As a person living on the border between New Mexico and Colorado on land that borders reservations and who drives past the site of a residential school pretty regularly, I completely agree.
Maybe that 5 year olds shouldn't be put in concentration camps?
If you're not getting it, I've heard there is a startup who can grow a soul for you in a vat and mail it to you, but I don't think that they are in production yet. Pray for seed funding before you die, I suppose.
Hoss, if you cared you'd know about all the many, many efforts at things like "Restorative Justice". Hell, you'd know what the statistics are around recidivism in the US versus other countries and be able to tell us why other places in the world have such different outcomes.
There are plenty of reasons. Mass incarcertaion is a strategy, and it's unique to the US.
If you're really curious, a good entry point is the film "13th".
As a third person observing this conversation, you seem neither curious nor interested in learning why someone might think of US mass incarceration in such strong terms.
The answers are out there, if you actually cared to find them.
Looking for opinions on the open internet doesn’t tell me what the person I asked actually thinks about the topic. The strong term they used is precisely the reason I asked.
It is already, but like a famous cartoon coyote they will keep it running until they can't.
I hate this. I just want to play music with my friends and be retired. Doing tech support for what hopefully does not become a nascent national insurgent effort is way, way less fun.
Maybe if someone can live somewhere peacefully then they should be allowed to just live there. Maybe making laws that lead to horrors is the crime.
Maybe the real nihilists are the people who'd rather see unjust laws followed than to look at something evil and re-evaluate the legitimacy of giving power to the people doing the evil thing.
I am glad you feel that _I_ have a high level of compassion for my fellow humans.
If someone posts "but Obama" in response to a bunch of -hand written letters from children in what I consider to be a literal concentration camp- then I'm going to think that person has transcended a lack of "integrity" or "critical thinking skills" into becoming a literal monster.
This is the account's M.O. You can see my response above, but basically as far as I can tell they're deeply conservative, and they try and position themselves as a like "rational centrist" by doing this "both sides" Dance.
The giveaway that you've noticed, is they never actually condemn the existing administration without also comparing them to Obama (and for reasons beyond me, specifically Obama and not say, Biden, Bush 1/2, Clinton).
big hint: how many computer-literate people do you know that would put their whole-ass name as their HN handle, in 2026? none i'd professionally associate with, thats for sure
Having an excuse for why you still haven't filled out the fourth-quadrent "unknown unknowns", doesn't make you "better".
It's entirely possible to dislike BHO for racist reasons, just like it's possible to think both he and the Bushes are literal war criminals for consistent reasons.
I think GWB is a war criminal who had a better understanding of North/South migration than BHO. I still think both of them, and about anyone who supports DJT for any reasons, are pretty vicious.
And, like I said, literal all folks who like DJT and dislike BHO are birthers of various stripes. That's my lived experience. Maybe you're some kind of unicorn, who knows.
I used to work at a company where we did hosting/ maintenance/ etc for large-ish content sites.
At some point a project came across my desk where a hard-right propaganda site for college students came across my desk and I needed to migrate it.
Folks might quibble about the reality of what that site was doing but that's how I (as a person with an MA in rhetoric) understood the site, so humor me on my assessment of that site. It was a pretty regular site on the Drudge report, though, so that might help with context.
It was a very popular site, with multiple millions of unique visitors every month, and was a lot of easy cash for the business.
At that point in my career, I felt that not doing that work would be a rather "privileged" pose to strike- it would have negative impacts on my coworkers and the very small business in general, while I would just be "uncomfortable" either way.
At some point I was asked to build out a "tracker" for things like "confederate state removals, etc", IIRC sometime around the "Unite the Right" events.
I turned the work down, even though it pissed off my boss and forced a different co-worker to do the work.
That situation was what helped me understand that the immoral and "privileged" position was to do that kind of work, which wouldn't quickly and directly harm me but was likely to harm other people at some point.
However, what I also realized was that doing that work is probably harmful to me, too, as a queer leftist who now wishes I didn't feel like I need to own guns.
Almost everyone in that small business was queer or brown or both. At some point after (I am vaguely recalling) an 8-chan related shooter, the boss of the business stopped doing updates or work on the site.
All that is to say, I used to feel like "speaking up when I didn't want to do something unethical" was a privileged thing to do but I have come to realize that the inverse is true.
Rights don’t entirely disappear because a group of individuals decides to form a collective entity. That’s the heart of the Citizen’s United decision. If an individual can aggregate data about his customers and make a decision to not serve a known offender, then surely a group of individuals can do the same. That’s their right.
Again, this is not discrimination if it’s done for specific individuals, even if it’s done using data collected in aggregate. Banning a protected group wouldn’t be illegal. But banning a specific person would not.
Whether it’s legal to sell that same data as a list of undesirables is the open untested question.
reply