10A

Once somebody becomes an illegal, everything they do is inherently illegal until they retreat from American soil. How is it possible for them to be less illegal than a bona fide American when their entire state of being, and everything they do, is inherently illegal? It seems like you're telling me I'd see that they're actually good citizens if only I'd ignore the facts that they're neither good nor citizens.

Anyone who has any kind of negative association with the American flag needs to get out of the US, ASAP, and I do support deportation for them. But you're right, that's it's own tangent.

With regard to your position on idolatry, I do understand your viewpoint, and I don't defend idolatry. Of all the various reasons one might refuse to salute the flag, I think a fear of idolatry is perhaps the only one I'd consider valid. I get why you wouldn't want to touch it with a ten-foot pole. I only ask that you trust me when I say I don't worship the flag.

In my personal life, whenever I pledge my allegiance to the flag (which happens at least once per week), it's always preceded by a prayer. That's the same way it always was for school children too until SCOTUS banned it in '62. I believe that was a mistake, and saying the pledge without an opening prayer can certainly leave the wrong impression.

In Bram's memory, those of us who can afford to ought to consider making a donation to his preferred charity, ICCF Holland.

Thank you for my editor of choice, Bram.

:wq

They’re the same people.

That strikes me as an overly broad generalization, but maybe you're right.

It’s the mentality of somebody who’s life is in danger, or who is trying to provide for their family any way they can.

I suppose I understand that. But that doesn't excuse the behavior.

Say you were starving, and you encounter a man with food. You ask him to share it with you, and he rudely declines. Are you justified in slaughtering him to take his food? Of course not. What if it's to feed your family? No, that's still murder.

Now we're not really discussing murder here, but my point is that an immoral action is inherently immoral, and no amount of suffering or danger can justify an immoral action, nor warrant sympathy for one who commits it.

And in case you didn’t know, roughly 50% of all illegal immigration occurs […]

I did know that! It's an interesting fact. And I wish it was more common knowledge. It's why building the wall is absolutely not enough, though I'd like to see it built anyway as a preliminary baby-step.

Until some major things change, cartels will always exist due to the black market demand for them.

Some major things like what? I'd love to know how to end market demand, but that's a very hard problem to solve.

Fighting a cartel will have no effect other than to end your own life.

I dunno. If one dude goes up against a cartel army, sure, that's suicide. But if an entire country organizes into a strategic war on the cartels, I think the ensuing bloodbath would be the end of all cartels in that country.

When black WW2 vets were denied low interest housing loans on the basis of race, and white WW2 vets were given them freely, how was that not a systemic inequality in opportunity?

Racist behavior is despicable, and I think we agree on that. But the word "systemic" generally means invisible and imagined. You gave a great example of actual racism, and that sort of thing hasn't happened in a very long time in the US. Today's so-called racism is "systemic", meaning you have to have a rather active imagination to believe it exists. (Edit: I take this back, as colleges were openly racist before the SCOTUS banned it, and woke corporations are still doing affirmative action. That's not systemic though, it's just actual racism.)

Comparing this to slavery is quite frankly silly.

Yeah, I didn't mean it like that. I meant the argument that it's "good for the economy" doesn't convince me, just as someone could argue that slavery is good for the economy, and many economists argue that Chinese imports are good for the economy. I don't care. We can tank the economy for all I care. I don't find the argument compelling.

Semantics matter! So many of our disagreements are rooted in our using different definitions, and talking past each other, thinking the other side is crazy because we're misinterpreting each other's words.

You don't have to convince me to change my personal definition of anything. But by defining yours, as you have, I can understand where you're coming from. The fact that I don't consider it hatred doesn't much matter.

So @thepixelfox's point (and I suppose your point too) that I am cold and unfeeling towards foreigners who break into the US illegally is absolutely correct. Again I want to emphasize that I don't hate these people emotionally. But I don't think they deserve an ounce of our sympathy either. They're not our neighbors; they're hostile invaders.

You treat is as a moral failure for not treating the flag with the utmost respect, and that is a form of worship.

I'd treat it as a moral failure to disrespect a neighbor, and the flag symbolizes our neighbors. Moreover, I believe the US is one nation under God, and that concept is represented in our flag.

Listen, I'm a sinner, and I don't pretend to be even slightly perfect. There is so much I deserve to be judged for, and I'll accept that judgment when the day comes. But one of the few sins I'm not guilty of, to the best of my knowledge, is idolatry.

And in my experience, it's uncommon for others to worship the flag either. Treating it with respect out of respect for our neighbors and our nation is wholly different from worshiping it.

The flag

Gotcha. The flag's not a false idol at all. Not sure where you live, but I'm in a fairly Christian conservative area, and it's commonplace to see "kneel for the cross, stand for the flag" signs. Nobody worships the flag. It's just a uniting symbol of our neighbors across the nation. When we say "love your neighbor", the flag is the imagery that comes to mind for me. It's not an idol at all, just a symbol of our fellow Americans, who we strive to love.

You don’t have to hate somebody to do something hateful towards them or say something hateful. Hate isn’t always intentional.

What a peculiar claim. Hatred is a feeling. I know what's in my heart. You don't. You can misinterpret my words, but you can't rightfully ascribe feelings to my heart which I don't feel.

Yes, well the MAGA crowd isn't very conservative if you ask me, and personally I support DeSantis. I think Democrats are strongly pushing for a Trump nomination because they know he's unelectable, and it's an easy play.

But to your point, I concede that most people do consider MAGA to be right wing, and that Trump has on several occasions said things suggesting he'd like an autocracy. I think we can agree that'd be undesirable. I just don't think it's very conservative.

Like Jan 6th.

All that was, was a group of jaded voters who believed (rightly or wrongly) that there was election fraud. Personally I see no evidence of fraud substantial enough to change the election. But at the same time, I recognize that for someone who truly did believe there was election fraud, they were upset and they wanted to protest about it. That's all it was — a protest that was legitimate based on what they believed.

You are constrained by reality. Nobody is here to delete my posts and ban me for you.

And I'm glad about that, 100%. I wouldn't want you banned.

But back to the definition, you can't just pluck a couple of words out of there and say it's a match. The whole definition fits the left way better than the right, and yet in truth doesn't fit either completely.

Upvoted for a pretty good explanation, though I do disagree that any of that is hateful, and I don't know what "false idol" you referred to.

I'll tell you this: I don't feel any hatred in my heart towards illegal immigrants, nor towards my political opponents. I mean that honestly.

So I take issue with your claim of hatred, as it's factually incorrect.

I hear you. It's rather hard to convince anyone of anything, and the best we can do is listen and try to understand other people's perspectives.

While I personally don't favor retreat, I acknowledge that many do. I find it interesting to consider that our opinion on fighting versus retreat underlies our perspectives on illegal immigration, though obviously we're influenced by other factors and beliefs as well.

Please, for the love of all that is good, don't subject yourself to videos like that anymore. I mean, it's good to be aware of what's going on in the world, and it helps to make the point you made, but still, what nightmare material.

Hmm, let's break it down:

a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti)

Could be leftists, conservatives, or any other political group.

that exalts nation and often race above the individual

Well that excludes conservatives, because conservatism celebrates rugged individualism.

Leftism, by contrast, embraces groups above individualism. This is what conservatives usually refer to as neo-Marxism. It's also known as identity politics. It's this idea that we're all members of a group, and that group gives us our identity. Then with intersectionality, you have multiple groups defining identity.

Two caveats:

1. Christians are the exception to the rule, where many conservatives do embrace an identity that can be defined as a group.
2. Leftists do exalt groups above the individual, but those groups are not normally the nation (at least not in the US).

and that stands for a centralized autocratic government

Yes, in general, conservatives support small government, while leftists prefer government regulations over private business, government handouts for the poor, government taxation of the wealthy, and government control of every little thing in life — basically big government.

Centralized? In the US, centralized means federal control whereas decentralized means State and local control. Leftists generally prefer the former, whereas conservatives generally prefer the latter.

headed by a dictatorial leader

Not applicable in the US, but I wouldn't put it past the Left in the near future.

severe economic and social regimentation,

Yep, see this thread for instance. Leftist love regimented control over what we're allowed to think, and they love silencing the opposition.

and forcible suppression of opposition

Oh, you mean like when Biden has his primary opponent, Trump, tied up in court with accusations and a threat of imprisonment? Or, you mean like this very thread where leftists are trying to silence the TERFs? Yes, leftists absolutely love the forcible suppression of their opposition.

In conclusion, no, it's not a perfect fit for leftists, but it's loosely close — and it certainly doesn't fit conservatives even slightly.

The people there aren’t hardened criminals.

Well the people who choose to live there are a bit different from the ones who choose to illegally come to the US. How would you describe that difference? What kind of mentality does it take to knowingly break into another country uninvited? It's like people who break into houses, who usually make the news when the homeowner shoots them. Who does that? Who thinks it's a grand idea to go break in where they don't belong?

People who break an unjust law (resisting tyranny) cannot be both bottom of the barrel (unacceptable) and acceptable.

Oh, so do I understand correctly that you mean US immigration laws are tyrannical? Please explain.

it often involves simply moving them out of danger.

Well, yes, that's a decision many people do indeed make. I view it as cowardice. It's honorable to stand and fight, and to die in battle; it's dishonorable to flee.

Empathy is a critical component to a functional society, and a good member of society.

I do agree with this. I just don't think it applies to people who are outside of our society, or to people who broke into our home.

there is no such thing as equality of opportunity when there is a systemic problem with society.

I reject that premise as certified hooey. There's no systemic anything. It's absolute nonsense, rooted in a deranged rejection of western civilization. Sorry, I know that's rude, and I'm not trying to offend you personally. I appreciate how generally respectful this interaction has been. I just reject this notion out of hand.

immigrants are incredibly beneficial for the economy, and on average commit fewer crimes than U.S. citizens:

Maybe they lay low because they're afraid of getting deported? Honestly I don't care how good they are for the economy. I mean, slavery was extraordinarily good for the southern economy, if you don't count the slaves as people. So it's not an argument I find compelling. Some things are good for the economy, or great for the economy, and yet I still oppose them. (There are other things in this category, like Chinese imports.)

Should I be surprised that someone so radically far-left, so as to believe the US has no left, is someone who freely dishes out insults?

You're talking about old-school reddiquette, which even reddit itself forgot eons ago: upvote well thought-out comments even if you disagree with them. And I actually do that to a degree, even if I dislike the author's point. But if I think the comment is wrong in some way then I downvote it. That's not to say I want the author silenced, just that the down button is there to be used sometimes.