Initiateofthevoid

I may very well be on OPs side but what I see is a lot of dust getting kicked up and that usually means the trump propaganda machine is ramping up.

Alright, I will give you far more good faith than you've shown me.

You're not really giving anyone a lot to work with in this thread, but if you're done jerking your own chain about us being... what? Slaves to the narrative?

This is just extremely cyclical and unproductive poochie. Your reasoning for questioning the public outcry against the FBI arresting a judge... is because people being upset usually means this administration wants them to be upset?

... And not because they may have - yet again - crossed a line that would upset reasonable people?

All of the following is from the FBI's side of the story.

A man appeared at court for legal proceedings related to charges of domestic violence. His alleged victim(s) - that is, the people accusing him of the crime - were also present. (This would later be a shocking revelation by the Attorney General as if it was some unusual and dangerous situation)

ICE arrive without proper legal documentation to compel the judge to allow them into her courtroom. They demand to arrest her defendant. She tells them they don't have the right warrant, and to talk to the Chief Judge. While they do so, witnesses allege she instructs the defendant to leave through the "jury door", or the door at the back of the courtroom.

The agents realize, and chase the man outside the building and arrest him. The FBI later arrests the judge for obstruction of justice and claims she "misdirected" the agents.

All of that is how the administration themselves have described the story, and I invite you to explain to me why I shouldn't be furious. Why you think we should be upset about Kilmar instead when the two situations are obviously intrinsically linked.

They are trying to make judges afraid of interfering so that they can keep kidnapping and concentrating people like Kilmar Abrego Garcia. This woman was trying to stop them from making another man disappear.

Everyone has 10 stories about trains being cancelled or buses not showing up. That’s life. Completely irrelevant to the fact that cars give you independence.

So... again... if you have access to a train, a bus, and a car, then one single failure won't stop you. If you only have access to a car, a single failure will stop you. I don't know how to make that any more clear. It's not about a train being better than a car, it's about only having a car.

But, yes, trains and buses in a functioning mass transit system are insanely more reliable than cars. That's not just personal experience, though it's quite an assumption to make! That's just statistics.

Thanks! Try not to let it get you down. It's less a Lovecraftian horror and more like a giant Rube Goldberg-Plinko machine that got way out of hand.

That’s simply not the kind of independence people are talking about.

Yes it is. People praise the car as the ultimate freedom because they imagine that they can take that car anywhere. But the moment they have a problem with their car, they literally can't go anywhere.

Everyone has a story about how their car didn't start, or about the mechanic that didn't actually fix the problem, or how they're still waiting on a part and can't fix it until tomorrow. Plenty of people are stuck waiting on the roadside for hours waiting for a tow. Plenty of people are stuck waiting for days to hear back from their insurance company on if repairs are covered or who will pay for it or which mechanic is allowed to do the work.

So? You know what can also derail your day?

Do you... think that's a gotcha? How many times has your train derailed? Is this a common problem in your life? Don't you hate it when your employee doesn't show up to work all the time because his train derailed?

It's so ridiculously uncommon that it may as well be a rounding error compared to car accidents and incidents.

ICE walked into that courthouse without a judicial warrant - no judge authorized the attempted arrest of the defendant, who I might add voluntarily appeared for his court hearing.

This is the real threat, folks. This is one of many vicious cycles they want to start. Arrest immigrants at their own hearings, when they are already complying with the will of the state. Convince others not to show up to court, make them fear any and all interactions with the state, then accuse them of being fugitives and label all of them criminals by default.

An administrative warrant doesn't mean shit to a judge. She had every right to tell them to go talk to her boss, and in the meantime? She opened the back door.

That's it. That's the crime worthy of arresting a judge. A middle aged Milwaukee woman doing her goddamn job.

She opened a door and let the defendants - who had entered her courtroom legally and voluntarily - depart safely.

These are thugs, these are kidnappers, these are criminals. Obstructing ICE is NOT obstructing justice, because ICE is the one breaking laws and stripping away the rights of every American. They act without legal authority, they act without judicial approval, and they act without any regard for freedom, or rights, or basic human dignity.

It is the goddamn right and responsibility of every American to obstruct ICE at every opportunity, because there is no justice when Judges are forced to bow to them.

and 100% less naziism

For whatever reason this sparked a whole bunch of nonsense in my brain like "100% nazi-free chicken!"

And "should I drink skim milk or 2% Nazi milk?"

or "buy the new German EV, it's got 50% less nazi than our leading competitors!"

Thanks for that brainwave

Nonsense and fringe lunacy... like asking for multiple options when it comes to transportation? Recognizing that building redundancies into our infrastructure is actually more efficient than relying on a one-size-fits-all solution?

A car breaking down can completely derail an individual's day. A truck breaking down on a highway can derail a city's day. The less the person or city needs cars to function, the less likely they are to be stuck when something goes wrong.

The only way to move around without depending on other companies is by walking, and there’s no way that can replace cars, trains, buses, bicycles, etc.

If you have all of those options available, you can never be stranded when one of those options fails.

But with a car-centric society, all it takes is a single point of failure, and you are no longer free to move about the society.

They are not advocating for society to be less interdependent. They are explaining that a car-centric society has less freedom of movement, because the "independence" of a car is a lie.

You are correct, and ultimately the issue is that the laws shouldn't be different for immigration courts or immigration agents, because wrongful detention or deportation can be worse than wrongful imprisonment.

His only regret was that he wouldn’t be around much longer, to truly enjoy the depth and breadth of suffering he brought to humanity.

Actually, his only regret was that he failed to disinherit 3 of his 4 children so that his empire could outlive him.

Natural causes are coming for him and his creation, and neither he nor the fuckup in chief have one true biological or political heir to wield their ridiculous power. Their legacies will crumble without them, and the world will cheer. Or at least sigh in relief.

You are seen! There are thousands of "you's" out there building permanently-temporary fixes out of digital duct tape. Users think it's black magic, IT thinks it's a security risk, management thinks it replaces IT, and you know it just keeps things moving while everyone else talks about the big software overhaul that's way overdue but always 6-36 months down the road.

Something in me refuses to believe that these people knowingly and intentionally harm women. But it sure as hell looks intentional.

Most people don't do any of this "intentionally" in the sense that they are aware of the harm they cause. It doesn't even enter the realm of moral consideration.

To many, there is a genuine belief of superiority that is entirely subconscious. The easiest example is classic mysogyny in a relationship - the woman is "emotional" and therefore the man should be the one to handle "business". That's not just 1950s oppression. Some variation of that thought process is shockingly prevalent across generations.

That man doesn't really think he's harming his woman. He thinks he's helping, by being the man of the house. That same logic applies outside of romance. "I am more rational than she is, therefore I should talk now and she shouldn't."

That's not a thought. That's just a foundational belief that spawns all the other thoughts.

Ever been in an argument with another adult, and a child joined in with some naive half-informed emotional take on society?

An adult usually placates the child - explains, briefly, why they're wrong - and returns to arguing with the other adult.

That's how a lot of men see women by default. As inferior, naive, ill-informed, emotional creatures. Not consciously. Not intentionally. Many mysogynists genuinely seem to have the same intentions as the adult to the child - to placate and educate.

But its fucked up, and it's important to acknowledge that it simmers under he surface. The reason all of this is so complicated and messy is that it is so hard to see mysogyny for what it is.

You genuinely can't know if a single interaction with a single male was an example of mysogyny, because sometimes humans just condescend to each other. Sometimes humans are just shitty to each other.

But women experience so many of these experiences in aggregate that they can't give the benefit of the doubt to every man they meet, especially when the man himself might not understand his own implicit biases.