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.
> That's like saying it's ironic for soldiers to fire their guns while in a trench.
ICE using military tactics (be it trenches or masks) is the real problem here. ICE aren't soldiers, they're a part of law enforcement.
Unfortunately in the U.S. today we not only do use troops for law enforcement, but we're using law enforcement as troops. Neither is the correct role for those services.
The US does in fact have customs and immigration laws; are you claiming that those laws were not properly passed, under some kind of anarchist or Sovereign Citizen kind of theory? Or that the State has not charged ICE with enforcement of them?
I think they're saying that while ICE calls themselves law enforcement they're really just (at least acting like) a bunch of thugs. When you give a group this much money and this much power and a bunch of unrealistic goals I can see that happening.
It’s ironic that it’s brave to uncover your face, it’s brave to verify your identity, but these officers’ policy actively avoids the brave choice. Then, we’re supposed to accept that they’re operating in war zones like Portland.
> 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.
> 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.
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.
> If conservatives become convinced that they can not win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. The will reject democracy.
This is from David Frum, a conservative himself:
> Maybe you do not care much about the future of the Republican Party. You should. Conservatives will always be with us. If conservatives become convinced that they can not win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. The will reject democracy.
> 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.
While pithy, public intellectual/academic conservatives like David Frum and Tom Nichols would disagree, and say the rule of law should apply equally to everyone.
Frum (IIRC, though it may have been Applebaum) wrote articles years ago that the direction of the GOP was going was similar to that of Hungary: using public office to enrich family and friends and not prosecute the same when they broke the law. There have been numerous conservatives aghast at what the GOP was becoming / has now become, and were ringing the alarm for years.
This. There's exactly nothing conservative about MAGA. Quite the opposite, it's overtly and proudly radical and extremist, and views actual conservative values with as much contempt as it views actual liberal values.
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.
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
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.
>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.
>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 never did any such thing. I don't believe anyone should be put down for their beliefs, I'm not like them.
A lot of them are racist, fascistic, bloodthirsty scumbags. That isn't even controversial, a lot of them will admit it openly.
>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?
I never said anyone was an unredeemably evil human being. I just have no interest in their redemption.
>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.
I'm not "othering" anyone, I'm expressing skepticism about the motivations behind the stated regrets of some Trump supporters and the narrative that they "never voted for this."
>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.
Because many of my fellow Americans want masked, armed troops in the streets kidnapping brown people. They want the government to police "degenerate" art and erase "woke" ideology. They want to send trans kids to mandatory conversion camps. They want to normalize Christian nationalism and fascism. They want to tear down science and medicine and replace it with conspiracy theories and nonsense.
If I'm not talking about you, I'm not talking about you. But I am talking about a lot of people.
If Trump supporters want to reconsider supporting him and his agenda, great. It's a little late, but I guess late is better than never. I'm not stopping them from acting differently, I'm just a guy trying to survive here. No one is stopping them. I don't need to "make room" for them - they're the most politically and culturally powerful demographic in existence. If they want something different next time - assuming there is a next time, they can just vote for it. They believe in the will to power don't they?
But I'm under no obligation to forgive and forget when the brownshirts are in the streets.
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).
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.
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.
