Funny events in anti-woke world

[Agema]

I can remember just a couple months ago when Trump was apparently just Elon's puppet, according to the left.

Mm, association fallacy: if one person in a group says something, all of them did.

Tariffs were gonna send us spiraling into a depression, how did that play out?

Yes, tariffs would very likely have caused serious, long-term harm to the US (and global) economy - if Trump hadn't chickened out. Just like almost any competent economist would have predicted. And just like started to happen, except that the minute the reality started to bite, Trump quailed and dropped most everything fast as he could. It's not just that, but tariffs (at least, in that format) would not even have accomplished most of the stated aims anyway. This was raw, rank stupidity from the Trump administration. Sheer incompetence, wasted government time and effort, with billions in costs to organisations and individuals; likely it reduced US GDP growth in Q1 2025 from around +2.5% to -0.2%.

If you want to demonstrate that other people's beliefs are foolish, it's pretty catastrophic to criticise them for opinions which reality appeared to bear out. You are welcome to continue torpedoing your own points, of course.

 

[Agema]

America would like immigration law enforced and voted as such.

Yes, and yet also maybe and no.

At face value, it is true that a modest majority of Americans want illegal immigrants deported. However, the figures inevitably start looking a lot murkier once you start applying conditions. Like, what illegal immigrants, and how.

A key element here is that an "illegal immigrant" conjures the idea of a barely-educated, poverty-stricken, uncivilised, foreigner who is going to steal jobs from citizens, live off taxpayers in benefits and public services, and cause crime. However, once people start seeing people who don't fit this image, support to deport them typically drops substantially. So for instance, imagine someone in the USA illegally who has been in the USA for around ten years or more, is otherwise law-abiding, holds down a decent job, and is raising a happy family. Ask the public whether they want that person deported, and you're very likely going to find the opinions underwater.

You also need to factor in how the government does deportations. Most people probably imagine ICE officials politely but firmly visiting properties, collecting deportees, and escorting them out of the country. They don't necessarily want indiscriminate grabbing of people in armed, night-time raids and chucking them out without due process. They don't necessarily want ICE agents to storm in like a gang of jackbooted thugs aggravating communities and causing social disorder. The world is a complex place: the public majority opposing the protestors is not necessarily an endorsement of ICE's tactics. In fact, they might mostly oppose the protestors whilst also ending up opposing ICE tactics because they cause more trouble than they are worth.

 

[tstorm823]

Who are "they"? Of the examples I cited, at least two were either doing their job near a protest and not protesting themselves (a journalist) or just trying to go home while nowhere even near a protest. Yet apparently, they deserved to be treated as enemy combatants for that.

If there is a wall of police clearing an area, and they tell you to go the other way, what do you do? You go the other way. This is not at all unique to this situation. If there were a crime scene on the road they needed to keep people out of, you go the other way. If there was a flood or a gas leak or a chemical spill being blocked off, you go the other way. If there was a Halloween parade that area was cleared for, you go the other way. Police tell you to turn around, you turn around. That woman just trying to go home was told to go the other way cause they were clearing rioters from the streets (the person filming her had supplies to act as a field medic, there were riots going on there), and instead of turning away and waiting either finding another route or waiting for things to clear, she kept taking steps towards the line of police. She did the wrong thing.

Journalists do more than anyone else on the planet to incite violence while also constantly bragging about their courage putting themselves in danger. I have no pity for one getting a bruised leg.

Furthermore, if you look at the pattern of escalation in the protests in LA, police and ICE definitely got violent long before protesters tried blocking cop cars.

Absolutely not. This starting because people are trying to block ICE vehicles. They are putting up barriers, sometimes human barriers, to try to prevent them from leaving. The crowd in LA needed to be dispersed because they had mobbed ICE vans and refused to let them move. ICE is law enforcement.

Rubber bullets are less lethal ammunition, and appear to be the main type deployed at the moment by "law enforcement".

Rocks are deadlier than rubber bullets.

Just like almost any competent economist would have predicted.

Oh really? Any competent economist would tell you tariffs are bad? The century of nearly every nation on Earth imposing tariffs is in my imagination then? Oh, is it just really broad tariffs that are the problem? Obviously nobody but that idiot Trump would impose broad, global tariffs with specific exceptions, definitely not the UK or the EU. Oh wait, they do. And have for years.

It is amazing how capable you are of rewiring your brain to make sure that Trump is wrong in every possible way. The majority of the internet wants the US to be more like Europe until Trump does something that is actually more like Europe, and then suddenly that thing he did is terrible and any expert could have told you that. You really do go insane over Trump. Tariffs have upsides and downsides, be they broad tariffs or narrow tariffs, there are always upsides and downsides. The downside was never going to be a depression, otherwise your entire continent would be in a perpetually depressed state. You can't believe that.

A key element here is that an "illegal immigrant" conjures the idea of a barely-educated, poverty-stricken, uncivilised, foreigner who is going to steal jobs from citizens, live off taxpayers in benefits and public services, and cause crime. However, once people start seeing people who don't fit this image, support to deport them typically drops substantially. So for instance, imagine someone in the USA illegally who has been in the USA for around ten years or more, is otherwise law-abiding, holds down a decent job, and is raising a happy family. Ask the public whether they want that person deported, and you're very likely going to find the opinions underwater.

The second scenario you describe is genuinely worse than the first. It's bad for people to be undocumented, whether they're getting deported or not. The person who breaks immigration law and gets the American dream is still undocumented, and their very existence encourages more people to become so, most of whom are going to feel the downsides of being undocumented migrants in the ways the family avoided. In the condemnation of degenerate gamblers, you don't make an exception for the person who won the jackpot and congratulate their success. That just tells everyone else to keep betting until they win. Why is this capable, well-adjusted family not living their decent life in a nation where they are citizens? The US has done a disservice to that nation, that nations people, our own nation, our own nation's people, and likely even that happy family themselves by allowing people to live outside of the rights and obligations of a citizen. The violent criminal is a worse person, but that person was likely violent on either side of the border. As a matter of policy, the happy, otherwise law-abiding family breaking immigration law to disappear into the US is a sign of greater disorder than the violent criminal is.

 

[Silvanus]

Tariffs were gonna send us spiraling into a depression, how did that play out?

They did some economic harm in the form of rising prices while they were briefly in place, and then he U-turned?

Did you see that part where they tried to firebomb the horses? Did you see the crowd dropping rocks onto the windshields of moving cars? These people have declared themselves enemies of the law, and taken violent action (much more potentially deadly than anything the police have done) towards that end. Being treated as enemy combatants is what they're asking for.

OK. But we know the police have also been treating non-"combatants"-- reporters, passersby trying to get home, nonviolent protesters-- with extreme violence as well.

Now, with the public, you seem to be concluding here that violence is justified if the subject has been violent themself. Are you consistent in applying that to the police targeting non-combatants? They declared themselves enemies of the law, and so active resistance is justified, I assume?

 

[tstorm823]

They did some economic harm in the form of rising prices while they were briefly in place, and then he U-turned?



OK. But we know the police have also been treating non-"combatants"-- reporters, passersby trying to get home, nonviolent protesters-- with extreme violence as well.

Now, with the public, you seem to be concluding here that violence is justified if the subject has been violent themself. Are you consistent in applying that to the police targeting non-combatants? They declared themselves enemies of the law, and so active resistance is justified, I assume?

See above.

 

[Agema]

Oh really? Any competent economist would tell you tariffs are bad?

Tariffs as Trump talked about them and enacted, yes.

After all, it's useful to pay some attention to the easily-attestable reality out there. I'm not sure why you would not do so, because when your opponents want to complain how appalling it was for mounted police to ride down protestors, you want to introduce more evidence from reality that protestors were throwing incendiaries at the police. So the inconsistency is telling here, where instead you are retreating to generalisation and theory.

It is amazing how capable you are of rewiring your brain.

Hypocrite, heal thyself.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

America would like immigration law enforced and voted as such.

When ICE agents lay in wait in places where immigrants go to follow immigration law, then capture and deport them, that's not enforcing immigration law. That's "getting rid of brown people".

 

[Silvanus]

See above.

I have seen above; a mess of baseless assumptions about those who suffered violence, or the despicable suggestion that they deserved violence if they didn't turn around when told to.

So, you're happy to employ these flimsy justifications for violence with the public. How about with the police? They're on video making much more severe transgressions than we have evidence for with any of those members of the public.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Journalists do more than anyone else on the planet to incite violence while also constantly bragging about their courage putting themselves in danger. I have no pity for one getting a bruised leg.

 

[tstorm823]

Tariffs as Trump talked about them and enacted, yes.

I does not matter how Trump used them, you would say this exact line because Trump did it.

After all, it's useful to pay some attention to the easily-attestable reality out there. I'm not sure why you would not do so, because when your opponents want to complain how appalling it was for mounted police to ride down protestors, you want to introduce more evidence from reality that protestors were throwing incendiaries at the police. So the inconsistency is telling here, where instead you are retreating to generalisation and theory.

Are you saying police shouldn't be on horses? Probably not, it happens a lot, quite a bit in your own country.

So we must be talking specifics here, so lets talk specifics. There are two clips going viral of police on horses using batons. Are we talking about the woman who got hit with batons after she approached the mounted officer and punched the horse in the face? Or are we talking about the clip where guys tried to set the horses on fire, and then ran away throwing fireworks at the police, and one was caught and got stepped on when the horse flinched from getting hit by an exploding firework? Which of these is appalling police behavior against innocent protestors?

 

[TyrunnAlberyn]

Absolutely not. This starting because people are trying to block ICE vehicles. They are putting up barriers, sometimes human barriers, to try to prevent them from leaving. The crowd in LA needed to be dispersed because they had mobbed ICE vans and refused to let them move. ICE is law enforcement.

Rocks are deadlier than rubber bullets.

ICE absolutely did not get blocked first; ICE was dragging people out without any form of identification, checks or balances. Once that kept happening for quite a while people got enough of it and started blocking these ICE agents and their vehicles. If ICE is law enforcement, they should identify themselves properly and act in good faith, without trying to obfuscate who they are and disappearing people, not act like a bunch of thugs trying to enforce their gang's territory as they currently are.

Rocks are only deadlier than rubber bullets if applied in a way that is deadlier than the way the rubber bullets are applied. All guidelines for rubber bullets say never to fire them directly at people, because otherwise they're just big caliber slugs impacting with people. Much like rocks impacting with people. Both can kill quite easily. And I've seen far less rocks being used than rubber bullets being used.

 

[Satinavian]

What i find strange about the whole is that while everyone is focused on the national guards and marines and Trump, it seems that most violent police action currently comes from the LAPD, even more than from ICE.

That is concerning. Usually you would expect the local police to be more supportive of the local population.

 

[Silvanus]

Are you saying police shouldn't be on horses? Probably not, it happens a lot, quite a bit in your own country.

Indeed they do. I have personally been at a protest where mounted police turned up, and charged a horse into a group of people that contained myself. We were almost run down.

Your response is about as enlightening as replying, "are you saying people shouldn't have cars??" to someone complaining about being intentionally run over.

So we must be talking specifics here, so lets talk specifics. There are two clips going viral of police on horses using batons. Are we talking about the woman who got hit with batons after she approached the mounted officer and punched the horse in the face? Or are we talking about the clip where guys tried to set the horses on fire, and then ran away throwing fireworks at the police, and one was caught and got stepped on when the horse flinched from getting hit by an exploding firework? Which of these is appalling police behavior against innocent protestors?

A valiant effort at reframing, but no.

I'd rather talk about the clip in which a man is on the ground, after not having hit anyone or attacked anything, surrounded by multiple officers-- some mounted and some not-- who repeatedly beat him and pull him back to the ground.

 

[tstorm823]

And I've seen far less rocks being used than rubber bullets being used.

What you've seen is selective information. The sources you choose not to trust have videos of people pelting cop cars from an overpass and smashing the windshields. Same with ice being unidentified, you get a short clip with no audio and take the wordt for granted. You'll never see the conflicting evidence to that narrative.

I'd rather talk about the clip in which a man is on the ground, after not having hit anyone or attacked anything, surrounded by multiple officers-- some mounted and some not-- who repeatedly beat him and pull him back to the ground.

Bet. Link the clip, we will talk about it.

 

[XsjadoBlaydette]

James talks to Robert about the LA protests after spending Monday night on the ground in DTLA covering the protests and police response.

handpicked trump supporting soldiers to garuntee he'd get postive reception from crowd, typical fragile fash boi behaviour

 

[Agema]

The second scenario you describe is genuinely worse than the first. It's bad for people to be undocumented, whether they're getting deported or not.

Yes, it is. But potentially the best outcome for someone who is an illegal immigrant - for the immigrant and the USA - is not necessarily to deport them. It might be to give them a means to continue staying instead.

I accept as a valid issue that this could potentially encourage more illegal immigration if the USA lets people stay. Although probably a lot less than you might think, because I suspect by far the biggest driver of immigration is how rubbish it is in the immigrant's country of origin. This is one of the arguments in favour of international aid.

In the condemnation of degenerate gamblers, you don't make an exception for the person who won the jackpot and congratulate their success.

Currently I think the opposite is how it works, and many people are fine with it.

Did a company manipulate monopolistic power to destroy competitors, did they "move fast and break things" where what was often broken was the law? Manipulate systems to hoover up huge sums of taxpayer funding, keep the profits and avoid taxes in return? Sure sure, maybe they got fined a few times because they couldn't lobby (bribe) the authorities, but at the end of the day the company is worth a trillion dollars, its sociopathic/narcissistic owner-CEO is one of the 100 richest men on the planet and lionised for his accomplishment. Whilst this is the top end, but millions of people are doing similar stuff like it on smaller scales.

Or take Trump. All his frauds, lying, cheating, lawbreaking... and this was so objectionable, you voted him president. He's the living proof the USA doesn't really have a problem with degenerates who hit the jackpot.

A ton of illegal immigrants - outside the illegality of their immigration itself - are more honest and ethical than Trump or many people lauded as national heroes.

Why is this capable, well-adjusted family not living their decent life in a nation where they are citizens? The US has done a disservice to that nation, that nations people, our own nation, our own nation's people, and likely even that happy family themselves by allowing people to live outside of the rights and obligations of a citizen.

Sure, if they should have the rights and obligations of a citizen, then offer the deserving a route to US citizenship, even if they were illegal. Hell, Trump has decided that foreigners can just buy residency if they've got a few million lying around, so don't pretend your country is actually that picky.

But otherwise, the argument that this is somehow unfair exploitation of foreign countries and their citizens by the USA are weak to absurd, because:

1) This argument is cynical to the point of dishonest. Very few people against immigration are motivated by benevolent concern towards immigrants or their country of origin. I don't believe you are, for instance.
1) The circumstances of their country of origin are such that many would be unable to thrive (in extreme cases, this is the rationale underlying asylum). Thus in those cases it's not depriving that country of anything at all, those people would just be wasted there.
2) It's completely broken to make arguments that it's unfair to deprive countries of capable and productive people when they are illegal immigrants, whilst at the same time your country intentionally tries to strip other countries of their brightest and best via work visas.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Perhaps its that your point itself changes so often.



Oh really? So you believe they falsified the results of the studies, to hide a 1-in-10,000 side effect-- I presume you have some pretty solid evidence to substantiate an accusation of such serious (and pointless) malfeasance?

Or perhaps you could accept that the rate is practically indistinguishable from the general rate of myocarditis in the public, so accusations of deliberate conspiracy are just foolish waffle. The incidence rate of any given disease will already experience yearly deviations, and won't stick rigidly to an average. Any statistical impact of the vaccine was so minor, it existed wholly within the expected deviations of "background noise". But here you are raising alarm bells and alleging fraud.



Let's delve into these numbers. Provide your source for this. Because I'm absolutely certain that the risk of myocarditis, even within this group, pales in comparison to the risks brought by Covid itself. You're fearmongering about a negligible risk and encouraging people to avoid that risk by taking other, greater risks.



I expect we're past that point already; empowering anti-vax sentiment tends to damage trust for decades to come, lowering takeup rates and increasing disease prevalence over a long timeframe. You have no idea how damaging to public perception and awareness it is, to have the head of the dept of health spreading lies about the efficacy of medicine.



...at a school club in Canada, at their own behest. Precisely zero to do with official guidance, "the science", or even American health policy at all.

If you would stop shifting...

Israel had no problem finding it...

You couldn't be more wrong.

UK Now Reports Myocarditis stratified by Age & Sex After Vaccine Or Sars-cov-2

Nature Medicine paper revisited: And it is shocking

www.drvinayprasad.com

And the CDC lying about covid for years has also done irreparable damage. All the kids that were out of school for 18 months lost so much.

I've posted numerous places this happened, here's another one...

Syracuse marching band seen wearing masks with holes during football game

Trumpet players from Syracuse University’s marching band could be seen wearing masks with holes cut in them during the school's home football game Saturday at the Carrier Dome. The aim appeared to be to allow the band members to wear masks while simultaneously playing instruments that require...

cbs6albany.com

 

[tstorm823]

1) This argument is cynical to the point of dishonest. Very few people against immigration are motivated by benevolent concern towards immigrants or their country of origin. I don't believe you are, for instance.
2) The circumstances of their country of origin are such that many would be unable to thrive (in extreme cases, this is the rationale underlying asylum). Thus in those cases it's not depriving that country of anything at all, those people would just be wasted there.
3) It's completely broken to make arguments that it's unfair to deprive countries of capable and productive people when they are illegal immigrants, whilst at the same time your country intentionally tries to strip other countries of their brightest and best via work visas.

1) I think the biggest driver of opposition to immigration is metaphorically the Tower of Babel, as a society without shared language is inclined to fall to pieces. But that's hardly the sole motivation, and you're not contradicting the point.
2) That person is in the minority of immigrants, and equally there are undoubtedly people who go to California from other nations (just as they do from other US states) who could have been a pillar of their own community and instead rotted away in LA.
3) I agree. And it's part of my perspective, the US immigration system at every level serves the GDP over all other considerations, and that is bad.

 

[Silvanus]

If you would stop shifting...

My position is as it always was: I don't care if a franchise casts someone of any ethnicity for a role, unless it somehow actively undermines the core narrative (i.e., if Othello, Desdemona and Iago were all of the same ethnicity and the text was unchanged, it would undermine the core narrative unless there was a really compelling reason for it). There has been no shift.

Israel had no problem finding it...

No problem proving a causal link between the Covid vaccine and Myocarditis, pre-April-2021? Let's see the study.

You couldn't be more wrong.

UK Now Reports Myocarditis stratified by Age & Sex After Vaccine Or Sars-cov-2

Nature Medicine paper revisited: And it is shocking

www.drvinayprasad.com

View attachment 13359

I was immediately sceptical of this for a few reasons. Foremost that he posts the table of 'excess events' against vaccination doses without including the population size, making it essentially meaningless. Thankfully we can go to the Nature report itself for the population size: per 1 million. So that's actually 5 more myocarditis excess events per million people for that specific subgroup. Vinay Prasad felt compelled to snip out the contextual size of the sample for some strange reason, and just post the one bar being bigger than the other.

Now. Even though such negligible numbers are well within the margins for background noise, let's assume it's true, meaning that for those over 40, there is an increased 0.0005% risk of myocarditis. Shocking indeed!

....of course, I said to compare that to the risks associated with Covid. Not just myocarditis. Let's see what Nature has to say about the relative risks of other heart issues, like pericarditis and arrhythmia;



:0 Not looking good for Team Covid.

And the CDC lying about covid for years has also done irreparable damage. All the kids that were out of school for 18 months lost so much.

Public health policy you disagree with isn't a "lie". It may be misguided, or even damaging, but it's not a lie, in the way that RFK's published report is full of lies.

 

[Hades]

They did some economic harm in the form of rising prices while they were briefly in place, and then he U-turned?

And isn't the dollar at an all time low because of Trump's antics?