an evidence of the “very explicitly stated goals of sowing discord within the US's former "allies", to weaken Europe, and to promote racist and fringe-right views.”? You can’t be serious. The original claim is about the foreign policy of US government to promote racist ideologies, and your “proof” is a ruling about constitutionality of using race and language as a indicator to investigate someone’s immigration status?
        vel0city 8mo ago
        > to promote racist and fringe-right views So yeah, this is promoting racist views of "assume everyone who looks non-white and speaks a language other than English as a potential undocumented migrant and go harass them with impunity".
        reliabilityguy 8mo ago
        I see that you still do not understand the difference between the stated claim, and its scope, and your evidence. You also seem not to understand the difference between the US government, which is an executive branch, and the Supreme Court, which is a judicial branch, and by design has no policy to push.
        deleted 8mo ago
        [deleted]
        vel0city 8mo ago
        Who do you think was involved in this supreme court case? Who was racially profiling people and doing the harassment based on race again? Which group was doing this policy that the SC gave a green stamp to continue doing?
        reliabilityguy 8mo ago
        What does it have to do with the original claim, which is not domestic in its scope, and immigration enforcement, which is domestic? The court ruled on the constitutional matter, not international policy. Do you see the difference?
    - pousada 8mo ago
      I don’t know about the rest of Europe but your administration has repeatedly been promoting the AFD in Germany - most prominently your vice president. The AFD is recognised as a far right party by the German state and is being investigated for anti-democratic activities and goals.
      - reliabilityguy 8mo ago
        Sure, but it is not the same thing as explicitly promoting racist and fringe-right ideas. JD Vance may have voiced support (I didn’t listen to his speech) for conservative or right-wing political forces in Europe, but it is not the same as promoting explicitly racist and fringe-right ideas. There is a night and day difference between the original claim, and the evidence presented.
        pousada 8mo ago
        Sorry but you are just riding semantics here - what is the difference between far-right, extreme-right and “fringe”-right? AfD is classified as extreme-right by German intelligence. The US vice president gave them an endorsement in public speeches and met with their leaders privately. The AFD is actively promoting racist, fringe(sic!)-right ideas such as “remigration” (aka trying to get rid of all German citizens that don’t look “german” enough) The US government is explicitly promoting the racist ideology that parties like the AFD represent. If that isn’t enough to open your eyes, please explain what level of “evidence” would be enough - but I rather feel like you have made up your mind long before and aren’t really looking for an honest discussion
        reliabilityguy 8mo ago
        > Sorry but you are just riding semantics here - what is the difference between far-right, extreme-right and “fringe”-right? I have no idea what is the practical difference. I would say that far right is a party or a group that believe in inherent superiority of certain race over the other. Like, white power, etc. I do not think that saying things like “my culture is better” is racist or makes you far right. > AfD is classified as extreme-right by German intelligence. > The US vice president gave them an endorsement in public speeches and met with their leaders privately. > The AFD is actively promoting racist, fringe(sic!)-right ideas such as “remigration” (aka trying to get rid of all German citizens that don’t look “german” enough) It shows support by JD Vance, sure. > The US government is explicitly promoting the racist ideology that parties like the AFD represent. I would not agree that this constitutes as explicitly promoting. In my view explicitly promoting an ideology is standing on a stand and repeating the goals of said ideology. Did JD Vance said that reimigration is a good thing, and that he fully supports it for Germany? Idk, if he did, let’s see, and I will concede. > If that isn’t enough to open your eyes, please explain what level of “evidence” would be enough - but I rather feel like you have made up your mind long before and aren’t really looking for an honest discussion I didn’t make my mind. I’m very much against racism, and any other form of discrimination. I’m also against intellectually lazy forms of debate. In my view and my experience the journalists discredited themselves so much in the past 5 years, so I simply do not trust their interpretations at all (regardless of their political affiliation). Show me the source, so I can see myself.

by Sharlin 8mo ago

reliabilityguy 8mo ago

> not even bothering to dogwhistle So, basically, you are saying that they are openly racist? Is there any evidence of this? > If you need a source for that you haven’t been following the news. Nice deflection. You are the one making outlandish claims, so the proof is on you and not the “news” that someone is supposed to follow.

pdpi 8mo ago
You want concrete proof? Vasquez Perdomo v Noem is your proof. The Supreme Court effectively legitimised racial profiling.
- reliabilityguy 8mo ago
  > You want concrete proof? Yes. > Vasquez Perdomo v Noem is your proof. This court case has nothing to do with the claim made that US government explicitly stated that they want to promote racists and fringe-right ideology among our allies.
  - vel0city 8mo ago
    The court case established the ability for ICE to go and harass anyone who they think looks like they're potentially a migrant. Hmm, I wonder what they'll use to profile those people...
    - reliabilityguy 8mo ago
      And this domestic ruling is, in your view, an evidence of the “very explicitly stated goals of sowing discord within the US's former "allies", to weaken Europe, and to promote racist and fringe-right views.”? You can’t be serious. The original claim is about the foreign policy of US government to promote racist ideologies, and your “proof” is a ruling about constitutionality of using race and language as a indicator to investigate someone’s immigration status?
      - vel0city 8mo ago
        > to promote racist and fringe-right views So yeah, this is promoting racist views of "assume everyone who looks non-white and speaks a language other than English as a potential undocumented migrant and go harass them with impunity".
        reliabilityguy 8mo ago
        I see that you still do not understand the difference between the stated claim, and its scope, and your evidence. You also seem not to understand the difference between the US government, which is an executive branch, and the Supreme Court, which is a judicial branch, and by design has no policy to push.
        deleted 8mo ago
        [deleted]
        vel0city 8mo ago
        Who do you think was involved in this supreme court case? Who was racially profiling people and doing the harassment based on race again? Which group was doing this policy that the SC gave a green stamp to continue doing?
        reliabilityguy 8mo ago
        What does it have to do with the original claim, which is not domestic in its scope, and immigration enforcement, which is domestic? The court ruled on the constitutional matter, not international policy. Do you see the difference?
  - pousada 8mo ago
    I don’t know about the rest of Europe but your administration has repeatedly been promoting the AFD in Germany - most prominently your vice president. The AFD is recognised as a far right party by the German state and is being investigated for anti-democratic activities and goals.
    - reliabilityguy 8mo ago
      Sure, but it is not the same thing as explicitly promoting racist and fringe-right ideas. JD Vance may have voiced support (I didn’t listen to his speech) for conservative or right-wing political forces in Europe, but it is not the same as promoting explicitly racist and fringe-right ideas. There is a night and day difference between the original claim, and the evidence presented.
      - pousada 8mo ago
        Sorry but you are just riding semantics here - what is the difference between far-right, extreme-right and “fringe”-right? AfD is classified as extreme-right by German intelligence. The US vice president gave them an endorsement in public speeches and met with their leaders privately. The AFD is actively promoting racist, fringe(sic!)-right ideas such as “remigration” (aka trying to get rid of all German citizens that don’t look “german” enough) The US government is explicitly promoting the racist ideology that parties like the AFD represent. If that isn’t enough to open your eyes, please explain what level of “evidence” would be enough - but I rather feel like you have made up your mind long before and aren’t really looking for an honest discussion
        reliabilityguy 8mo ago
        > Sorry but you are just riding semantics here - what is the difference between far-right, extreme-right and “fringe”-right? I have no idea what is the practical difference. I would say that far right is a party or a group that believe in inherent superiority of certain race over the other. Like, white power, etc. I do not think that saying things like “my culture is better” is racist or makes you far right. > AfD is classified as extreme-right by German intelligence. > The US vice president gave them an endorsement in public speeches and met with their leaders privately. > The AFD is actively promoting racist, fringe(sic!)-right ideas such as “remigration” (aka trying to get rid of all German citizens that don’t look “german” enough) It shows support by JD Vance, sure. > The US government is explicitly promoting the racist ideology that parties like the AFD represent. I would not agree that this constitutes as explicitly promoting. In my view explicitly promoting an ideology is standing on a stand and repeating the goals of said ideology. Did JD Vance said that reimigration is a good thing, and that he fully supports it for Germany? Idk, if he did, let’s see, and I will concede. > If that isn’t enough to open your eyes, please explain what level of “evidence” would be enough - but I rather feel like you have made up your mind long before and aren’t really looking for an honest discussion I didn’t make my mind. I’m very much against racism, and any other form of discrimination. I’m also against intellectually lazy forms of debate. In my view and my experience the journalists discredited themselves so much in the past 5 years, so I simply do not trust their interpretations at all (regardless of their political affiliation). Show me the source, so I can see myself.