someone
@someone@lemmy.today
- Comment on Two ICE agents in plain clothes punched and tried to handcuff an Australian man at Las Vegas Airport. When they saw they were being filmed, they quickly left. 4 days ago:
This is like in a global warming debate someone going “You’re all saying global warming is real. Well, the temperature actually declined between August of 2026 and September of 2026.” It’s technically true, but anyone saying that would still be an idiot because they are pointing out something technically true as red-herring to distract from the more problematic reality of the situation.
The way the Supreme Court is approaching this issue is not historically consistent except for aberrations like the Trail of Tears debacle. Never has there been such a concentration of executive power that can’t be overridden with reasonable speed when there are constitutional concerns and arguably extraordinary irreparable harms. Whether you agree or disagree with this administration, this is “not business as usual” politics or business as usual jurisprudence and to imply otherwise is intellectually dishonest, even if you are merely juxtaposing truthful facts in a manner to imply legitimacy and order.
You remind me of Ben Shapiro. Probably smart enough to do well on LSATs and a law exam, probably smart enough to fool people of average intelligence with sophistry and rhetorical juggling, but I see through you, I see the legitimacy you are trying to imply that misses the problem, which is humanitarian and constitutional problems that have no reasonably expedient way of being addressed until extreme harms are done, and you aren’t fooling me, no matter what emphasis on denotative facts you push.
I am glad for both of us that you have standards and sad for both of us that you aren’t willing to properly use bad puns.
- Comment on Two ICE agents in plain clothes punched and tried to handcuff an Australian man at Las Vegas Airport. When they saw they were being filmed, they quickly left. 4 days ago:
technically it was only if you’re decent looking and gay or bi and there was no appeal to your IQ, 1 SD is an insult not a compliment.
also — — — — — — — — —
It’s not the lack of emotional context that’s the problem. It’s about the false implication that there’s some underlying legitimacy when there is no legal mechanism to slow or stop unconstitutional policies except wait for a very slow judiciary to possibly act.
Are you a conservative? Why the fuck are you even on Lemmy? Shouldn’t you be on Reddit or Truth Social?
Being non-emotional may work great in briefs, but implying legitimacy when there’s a jurisprudential crisis caused by slowness and consolidation of power is ignorant. You’re either a conservative and don’t care or uninsightful.
I regert — offering to let you have sex with me if you were decent looking.
- Comment on Two ICE agents in plain clothes punched and tried to handcuff an Australian man at Las Vegas Airport. When they saw they were being filmed, they quickly left. 4 days ago:
Context does change what words mean. sudo rm -rf / means one thing in a terminal and means nothing in a legal brief.
You’re narrow technical view of one aspect of law, missing the bigger picture, is an egregious instance of a lack of context implying things.
For example, if someone said “Hitler made various economic improvements that were helpful” and that’s it, the person is likely a racist evil piece of shit, especially if it’s on a neo-Nazi forum. I suppose technically in a history paper the statement in and of itself would not be egregious or false.
In the same way, if someone is making the case appellate courts are still binding on lower courts, without mentioning that appellate courts not being able to create nationwide injunctions or impact nationwide federal policy when the Supreme Court is slow as an molasses and cherry picks what to hear, and when humanitarian violations are going on that are truly evil, that person is either malevolent, lacking rhetorical skills, or technically true but writing something that’s problematic for the context.
Look, I admire your 115 IQ and I find your arrogance alluring, and perhaps if we were in the same area and you were at least decent looking and gay or bi or bored, I’d let you fuck me once or twice because sometimes I like dumb guys who think they are smarter than they are, but even you have to understand why context does impact meaning. I have not admitted to being wrong.
It’s not to say that a lack of additional text makes an analysis bad, but using court language on an Internet forum doesn’t make you write, just like an economist saying on an Internet forum with no context how “Slavery was beneficial for GDP during 1784” is wrong and stupid.
Nice Em Dash, by the way.
- Comment on Two ICE agents in plain clothes punched and tried to handcuff an Australian man at Las Vegas Airport. When they saw they were being filmed, they quickly left. 1 week ago:
Second, precision is the foundation of legal discussion. The fact that this is the internet doesn’t somehow make factual accuracy or precise language irrelevant. My comment was a narrow factual correction to an incorrect statement about the judiciary. Nothing more.
But this isn’t being argued in a court with narrow technical rules and extremely precise procedural requirements, it was being argued online… You’re looking at the argument from the perspective of a narrow technical argument from a procedural court perspective, I am looking it how it realistically affects people in their actual lives… which is what makes sense… for an internet discussion.
You’re clearly a lawyer or a judge or something, and it wouldn’t surprise me if you’ve filed your fair share of motions that weren’t just in a local court, but you’re still wrong on this and I’m not conceding. Yes, my responses would not be appropriate for a court filing… but also, they make sense outside of that situation.
- Comment on Why does China have so many multi billionaires if they are aiming to be a communist country? 3 weeks ago:
It’s a great point and the anti-free speech climate in the USA is terrifying.
- Comment on Why does China have so many multi billionaires if they are aiming to be a communist country? 4 weeks ago:
China’s restrictions on free speech scare me… and I don’t like all their policies… at all…
but, in China’s defense…
Many countries that have tried to implement communism have been overthrown… and so if China is trying to position itself in a technologically dominant way to avoid being overthrown, embracing some limited capitalism to foster technological dominance may make sense. If you look at China, they make a lot of great tech and they are really excelling at robotics.
If someone is really good at making money, they sometimes use that capital to create more companies or push technological development further. So it may be a thought out policy choice to allow limited capitalism, even resulting in billionaires, so as to gain technological dominance, so as to not be overthrown?
- Comment on [deleted] 1 month ago:
bullying is always not okay
- Comment on [deleted] 1 month ago:
death threats and doxxing really go against the spirit of open source software, which is people are allowed to code what they want, they post the code, and we can all see it. someone also could have easily forked this if they were that unhappy.
i was on the list and my first reaction was “why the fuck am i on this list?” but i also found it somewhat funny and also concerning. am i really that bad?
but death threats and doxxing are not okay.
- Comment on Two ICE agents in plain clothes punched and tried to handcuff an Australian man at Las Vegas Airport. When they saw they were being filmed, they quickly left. 1 month ago:
I don’t know the answer to the following:
Is the current state of the law that a federal appellate judge can say “Okay, for this area of the country, I am issuing an injunction that ICE can no longer operate until they submit a report to a court monitor explaining corrective actions they will take and if anyone violates that order I will have us marshals arrest them?”
because i am under the impression that the new decision is they can’t do that. that it would be challenged immediately, the sc would against say you can’t issue blanket injunctions that impact federal policy, and nothing would occur.
i believe my unrelated examples were related, so we disagree. this isn’t a court briefing, this is the internet: unemotional and narrow language has no place here.
- Comment on [deleted] 1 month ago:
does this mean I’m no longer on the list?
- Comment on Two ICE agents in plain clothes punched and tried to handcuff an Australian man at Las Vegas Airport. When they saw they were being filmed, they quickly left. 1 month ago:
I wasn’t saying you were racist.
I was saying even if you were technically correct, the original poster was implying that now the supreme court is the only one who can make nationwide policy on stopping illegal nationwide federal actions.
although what you said was technically correct, in that federal appellate courts can overrule federal courts below them, it’s also still true that now only the supreme court can stop federal policy that is clearly illegal and the supreme court is extraordinary slow, as is the entire court system, and that the supreme court cherry picks the cases they want to hear.
there’s an illusion under us law that justice is fair but the reality is the ability of a court to decline to hear an issue means many unfair situations remain, and even when they are heard, it’s slow
i felt like what you were saying, while technically correct, missed the bigger picture and implied legitimization and process when that’s actually been extraordinarily damaged by limiting federal court judge remedy power
i wasn’t calling you racist, or disagreeing on ideological grounds, i was saying that your limited technical answer so grossly missed the larger situation that it undercut the actual legitimacy crisis that does and should exist for this branch. it is not business as usual, some of the conditions for these detainees are terrible and reminiscent of nazi-regime treatment of others, and the fact that nothing can be done about it at any federal level except at 1 court that refuses to hear most things and is extremely slow to hear matters means that it’s not the same situation as it once was
this is not ideological framing that muddies the waters. your narrow technical analysis nit-picking at the literal meaning and missing the implication is unintentionally or intentionally implying there’s still some legitimate functional system that is working correctly instead of something completely broken
- Comment on Two ICE agents in plain clothes punched and tried to handcuff an Australian man at Las Vegas Airport. When they saw they were being filmed, they quickly left. 1 month ago:
This grossly mischaracterizes things.
The defining feature of the US Court system is how slow it is. We are talking about federal policies that are corrupt, racist, and unconstitutional.
The legal concepts are effectively the same because without nationwide injunctions, there is no mechanism to stop corrupt policy.
The Supreme Court declines to hear most cases, they cherry pick what they want to review, and occasionally when there is a large clear conflict between circuits then it means the Supreme Court may decide to hear the case in a year while harm is ongoing.
You’re saying appeals courts are still binding on their own circuits, but we are talking about federal nationwide policy and executive branch that just ignores rulings unless there is enforcement.
The correct way for this to have proceeded previously was for a federal appellate court to rule it’s unconstitutional to randomly harass people on the street because it violates the 4th Amendment without probable cause, rule it’s an ongoing pattern and they keep ignoring the law and so a simple legal instruction is insufficient, and the instruct the federal marshals to seize ice infrastructure, their computers and phones in DC, and destroy them, and then to stay the order while it gets an emergency appeal, forcing the Supreme Court to rule on this.
But the Supreme Court doesn’t even have to rule on these issues now. The federal courts are powerless to do anything and the Supreme Court declines to hear it. Also, the Supreme Court held racism was a valid reason for detaining people, so ICE agents are fully allowed to randomly harass, detain, threaten and subdue people who are not white or not black, because that’s what these racist MAGA hicks want: they want a reduction in brown people, and they know they can’t easily harass and kill black people anymore, so they are just going after brown people instead.
Let’s just call it what it is: racist white people don’t like so many Latinos and other brown skinned people, they have noticed that white people are a smaller portion of the USA and white people are having fewer children, so they have enacted racist policies and elected a corrupt Supreme Court and selected a racist government in power to find ways to change this.
To pretend that the federal courts still have some sort of power in this situation is intellectually dishonest and mischaracterizes what is going on. In theory, decisions are binding on lower courts still. But what does it matter? Does a court matter if no one listens to it and then its power is taken away?
The racist MAGA hicks made a calculation that they could come into power, enact laws that would have previously been deemed illegal, pack the courts with conservatives, and start a campaign to reduce the brown population of the USA and also that liberals and brown people would not take up arms and try to physically stop them. And that calculation was right. Liberals are notoriously anti-gun, anti-gun ownership, and for extreme gun regulations; they are also the party of civility. So… MAGA was right.
What happens when things change and liberals come into power? Will there be hearings? A tribunal? The Supreme Court has sanctioned all of this under racist, intellectually dishonest language and so on what grounds can people be punished for evil? There are no grounds unless there’s a Constitutional amendment. It won’t happen. Even today, eminent domain is being used to seize land for data centers while black people never got their 40 acres or their mule. The horrible truth is MAGA got away with it and will get away with it. Liberals do not have the audacity and courage, nor the voting numbers, to do anything of substance.
- Comment on Prediction vs Reality 2 months ago:
You know what would help this situation?
AI
Lots and lots of AI.
Also more religion.
- Comment on Are there any open source word processors that have AI integration? 4 months ago:
:'-(
- Comment on Are there any open source word processors that have AI integration? 5 months ago:
Nooo! But I used to be so popular on Lemmy!
- Comment on Are there any open source word processors that have AI integration? 5 months ago:
:'-(
- Comment on Are there any open source word processors that have AI integration? 5 months ago:
It’s a good point. But I also think I can’t stop environmental catastrophe from occurring because religious people don’t believe in science and most people are religious.
I am all in favor of banning gas cars, building better public infrastructure, and extremely harsh draconian environmental standards to try to stop the extinction event unfolding before us, but over time I concluded I can’t stop it: people are too religious and stupid.
I can’t deprogram the entire world. I may as well have a nicer life until everything dies by using AI.
- Submitted 5 months ago to [deleted] | 14 comments
- Comment on Is LM Studio's GUI safe despite being closed source? 5 months ago:
Nope, I’m looking for a reason to keep using it when I hate closed-source software! It’s the exact opposite!
- Comment on Is LM Studio's GUI safe despite being closed source? 5 months ago:
US Corporations that receive secret court orders are required by law to violate their privacy policies.
- Comment on Is LM Studio's GUI safe despite being closed source? 5 months ago:
Right, that’s what I’m saying. I don’t have the technical skill to check this out myself. Should I just delete it for now?
- Submitted 5 months ago to [deleted] | 11 comments
- Comment on Is it theoretically possible Trump and ICE are killing a very large number of immigrants (like 25% of those detained) and no one knows? 6 months ago:
Are there are any worthy online newspapers specifically investigating this?
- Comment on Must be nice 6 months ago:
cruelty to animals (isolation, pellets on ground that aren’t comfortable enough to make a bed. a hard hard floor under the pellets, day after day of misery and tedium and a form of sensory deprivation, having to use his own body as a pillow because of horrible cruelty) isn’t actually funny!
- Comment on Is it theoretically possible Trump and ICE are killing a very large number of immigrants (like 25% of those detained) and no one knows? 6 months ago:
Completely terrifying. Is anyone, like immigration activists, following up on this? Or is everyone just sort of shrugging and moving on?
- Comment on Is it theoretically possible Trump and ICE are killing a very large number of immigrants (like 25% of those detained) and no one knows? 6 months ago:
How is it possible that 1300+ people have disappeared and there’s not more awareness? Are the news channels not covering it or investigating it?
- Comment on Is it theoretically possible Trump and ICE are killing a very large number of immigrants (like 25% of those detained) and no one knows? 6 months ago:
My concern is that there is enough documentation on who isn’t calling people, who has no connection to anyone…
If there were racist genocidal people within the system and they were able to recognize each other (via tattoos, memberships) and then assign each other to certain duties, if certain people were put into cargo planes and dumped over the ocean, I’m not sure anyone would know.
It’s very hard to communicate with people in places like that if a person doesn’t have money or anyone willing to accept a call. If someone who was a racist genocidal person was put in charge of putting people into groups (based on lawyers, family contact, etc), people who were completely disconnected could be put into a unique group, put in a certain part of a facility, and flown in cargo planes together.
I just don’t know how likely this is. CECOT is a facility that holds people in a way that many international organizations would consider torture. If people were being killed in there, including people deported by the USA, I am very sure people would not know.
If we don’t know where 1200 people who were previously detained have gone as a society, and if there’s no record of where they were sent, it’s hard to fathom the state didn’t kill them, although I don’t know.
I’m very ignorant on all of this. 25% was just a randomly chosen number. But what about 10% or 5%? I just don’t entirely understand the purpose of making immigrants being deported untrackable unless the point is to make it easier to kill them, because if the purpose was just to make it harder to legally contest deportation, the system could just be very slow but have slow tracking built into it… but it doesn’t have that, right? I really don’t know the answers to any of this.
- Submitted 6 months ago to [deleted] | 113 comments
- Comment on PSA 7 months ago:
I really wish I knew if the study authors were religious. I also wish that all scientists were required to disclose their religion at publication of studies and recruitment of participants, except for math or chemistry or physics or applied material sciences, which leave no room for bias from delusional religious beliefs.
- Comment on Ubisoft Closes Canadian Studio After It Unionizes 7 months ago:
This is a great point. Specifically an increase in economic education required of students would be helpful, including helpful for things like understanding environmental science, because externalities and environmental science and regulation have overlap that most don’t understand.