The Trump administration recently published "America's AI Action Plan". One of the first policy actions from the document is to eliminate references to misinformation, diversity, equity, inclusion, and climate change from the NIST's AI Risk Framework.

Lacking any sense of irony, the very next point states LLM developers should ensure their systems are "objective and free from top-down ideological bias".

Par for the course for Trump and his cronies, but the world should know what kind of AI the US wants to build.

top 94 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 38 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

eliminate references to misinformation, diversity, equity and inclusion

They are openly authoritarian now, define what "truth" is? And want americans to be miserable and closed-minded bigots like themselves.

Recommendation: build a system of verifiable facts independent of governments.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 25 points 1 year ago

    It is essential that AI is built with freedom of expression and that the government doesn't interfere

    Recommended actions: The government should limit what AI can talk about

  • source
  • [–] 123 points 1 year ago (89 children)

    Again, AMERICA doesn't want this. This is some dumb shit from a mentally deficient and decrepit old man that somehow got elected under very shady terms by a minority of the country.

  • source
  • hideshow 89 child comments
  • While I understand what you are saying, let's not forget that the people who helped the turd get into power were not just those actively voting for him but also those who didn't vote because "both sides!!". That's not "a minority of the country" but actually the majority of it.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Beat me to it. Most same Americans don't want this, it's the current administration and their moronic lap dogs, and the conglomerates that are paying into Cheeto's personal accounts to "influence him" that want this. Id hope that most of us realize how insanely idiotic this is.

    Also to, AI anti-regulation 2: electric boogaloo? Like they literally just tried to shoehorn this into the big bullshit bill only for it to get yanked, and that was what, two weeks ago?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 25 points 1 year ago (9 children)

    As a US citizen, prove to me that most Americans don't want this.

    Yeah, I see the protests, even in my Trump-loving town.

    But that's it. People holding signs.

    I don't see aggressive action. I don't see the necessary violence - yeah I said it.

    I'm moving out of the country because everyone I've tried to rally says they're too busy, they don't have time, they care but they don't care that much, they think everything will work out, or they believe it isn't as bad as the news says.

    The people I've voted for and elected just sit on their hands and do fuck all.

    I'm 110% for fighting for and defending what I used to believe in, but not when literally all evidence and signs point to nobody else giving a shit.

    Someone call me when you're ready to legitimately strategize about how to topple this fascist regime.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    Zero presidents have ever lost as much support for anything at any time in the history of this country: https://www.economist.com/interactive/trump-approval-tracker

    Not only is this a wildly unpopular president, it's a president who has shed 35-50% of their own voters. It's proof positive that you are wrong.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Thank you for the information. I just hope it leads to action. Poll results to me are just someone standing around waving a sign.

    These fascists didn't rise to power by following all the rules, and they won't exit or lose power by us following the rules. It's a sad truth.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] -8 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    As a u s citizen, you're wrong. End of story most don't want it. Trump wants it. No one voted for trump because of a I. So stop lying to people here.

    Oh and since you're so gungho to do it, why aren't you taking the steps above?

    Because it seems awful like you're a Trumper trying to stir violence

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] 16 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    This, at least, is a fact.

    You could have voted Green. You could have voted Marianne Williamson in the Democratic primary. The little power our voters do have they just wasted.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    The 2024 democratic primary was effectively nonexistent because Biden was running for re-election. Don't be ridiculous.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (17 children)

    Thank you anyone who profiles entire people with stereotypes and outright lies is a bigot, no matter what they say

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (12 children)

    Like how some americans see the Middel East, Russia, China, Israel, Palestine, Mexico etc etc etc..

    Its not nice when its going the other way, is it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (11 children)

    I don't do that because it wouldn't be right. Doesn't matter who did what to me in the past.

    For instance if you were a plumber and you intentionally smashed a piece of furniture while at a clients house, does that mean all plumbers are violently vandalizing people's homes ,no.

    Because adult human beings know that the actions of one do not define the actions of all.

    I am not changing this position. You can get the last word, throw an insult at me or do nothing.

    Choice is yours but I'm done. I don't have to defend the correct position. It is correct.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (9 children)

    I just, I do not understand why this upsets people so much.

    I work for a company that does things I don't want them to do all the time. I've never felt like someone saying "[the company] wants to do [this thing]" was ever referring to me specifically whatsoever.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (8 children)

    What if they said employees of your company all support a thing? That would include you.

    It's absolutely insane to say all Americans support Trump when he has a net negative approval rating pretty much everywhere, including red states. Look at the opinion polls, most people don't like what's going on. Yet for some reason, people claim the majority of us like him for some reason.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    What if they said employees of your company all support a thing? That would include you.

    But no one is doing this. America is a state.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (6 children)

    But they do for countries, when they say "Americans do X" when it's just the administration doing it and it's unpopular.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (5 children)

    "Americans do X"

    *America. Look at the title again.

    I gotta be honest, I don't understand what you're fighting for here. That people in Finland will have a slightly better opinion of you? Mexico will know you're one of the good ones?

    Russia has done a lot of disagreeable things, I've got to imagine its people are pretty upset about it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    I'm talking about comments a few levels up the chain talking about overgeneralizations, as well as the very common loose language online where people attribute problems to the people of a nation rather than its leaders.

    I have no issues with Chinese or Russian people, I have issues w/ their respective governments. Yet we get hate crimes against the people that come from a region just because their government did something stupid.

    I'm pushing against his culture.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

    where people attribute problems to the people of a nation rather than its leaders.

    But you're the one doing this. I'm not conflating people with country here. OP isn't either.

    Yet we get hate crimes against the people that come from a region just because their government did something stupid.

    Are you proposing that racists, when they hear "Russian government" instead of "Russia," will stop being racist? I don't really know what to say to that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (2 children)

    When racists hear "Russians do X," yes, they'll attribute that to many ethnic Russians outside of Russia.

    Look at the Japanese internment during WW2, tons of people were accused of being spys and interned simply because of their ethnicity, even if they had lived here for decades (or were even born here). Japanese people got mistreated for years after WW2 just because they were Japanese, without any association w/ the Japanese government. Why? Because propaganda associated the terrible actions of the Japanese government with the Japanese people and turned US citizens on each other.

    So yes, I will push back on anything that even smells like that kind of BS. I will not tolerate generalizations like this, even if most "normal" people understand what it means. People already associate Jewish people in the US w/ Israel, even though many (most?) actually don't like the Israeli state. So no, I will not sit back and allow casual intolerance to go unquestioned.

    Yes, it's not the point of the article, but I saw similar wording several times in comments on this post, hence my comment here (it seemed the most relevant subthread to drop it into).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    "Russians do X,"

    *Russia.

    You keep making this mistake. I'm starting to think you're doing it deliberately.

    Because propaganda associated the terrible actions of the Japanese government with the Japanese people

    Are you not reinforcing the idea that a country's name refers to its people by insisting that everyone else and not you are the ones nefariously conflating the two?

    The idea that a people are the same as their country is nationalism. How are you battling nationalism by preventing people from saying a country's name?

    If you said "Netanyahu did this," and fair, he does a lot of things, would the racist not assume that the Isreali people elected him and thus agree with him anyway? Because they're "of the same kind."

    You seem to think that their racism is derived from a simple misconception and not, like, a deep-seated fear and paranoia.

    If you see someone say "Isreal does this," then assume they mean the state. If you see someone say "let's bomb Isreal into the shadow realm," then politely snap their neck. It's not that hard.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • You keep making this mistake. I’m starting to think you’re doing it deliberately.

    It's not a mistake, I see that type of language a lot. If the language was specifically "Russia does X", then it's not a problem, because it's referring to the government.

    The idea that a people are the same as their country is nationalism. How are you battling nationalism by preventing people from saying a country’s name?

    Nationalism sucks, and I'm trying to distinguish between the country doing a thing (i.e. its leadership) and the people doing a thing. The people in the US elected Trump, but the people in the US aren't doing what Trump did, so it's absolutely fallacious to say something like "Americans are deporting people," when that's being done by the administration, not everyday people.

    That's it.

    would the racist not assume that the Isreali people elected him and thus agree with him anyway?

    Sure, maybe. But a lot more people would get riled up if we said "Israelis did this," and then associate that with random Jewish people (most of whom have probably never been to Israel). Netanyahu/Israel doing a thing is quite different from Israelis doing a thing, because the latter has a lot more risk of lumping in non-Israelis into that nonsense.

    Racism is certainly deeper than a headline/misconception, my point is that it can be stoked by loose language. Its that loose language that I'd like people to be more careful about.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    So it's a stereotype to describe what a country is literally doing ... okay.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    So do something about it. If you just sit there and post "I don't want this" on the Internet they're just going to keep doing it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Like what?

    • vote? I already did, three times, and he still won by 20% margin
    • message my reps? They're all Republicans.
    • protest? That's only slightly more effective than posting online, and carries the risk of arrest and whatnot
    • attempt an assassination? Yeah right, I'm not getting close w/ the Secret Service, and I'd just leave my kids without one of their parents and income
    • move? All my family and friends live here, and I actually like my country, I just don't like this admin; and wouldn't that just concentrate the crazies a bit more?

    There's not really anything I can reasonably do, other than sit tight and teach my kids how to be excellent people.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -7 points 1 year ago (12 children)

    America absolutely wants this. If they didn’t they would stop it. Period.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago* (8 children)

    LOL

    Sure, Jan.

    We should stop it. Period. I'll snap my non-billionaire fingers and just stop it. Like I'm Dorothy and clicking my ruby slippered heels together.

    Most Americans are working three jobs and 100 hours a week to be able to rent a roach-infested studio and keep their kids from starving.

    AI isn't even in the top ten of issues that most Americans have the time or energy to confront in a meaningful way.

    But let's not allow the reality of life in this country to interfere with a good, silly Internet screed.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [+] -8 points 1 year ago* (7 children)

    You just described a country full of miserable people with nothing to lose who are STILL doing fuck all.

    Was it your intent to bring their cowardice into starker relief, or to pretend that somehow they’re excused from acting like humans with agency because… “it’s hard?”

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    Totally.

    They should be brave, like you're brave, and levying meaningless critiques on the Internet.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [+] -7 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Cool. Keep on being complicit. The rest of us are watching.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)
  • [–] -2 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    You waiting for citizens of some other country to come do something about the problem you’ve enabled (after decades of shitty responses to us telling you this exact thing was going to happen)?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    You're right, everybody without the money to make the trip should travel 2000 miles (3218 km) to commit suicide by cop. That's sensible.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] [S] -16 points 1 year ago (37 children)

    What matters more? What AMERICA wants, or what the administration enacts in to policy? You're missing the point if you're arguing about my phrasing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 37 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 1 year ago (18 children)

    That...what???

    No, your choice of phrasing conveys your message.

    If you're argument is not against the American people, but rather the administration, then your wording is, well, wrong.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [+] [S] -22 points 1 year ago (16 children)

    You’re missing the point if you’re arguing about my phrasing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 1 year ago (15 children)

    No. You're dodging the argument. You chose to phrase it that way. And pretending that's just some incidental thing with no meaning honestly is about the dumbest response I've seen in a while.

    You have made the argument that it is the American people, not the administration. You. Not anybody else.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [+] [S] -14 points 1 year ago (14 children)

    I did not use the phrase "the American people".

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (13 children)

    Wow.

    Just...wow.

    You honestly think that's an argument?!?

    Goodbye

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [+] [S] -9 points 1 year ago (12 children)

    Based on your post history, I think we're on the same side. I understand that this administration does not represent all of America. Unfortunately though, the semantics of it all don't really matter. Trump got the majority vote, and that's what matters. The effects of his policies matter. From the perspective of the rest of the world, this is what (the majority of) America has chosen. I don't like it either.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (11 children)

    Friend, seriously...listen to the very clear reason being used to explain the deficiency of your argument here.

    The way you phrase something absolutely changes the meaning of its point. You can't say something and then try to justify that the ends are the same, so it's cool. Literally why people use the phrase "the ends don't justify the means".

    If Trump comes out and says some dumb shit, you can't just say "AMERICA WANTS THIS", because that is obviously untrue.

    It would work the same way with 4 people in a car, and the driver wants hamburgers. The entire car doesn't want hamburgers, just the driver of the car. How you want to argue the outcome or explanation of that very much decides on how you intend to phrase the situation. All you know right now is that the driver wants a hamburger, so it would disingenuous to say everyone wants hamburgers.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] [S] 2 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    I think it's nice that many Americans don't want what Trump wants. I think it's unfortunate that in this case it doesn't actually have an effect because the policy will be acted upon anyway.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Sure. Right. Like the straws, and the Trans in athletic events, and the flights from undesirable countries, and the "Gulf of America".

    Get with reality here.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] [S] 2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Is this not a real and direct effect of EOs? Doesn't it matter that NASA was forced to change their behavior because of EOs? https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/trumps-dei-purge-is-hitting-nasa-hard/

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    It's not that there can't be real effect, it's that they aren't LAW. If people go along with it, they're getting a sort of pass that says "hey, this is illegal, but we won't prosecute you". That's different than it being an actual law. The outcome is essentially decided by the people capitulating to these stupid things. This is why Harvard, GW, Stanford...etc are taking this court, because they know they will win on the LAW.

    Judges can't use EO as law. Fact. If Trump tries to influence the public at large with these stupid things, it will AND HAS get shot down in court.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] [S] 1 point 1 year ago

    I have never once said in this conversation that EOs are law. You insist on bringing that up. What I am saying is that Trump's EOs do have an actual effect, regardless of what their historical purpose was, and that's what matters in the real world.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

    I disagree with that premise, America elected Trump under a democracy in which his view points were clear. He was elected to represent Americans and as such I think it's fair to use Trump's wants and America synonymously

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    No. America did not, and if you've been keeping track, he lost the popular vote by a huge margin the first time (which included insane amounts of election interference), and only "won" by 1.6% the second time, and only because of very specific gerrymandering and hoop jumping.

    Saying that's a clear direction for an entire country is fucking insane. Like if I have $0.51 I might as well have a dollar. It's just an insane argument.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • If Trump comes out and says some dumb shit, you can't just say "AMERICA WANTS THIS", because that is obviously untrue.

    You need to realize how insanely defensive you're being. Why? For what?

    Think about what you're arguing for for a second: America doesn't want AI, only Trump's administration does. Is this not all of politics?

    "America doesn't want free health care, only some of its democrats do."

    "America doesn't want ranked choice voting, lots of people in Wyoming hate ranking things. And math."

    "America doesn't want gay marriage, there are still lots of people really upset about that supreme court ruling."

    You're drawing a scenario in which "America" can't actually "want" anything because no one ever agrees on who America is.

    I'm being competely serious: you need to unwrap your ego from all this. This isn't about you. ICE raids aren't your—you specifically—your fault. No one is saying it is.

    America is a really, really big machine, and sometimes it does things I don't like. Sometimes it does things I do. You know what I mean?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 29 points 1 year ago (17 children)

    The phrasing means everything.

    Example: "Trump wants..."

    VS

    Example: "America wants..."

    Big difference. Executive Orders are a memo, not law. It's disturbing that I have to keep saying this and explaining this.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (9 children)

    You know, this might actually be really bad politics.

    Trump is not the only person at the top. He's kind of a lame duck, actually: he just does whatever Miller says. The only time he steps in is when he's personally insulted by something because he desperately wants everyone to know he's a very special boy.

    I do take issue with democrats blaming everything the republicans are up to on Trump specifically, as if the party might return to normal once he dies.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (8 children)

    It probably will return somewhat to normal, assuming public opinion continues on its trajectory. People overwhelmingly don't like Trump, so anyone affiliated w/ him are going to hurt in the next couple elections unless public opinion turns around.

    I don't know what "normal" looks like, but it's probably somewhere between Trump and Bush. I'm still not a fan, but moving away from Trump is going to be a net win.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (7 children)

    anyone affiliated w/ him

    Well, this is what I'm asking for, so I sure hope so.

    but it's probably somewhere between Trump and Bush.

    So, keep in mind, republican voters are not upset with Trump because they've decided they no longer want a border wall. The architects of Project 2025 don't need anything from Trump but political power, which they already have.

    The next election cycle, if it's real, I do imagine will swing back, but it cannot just "swing back," it needs to deal with the sickness plaguing the US. That sickness is the republican party. That sickness is the republican voter.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (6 children)

    That sickness is the republican party. That sickness is the republican voter.

    I disagree, and this just smacks of tribalism.

    The problem is people wanting to force others into their worldview, parties are just a tool to get that done. The real solution is ending the two party system so people can express themselves better, not to replace one problem with another.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (5 children)

    The problem is people wanting to force others into their worldview,

    No, I will force nazis into my worldview, actually. They can come willingly, or we can beat them into submission like we did 80 years ago.

    What, actually, is wrong with you? Building alligator auschwitz does, in fact, make you a bad person—if you seriously disagree with this, then you and I are enemies.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (4 children)

    Yes, building the detention center is absolutely terrible. I hate everything about the recent changes WRT immigration, and I probably don't even know the half of it.

    We're a nation of immigrants, and we should absolutely be encouraging more legal immigration. In fact, my personal opinion is that we should make a new type of temporary "work seeking" visa where you're given some time (say, 1 month) to find a job, and if you get a job, it automatically turns into a work authorization visa, with the stipulation that the employer must report when that job ends, at which point you have another month to find a new job before you have to leave. IMO, this completely solves the migrant worker issue, without needing to mess w/ quotes for longer-term visas. Those employers would also receive closer scrutiny to catch any illegal activity (i.e. shell companies employing cartels).

    However, associating it w/ the Holocaust is disgusting and again smacks of tribalism. Yes it's a terrible facility, but AFAIK there's zero overlap w/ what the Nazis did. Since it's on US soil, they do have to follow US law in how they treat people, unlike Gitmo.

    nazis... we can beat them into submission

    If you actually think Republicans have much overlap w/ Nazis, then you're delusional. It's just like Republicans claiming Democrats are Marxists. The name calling isn't productive and just cheapens what each of those terms mean.

    Yes, some people in the Republican camp court fascist policies, but by and large, they are not fascist. Call them out on actual policy issues and convince people to vote them out w/ logic, don't just lean into rhetoric.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (3 children)

    You think that caging brown people "for no reason" is a disgusting comparison to the Holocaust?

    This is unreal. I didn't see this conversation coming at all. You're actually doing nazi apologia. You're refusing to acknowledge the pressure building in your pipes only because the pipes haven't burst yet. How many brown people do you want to die before you're willing to concede this? Do we need to wait until the full 6 million?

    they do have to follow US law in how they treat people

    No. They don't.

    • Neither Democrat congress members nor journalists are allowed to see what's happening inside that camp. Rather, they are, legally, but they're being prevented from doing so anyway.
    • The Democrats are weak and refuse to punish Republicans for anything. If there is no threat of punishment, they can just do whatever they want. Republicans have abused this weakness of Democrats like 5 billion times.
    • The Big Beautiful Bill includes a provision that judicial funds cannot be used to pursue rulings. This passed, so, if it can't be repealed, this means it is illegal to use funds intended to punish criminals to seek punishment for Republicans breaking the law. This kills the law.

    Call them out on actual policy issues

    Call them out for being evil. Their policies are evil.

    If the majority of Republicans are not evil, as you say, then they should have no problem dropping the line. They can form a new party, and the current one can be dropped into a wastebin in hell.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    How many brown people do you want to die

    How many have or are likely to die due to this? That would obviously depend on the duration of detention, and I honestly don't know much about that, but these people should have the right of due process since they're on US soil (5th and 14th amendments). So they can't just be incarcerated indefinitely (habeas corpus), they'd have to be tried or released in a timely fashion.

    The Holocaust differs in so many ways:

    • were largely labor camps, which later became extermination camps - as a detention facility, this means people are not convicted and therefore legally protected under the 13th amendment from forced labor; likewise, capital punishment only applies to those convicted
    • people taken w/o violating any actual crimes - the detention facility is for those suspected of immigration crimes
    • the intent was genocide - intent for detention facility is temporary holding until people can be tried or deported

    It's not remotely the same thing, and comparing them is ridiculous rhetoric. Comparing everything the right does to Nazism and the Holocaust is intellectually dishonest, meant to convince someone to your side through emotional language instead of facts.

    If there are deaths, they're going to be incidental to incarceration, as in people already in poor health dying due to added stress of incarceration or something, and not something directly done by the guards.

    Rather, they are, legally, but they’re being prevented from doing so anyway.

    And unfortunately, that's something that's going to have to be worked out in the courts. According to US law, they must be subject to audit to ensure Constitutional Law is being followed.

    Democrats are weak

    True, but I'm not sure what this has to do w/ anything.

    The Big Beautiful Bill includes a provision that judicial funds cannot be used to pursue rulings. This passed, so, if it can’t be repealed, this means it is illegal to use funds intended to punish criminals to seek punishment for Republicans breaking the law. This kills the law.

    If that's accurate (I haven't reviewed it), then that provision will likely be struck down by a court. You can't just hamstring the branch of the government that decides whether law is constitutional and expect them to just roll over, even the conservative Supreme Court would very likely strike this down.

    If the majority of Republicans are not evil, as you say, then they should have no problem dropping the line.

    And they have been. Look at Trump's approval rating. I live in a very red state, and he has a net negative approval rating here, which is absolutely bonkers. This will have an impact on the next couple elections, but it's hard to tell what the actual results will be. But if Trump keeps pissing off his base, it could get very spicy indeed.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)
    • people taken w/o violating any actual crimes - the detention facility is for those suspected of immigration crimes

    Wow.

    You know, it's no wonder you live in a red state; you're still bought into the republican propoganda. I believe you that the "immigrants" rounded up into unmarked ICE vans will be tried fairly, and only the vile criminals among them will be deported to an El Salvador slave camp.

    • the intent was genocide - intent for detention facility is temporary holding until people can be tried or deported

    Deporting people en masse is genocide.

    even the conservative Supreme Court would very likely strike this down.

    The conservative justices are loyal to the Republican party. The Republican party does not want to be held accountable. What on earth gives you the idea they'll want to strike this down?

    Look at Trump's approval rating.

    His approval rating is only down among Republicans because his tariffs have been hurting them and not the brown people they voted to kill.

    They thought the white ethnostate Trump would usher in would make them lions among sheep, and they are only upset that they are among the sheep.

    —Not to mention, listen to any on-the-streets interviews with republican voters about their disapproval, fucking all of them say they'd vote for him again.

    it could get very spicy indeed.

    Absolutely beside myself at your cavalier attitude. I do hope your state gets everything it voted for.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • deported to an El Salvador slave camp.

    That's the absolutely horrendous part, and you should be criticizing those camps. This detention center isn't that.

    Deporting people en masse is genocide.

    That's not true. This is what genocide means:

    genocide: The systematic and widespread extermination or attempted extermination of a national, racial, religious, or ethnic group.

    Deportation is the national version of trespassing someone from a property. It's not murder.

    The conservative justices are loyal to the Republican party.

    They're really not. Their interests do often align, but that's not because they're taking orders from the GOP. If the GOP was actually able to tell them what to do, they'd side w/ Trump way more often.

    they voted to kill

    That's not what they did.

    They largely voted for protectionism (save our jobs/businesses/etc), and now they're feeling the results of that.

    Only a small subset of Republicans are actually racist. I'm sure the same is true among Democrats as well.

    Absolutely beside myself at your cavalier attitude

    Why? Because I refuse to jump on the Republican hate bandwagon? I'm not going to stoop to dangerous rhetoric to try to scare/shame people to my viewpoint.

    I strongly disagree with Republicans on policy, but more importantly I see the two party system as the real problem here. Shilling one side over another just perpetuates that system and merely swings the pendulum the other way.

    So no, I'm not going to buy into that nonsense. And my state is doing quite well, despite the best efforts of our legislature.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] [S] -19 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    I did not use the word "law". So you're arguing that EO's have no actual effect? That is blatantly false: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/trumps-dei-purge-is-hitting-nasa-hard/

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    I'm arguing that you're intentionally trying to play semantics with phrasing and claim it doesn't matter, when it absolutely does, and everyone in here is explaining to you why. That's all.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] [S] -9 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Okay. My argument is that the semantics don't matter because what matters is policy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    And since you did use the word "policy", I did mention that EO's aren't laws. It's a memo. He has no control via EOnof anyone except the people in his purview. Not private companies, not researches, not law, not state governments.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] [S] -3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    You're saying that EO's are not policy?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • EO's are policy insofar as they can affect the Executive Branch and what it controls, and nothing else. The history of the use is mainly for "the spirit" of something, but only in the past 20 years or so has been weaponized to be used for trying to attempt to guide actual policy. Never in the way Trump has tried to use them, which is "law by decree".

    The joke is they know it's bullshit and meaningless. This all happened in his first term. 220 total, 157 shot down in court, 27 revoked. It's an office memo at best. Biden even tried to do thenstudent debt cancellation through EO, and it got shot down in court.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
    load more comments
    view more: next ›