Zaktor @ Zaktor @sopuli.xyz

Posts

12

Comments

3,473

Joined

2 yr. ago

Reread the comment, because you've entirely missed the point.

I agree in the sense that the way things played out the narrative can be he was right the whole time, so someone inclined to avoid conflict can excuse it, but even if you're right, you're still obligated to follow court orders until you successfully get it stayed or appealed. They got a lawful order from a court to turn around flights and just didn't. The order doesn't need to be at the end of an appeal to the Supreme Court before it has effect.

And that grew into protests and riots, so... what's your point?

Hey guys, guess what. Authoritarianism isn't trivial to beat. All the other authoritarian states in the world aren't just full of lazy people who didn't use the one simple trick. Turns out both propaganda works and a lot of people are actually scared of being murdered or sent to a gulag.

But again, you get none of that if you try to skip the first steps.

It's all boiling a frog. If he did that day one it would be over the line and cause response. Each step along the way that is eventually accepted makes the next step easier, which enables the one after that and so forth. They deported "criminals" not legally in the country with little protest, they faced little pushback when it turned out they weren't criminals, so they then moved on to those who are here legally. And as this is becoming mundane they're laying the groundwork for it to be citizens.

The only line they have is what the people will tolerate, and they're expanding that day by day.

Revolutions don't just spontaneously materialize from nothing, they grow from riots, that grow from peaceful protests, that grow from people complaining to each other in social settings. None of the early steps are sufficient, but they are the type of things that are necessary for the end result. There is no world where less dissenting online leads to more direct action.

This destroys their earlier argument that they don't have jurisdiction and interpret the ruling to only require them to remove US barriers to his return, not actually make it happen. Here's the guy they claim has jurisdiction saying the only reason he won't send him home is because he can't make the US accept him.

The court needs to make a concrete order immediately that they shall accept him back, pay for any travel expenses, and cease payment for his incarceration. And until they demonstrate that they have a method to fix mistakes, bar any further transfers.

Yeah, they all suck. Ed Case is a world class piece of shit as he's representing urban Honolulu, in a SOLIDLY blue district.

They're all fantastically rich and frankly most don't have many years left to spend it. They can fucking pay for security rather than disappear during the greatest political crisis in 50 years.

Even the corporate Democrats don't support this. It's not good for the slow and steady accumulation of wealth without risk of discord. Their problem is that they're the champions of the status quo. And when your political goal is for nothing to change, your entire political philosophy and toolbox is based around finding reasons not to do anything.

So now, even when the status quo is being obliterated and it should be the one time these people have value, their instincts are to just go through the same motions they always do, making ineffectual gestures, making excuses for inaction, and avoiding confrontation with their colleagues so they can all find a way that their people (not their political sides, their respective wealthy peers) can profit together.

You blocked them and now you're using the fact that you don't see similar posts from the people you say you've blocked to justify that your blocks were correct?

Would you consider that result to be an administration that has deferred to the rule of law? Would that make you feel safer?

Unless it is demonstrated that our legal system still has the power to correct wrongs being done by the administration it doesn't much matter. "You might be unlawfully abducted and lost before the judiciary can return you" is not a message that resolves this as a demonstration of where the regime's limits are. They want to strike fear, and "a judge said to bring them back but that didn't happen" does that just fine.

The market was moving even before then. Someone knew through a channel other than Trump's public statements.

And it started at 42% before the genocide. So two years of genocide convinced 11% of people that the apartheid state was bad, actually.

Education leaders expressed concern about arrests and revocations that could lead to a drop in international education in the United States.

They're framing this as a non-optimal policy for long-term enrollment, like Trump may have just made a mistake and needs to be informed, not an attack on education, freedom of expression, and multiculturalism from the playbook of fascists.

I live on an island covered in military bases and have been on them both locally and elsewhere for various reasons. It's not all MAGA, but it's also not an environment of woke resistors. Those high skilled people ready to refuse are the exception, not the norm, and they're not the people a declaration of martial law would rely on.

A martial law order isn't going to look like "go shoot some hippies", it's going to be seizing and holding important infrastructure, setting up checkpoints, and enforcing a curfew. That stuff can all be military-speak formatted to look like just perfectly fine orders under exigent circumstances. If violence happens it will be plausibly framed as defending those "legitimate" orders, and it will likely be performed by people who are loyalists. The rest will just be there to support and protect them.

Their colonies is a much longer list with a lot of nations with good reason to hate them. These are the ones where the colonizers maintained majorities over the indigenous peoples. They never even rejected the monarchy.

A lot of them are in because it can offer an escape from poverty, and training involves hammering home that they have to just follow orders. They're going to go along like everyone else because defying orders is a big personal risk for people who are not in a position to just lose everything.

GWB + Trump judges in the majority, Clinton judge opposed.

The Fediverse is a specific thing. And even if it were just referring to any federated social network, it's very questionable whether Bluesky really can have independent instances.

Because this is not c/maybefederatedsocialnetworks, it's c/fediverse, which is a specific thing.