Hey, it's your catch phrase! Bad news though, I made a little histogram, and it's not catching on. There was a huge spike back around the 20th of May when you and a few other people made a concerted effort to start using it, but it dwindled back down to like a few times a week again since then.
I think you should start inserting it into the discourse some more. It's sure to catch on. Just keep repeating it! Don't get discouraged if people make fun of you for it.
Oh, I know. Trust me, I know. I just want to (a) answer krashmo's pretty reasonable question (b) have ozma's refusal to answer my question to be able to refer to in the future, to make the point to other people, when he inevitably posts this bad-faith bullshit a few times a week every week from now until the election.
So there are three urgent problems with immigration in this country, two of which root back to a sudden wild spike upwards in the number of people coming into the country which wasn't matched by a corresponding spike in the resources for the agencies that deal with them:
Biden is unable to fix #1 without an act of God (basically firing all existing ICE and CBP agents and then finding 45,000 people who really want to work as immigration police but who aren't racist or oppressive). He's unable to fix #2 or #3, although those ones do have legislative solutions, because the Republicans block anything he does, even when he tried promising to do some cruel or racist things as a compromise in order to get them to also agree to some badly needed things (mostly, increasing ICE funding so they can at least house the people they have in better conditions, and increasing the number of judges to process cases so people don't wait for a year before their case is heard).
And, any time he tries to do anything about it (e.g. try to increase the number of deportations or increase ICE resources, both of which are actually things that would help reduce the suffering from its current state), everyone on the left yells at him, because US immigration is cruel and interacting with it involves interacting with a cruel system.
I would ask ozma the same thing I asked about marijuana policy: What exactly should Biden do to fix the situation? Without resorting to magical solutions like "make ICE not racist" or "just fix the backlog without congress" or just making wild assertions like "oh he could fix it if he wanted to, he just doesn't want to" or similar things that aren't how the federal government works?
I'm open to almost anything; I'm happy to talk about details or exact things or policies, as long as it's grounded in "X and Y are policies he could realistically do and here is how it would help." But if it's just yelling and asserting that he is cruel and he could fix it if he wanted and he's a bad man because US immigration is cruel (which, it certainly is, famously so) and that's all his fault, I'm not into that conversation.
Yeah. You can actually look at the timeline, and there was an extensive debate inside Ukraine about whether or not they should make any kind of attempt at NATO, with the "not" side being initially pretty strong, and for pretty much exactly the reason you'd expect. And then, every time Russia did some unprovoked horrifying military aggression nearby or directly to them, the eagerness for NATO within Ukraine got a lot greater, until at this point, they and the West are both firmly in favor of it once things stabilize to a non-WW3 level of safety to do that.
The whole "Russia responded after the West tried to get Ukraine into NATO, which Ukraine had no independent desire for" thing is backwards in two whole separate different ways.
Wasn’t intending it as any kind of negative thing, just giving more of the info, since you provided some which I thought was a good idea
“How dare you blow up civilians with all the weapons I’ve been giving you the whole time you’ve been blowing up civilians”
There's more. Her full statement is:
It only means Russia will have one less plane flying to Ukraine to strike and kill Ukrainians. ... Our job as politicians is to explain what will happen if we do not make such a decision. It is necessary to realize that in such a case, the Russian army will go to the western border of Ukraine, up to the Polish border. These troops will then be directly in front of the NATO border, which we are also defending. If we don't stop Putin, then, as a result, our territory and our military will be jeopardized. Because if [Russia] attacks Poland or another NATO country, such as the Baltic states, we Germans will also be drawn into the war. If you don't want that, you have to make life difficult for Putin.
It's an aspect I had not considered -- "I don't want a hostile military alliance coming right up to my country's border" cuts both ways.
Oh no, I wasn't talking about the general "don't vote" contingent on slrpnk -- that seems fine; just like you're saying, it seems authentically arrived at. I was just saying that there are a couple of users there that seem to have a particular and very specific focus on this exact election and specifically on not voting in this election, and not much interest in anarchism beyond its application to parts that would be generally applicable to someone who was trying to engineer a result for Trump in the election.
I mean, what the hell, no one needs my permission to say whatever they feel like saying. But to the extent that my opinion on it matters, I don't think slrpnk overall or its general "fuck the system and yes that includes the voting system" vibe that it has are indicative of anything shill related, no.
Newtonian mechanics are not wrong, just simplified. That is fine. What I’m saying is wrong is picking an example which specifically violates the exact parameters of the simplified model you’re teaching. It’s like if you’re teaching Newton’s laws and you decide to model a space probe traveling at 10% of light speed as your example. Just pick another example. For Punnet squares, you could talk about the bean plants, or blood types in people, or whatever you want that is pretty well abstracted as a single gene. Idk, for me I was never told in school that the blue/brown square was any simplified model of what was really going on. It was just, it’s a single gene, it’s brown and blue, that’s what’s up.
So this book actually goes into quite a lot of detail about why I think this is a problem. Page 110-112 talk about the original conclusion by adult scientists that blue and brown eyes work exactly in this simplified model. Pages 114-131 go into the incredible level of genetic and environmental and perceptual factors that actually determine eye color and what the actual spectrum is and why.
What I think is interesting is the pages between, where the author cites a bunch of scientists who had clearly modified their data to get the “right” answers (e.g. swearing confidently that two blue-eyed parents could never produce a brown eyed child, when the actual tested number was 12%). Just kind of clinging to the simplified model because it’s what you were told.
I don’t think we need to give the full hugely complicated model in a genetics class, although I actually think eye color would be a great way to introduce the idea that it’s a lot more complicated than just the Punnet squares in some light touching on it way. But to me, teaching the kids the page 110 explanation is a mistake because it’s teeing them up to commit the same kinds of mistakes from the following pages.
No, I'm disagreeing with the idea of describing a narrative as "dangerous" as a reason to criticize it, instead of whether it's true or not. To me, whether it's a sincere and accurate description of the world is the main thing.
I'm being rude to you because, to me, you're being wildly insulting to the Ukrainian people. Sorry. Maybe it is uncalled for. But I know some Ukrainians. Telling them to lie down to Russian aggression because of "realism," and criticizing the resistance their country is putting up, is way more insulting than anything I've said to you.
It's not the only "what passes for science curriculum in schools in the United States" factoid that is inaccurate.
The thing about genetics and blue / brown eye color was obviously false to me even as a child. I can look around and see that there are green eyes and that there's some disagreement about what is "hazel" versus "brown" or light brown or whatever. To me it was obviously wrong that it was as simple as a single gene that was dominant / recessive in exactly the way it was described -- like if there are two people with brown eyes, there is a 0% chance that they have anything recessive going on other than that single blue gene -- and it pissed me off that they were teaching us something in school that was wrong, just because it was sort of approximately true, and if we pretend it's always true, it lets us make the point we were trying to make.
There are surely other examples you can draw from; I am sure there are plenty that really do work the way they were telling us eye color did. You don't need to teach the kids to believe the textbook when it doesn't line up with what they can directly observe, and not to ask questions but just say it was how it was described in the book, and ignore counterexamples they can see and interact with on a daily basis.
If you can't tell, I'm still to this day a little pissed off about it. 🙂
Okay, so this is an example of why I think you're some sort of fake leftist. You've said this exact thing to me earlier and I didn't really dwell on it all that much -- but it is very bizarre for a supposedly far-left person to hold up CNN as a trusted source. Almost everyone on the left in the US regards CNN as corporate garbage.
The time before, you actually were arguing with me when I was criticizing a CNN article I think, something like you don't know how much more liberal it can get than CNN and you don't see why I would question it, which I interpreted as one of those accidental big slip-ups where the mask comes off a little bit. Maybe I am wrong in that, of course. Surely there are people on the left who for whatever reason trust CNN. But I think the ones of them that are also rabidly anti-establishment-Democrat are probably a lot more rare than you realize. It struck me as much more a statement that would come from someone outside the left, who was accidentally using their own viewpoint on CNN (that it's "liberal") and not the fake leftist view they were supposed to be using.
But yes, CNN criticizing Biden on immigration means more or less nothing. I actually talked a little more at length -- I think with you -- about the ACLU's criticism of him, which although I would take a lot more seriously I also don't agree with, and I explained some of the reasons why. But, predictably, you ignored it and just went back to repeating over and over again that Biden is bad on immigration.