Can you describe at what point someone would “have blood on their hands” in your view?
The problem in my mind is that these systems are exclusively in service of dishonesty. ICE is clearly being used to further political ends. If it were actually trying to stem immigration it wouldn’t concentrate its officers in a state with one of the lowest rates of illegal immigrants.
Are you saying you agree with that cause or that you bear no responsibility?
It makes perfect sense to concentrate law enforcement in a state that is in defiance. Even if the absolute numbers are low, the state cannot back down from enforcing the law because some people are resisting. Otherwise you invite anyone to disregard any law they don’t like. The state won’t allow this and the only way to overcome this is either to change the law or toss out the government, and only one options is realistic. And btw I am against deportations of people who have committed no felonies unrelated to immigration.
> It makes perfect sense to concentrate law enforcement in a state that is in defiance
Using the word "defiance" indicates that your perspective is decidedly not American.
Both the States and the Federal government are co-sovereign, mediated by the US Constitution that spells out the rights and responsibilities of each. The Federal government is currently in willful and flagrant default of this founding charter - both overall in terms of how it is supposed to function (offices being executed in good faith forming checks and balances), as well as openly flouting the handful of hard limits outlined in the Bill of Rights. As such, the Federal government has lost the legal authority to dictate anything to the States.
It is of course still prudent to recognize the realpolitik of the "Federal government" having command of a lawless paramilitary force currently unleashing terror and mayhem on civil society. But the point is that we need to work towards re-establishing law and order in terms of the remaining functioning sovereigns.
They are certainly NOT co-sovereign, that is an absurd statement as states cannot leave the Union. Any sovereign party can withdraw from a treaty. The states are represented in their ability to collectively steer the federal government by Congress and the Electoral College. The feds are currently enforcing the ill will of both which sadly is the result of last elections.
I said co-sovereign, not that they're both independently sovereign (required for your treaty example). This is straightforward law, go read up on it. States are considered sovereign themselves, with powers limited by the US Constitution - the same qualification as the Federal government.
It's honestly besides the point. For even if I accept their sovereignty, they have exercised their sovereign will in the Electoral College to elect this administration. And they always have the power to impeach it through their representatives, the administration did not take that away, nor did they suspend the Congress, nor do they appear to be preparing to wrongfully influence the next elections. A state can not go and rebel against the Union because it disagrees with the current administration. Hell, the Union can literally change the Constitution against the will of a particular state if enough other states agree. You can consider states sovereign if you want, and I concede that it's an established tradition, but when the whole agreement on the separation of powers can be changed with a particular state voting against it - that's a mockery of sovereignty of that state.
Sorry, this is a whole ball of post-hoc motivated reasoning.
> For even if I accept their sovereignty, they have exercised their sovereign will in the Electoral College to elect this administration
Simply repeating the word "sovereign" doesn't mean you've applied and fully accounted for the definition.
> A state can not go and rebel against the Union
I'm not talking about rebellion here, but the provision of law and order in spite of the federal government's policies of repeated lawbreaking.
> when the whole agreement on the separation of powers can be changed with a particular state voting against it - that's a mockery of sovereignty of that state.
This subject is not like computer programming where finding some lever you can pull to affect an axiomatic-deductive result invalidates the independent meaning of the original thing. If two-thirds of the states actually wanted to scrap the current Constitution and turn the federal government into an autocracy with two impotent patronage-review councils, then you would have a point. As it stands, you do not - the entire point of these necessary supermajorities is to put the brakes and pull us towards a foundation of individual liberty and limited government when things are close to evenly divided.
As I said, you really need to read up on the founding of this country. It's got all of these dynamics and more - including the "liberal media".
I think most people involved in protests would not characterize the thing they are resisting as merely "law enforcement". What they are experiencing is an occupation by a politically weaponized paramilitary organization which is going door-to-door in their neighborhoods wearing masks, wielding ARs, yelling at people and brutalizing them. How do you think you would react if this was taking place in your community?
Of course the brutality is not desirable, but to stay in perspective, what would you suggest they do to still enforce the law efficiently but without this forcefulness? They can’t do it the normal way when they are constantly watched and their targets are warned beforehand by whistles and apps and they can’t and shouldn’t back down on enforcing the law.
I expect them to enforce the law without breaking the law. I want the job of any law enforcement agency to be hard. Not because I want lawlessness, but because the government has a rightful burden to surpass to prove that it's citizens are in the wrong. The government is supposed to serve the citizenry and not the other way around.
We have a freedom of speech and protest precisely to signal our discontent with our leaders. It is precisely for citizens to harass law enforcement that they view as unjust.
The entire reason we got those freedoms spelt out in the constitution in the first place was because of British occupation and the views that the British governments laws and enforcement were unjust. There is a direct parallel. The spirit of the 3rd amendment is that we should be able to kick out law enforcement that we hate. That we don't have to tolerate their presence.
> what would you suggest they do to still enforce the law efficiently but without this forcefulness
How about not violating the 5th amendment by going door to door through neighborhoods randomly? I don't give a single FUCK if ICE can do their jobs today if they have to violate half the damn bill of rights to do it.
I don't accept the framing that this is about law enforcement in the first place. I believe that this administration is run by xenophobic right wing extremists who care little for the distinction between legal and illegal immigration. They have weaponized ICE against the Somali community in Minneapolis today, the overwhelming majority of whom are legal refugees. As we have seen, they will not hesitate to weaponize ICE against anyone else who crosses them. I believe the organization does not exist to protect or serve the interests of the American public and should be abolished.
The American public has sadly elected this administration. I agree with you in principle, especially when legal immigrants become targets. But again, if the actions of this administration are not just morally wrong but illegal there are courts, and in any case there are elections. The people of one state or one city can not obstruct the will of the Union, it is fundamentally undemocratic way of interfacing with the fairly elected government.
I'm sorry, but if you still have any expectation that this administration will engage in good faith in any democratic process, you either haven't been paying attention or are engaging in willful self-delusion. They do not believe in democracy. They care about free speech only insofar as they can use it to claim they are being victimized, but will gleefully take it away from their opponents. They laugh in your face while they pardon the J6 insurrectionists. The presidential election is not and ought not be a referendum on whether or not we all get to have our rights trampled by gun-toting masked goons. At a certain point you have to stand up for what's right--that is, a reclamation of democracy.
Efficiency has never been a goal of US governance, especially in how it interacts with the People. This is deliberate. Read up on the events around the American Revolution if you want to see why that is. There are actually a lot of arguments being trotted out today that were trotted out back then, by the British.
I mean this idea of defiance is absurd. People here are 99.9% exercising their constitutional rights. The majority of crimes happening at this moment are ICE infringing on people’s constitutional rights. I appreciate you sharing your perspective but that logic exists in isolation from the reality. ICE are so bad at policing they are creating more crimes than they are solving.
Of course with the Trump FBI the message is loud and clear, those crimes will not be investigated
ICE officers are bad at policing because they were a paper pusher/investigative agency which should always be assisted by local law enforcement. Most of the other feds operate like that. The administration dramatically increased ICE workload and in addition to that the local police is not always cooperative, and they are being obstructed by protesters. Of course they are fumbling around and making lots of mistakes, but again, they can not give up on enforcing the federal law.
I don't think I would ever "have blood on my hands" in my current position as a software developer because Gotham and Foundry have valid and real world use cases that are being implemented in ways that actually make people safe across the nation. That's honestly just the truth. Can people, or and organizations use any given product for nefarious ends? Absolutely. Do we try to mitigate it? Very much so.
At the end of the day it sounds like the people making this argument don't really like how ICE is using the product. That's unfortunate, but it seems like the response is making a proximation error though. For those taking this view: Do you yell at farmers for planting, growing and packaging strawberries because you're upset about the obesity crisis and people's craving for strawberry flavored products? Do you run out into the fields and grab them by the shoulders saying "This is your fault!". I'd hazard not.
There is a larger epistemological argument to be had there, but needless to say I'm just not convinced that any sober person believes that qualitatively ascribing moral outrage to a single group of people is really that simple.
For an idea as to how this gets translated into the reality on the ground here in Minneapolis this is an article on what’s going on from the main newspaper in the state.
> In the past week alone, ICE boxed in a Woodbury real estate agent recording their movements from his car, slammed him to the ground and detained him at the Whipple Federal Building near Fort Snelling for 10 hours. A 51-year-old teacher patrolling the Nokomis East community told the Star Tribune she was run off the road into a snowbank by ICE for laying on her horn. Officers shattered the car window of a woman attempting to drive past a raid in south Minneapolis to get to a doctor’s appointment nearby, then carried her through the street. Feds pushed an unidentified motorist through a red light into a busy intersection, reportedly fired projectiles at a pedestrian walking “too slowly” in a crosswalk and shoved Minneapolis City Council President Elliott Payne while he was observing their actions from a public sidewalk.
If all those things happened in Spain where I live, I'm 99% we'd have actual riots on the streets, together with a lot of other unpleasant-but-needed civilian action, until things got better, like we've done in the past (sometimes maybe went slightly overboard with it, but better than nothing).
Why are Americans so passive? You're literally transitioning into straight up authoritarianism, yet where are the riots? How are you not fighting back with more than whistles and blocking them in cars? Is there more stuff actually happening on the ground, but there simply isn't any videos of it, or are people really this passive in the land of the free?
Are people inside the country not getting the same news we're getting on the outside? Are you not witnessing your government carrying out extra-judicial murders and then being protected by that same government? I'm really lost trying to understand how the average person (like you reading this) isn't out on the streets trying to defend what I thought your country was all about.
First, all of what you say is true. I'm going to try to add a little context as someone who is here on the ground, in the city in question.
There is the imminent threat of mass death, and no one here is under any illusions about it.
Every ICE agent is armed, and most have ready access to automatic weapons. These are not well-trained members of an elite organization with a storied, patriotic culture. ICE is a personalist paramilitary organization, and the president has indicated that these ICE agents are immune from consequences, even if they kill people. These are people who volunteered knowing they were going to go into American cities and do violence to people they perceive as their political enemies.
Most of these agents are inexperienced, jittery, poorly trained new recruits away from home. They aren't locals. Their nexus of power and governance isn't local. These are not our community members, they aren't from here, they don't know us or care about us, so they do not empathize with us.
In addition to this, the American citizenry is shockingly well armed. Because everyone involved is so well armed, everybody is slightly touchy about this descending into rioting, because there is a very short path from light rioting to what would essentially amount to civil war. The costs of such any such violence will overwhelmingly be borne by the innocent people who live here, and we know it.
So, people are trying to strike a balance of making sure these people know they aren't welcome here while trying to prevent the situation from spiraling into one in which some terrified agent mag-dumps a crowd of protestors and causes a chain reaction that results in truly catastrophic mass death.
It's also worth noting that one function of brownshirts and blackshirts is to provoke violence against themselves, seeking to retroactively justify their existence and to justify a further crackdown.
Say all you want about how any protest, no matter how peaceful will be vilified (it will) or about how the entire foundation is built on lies (it is), but we still have some real elections coming up, and the imagery of ICE brutalizing someone who's clearly not an immigrant, not violent, not obstructing is much more rhetorically effective than that of armed clashes between government and non-governmental forces.
And as you said, many of us are still convinced that this can be solved at least partially rhetorically and electorally.
It's the social media evolution of non-violent confrontation, with the similar goal of making it impossible for any visual image or recording of a confrontation to seem anything other than ridiculous to the average viewer and laying bare the "violence inherent in the system" (as it were).
There is no precedent for this. The executive lacks the authority. It would require Congress to enact a law, and this is easier said than done. The states run elections, and while the feds have some input on how elections for federal office are conducted, it is quite limited.
The vast majority of the population is relying on these protections holding.
Thank you a lot for taking the time to share what you see there, I really appreciate it. All we can hope for is that it gets better, and that there are genuine people out there who care about others in their community, who all help each other when needed. It's really sad to hear about the realization of how quickly it could spiral but considering the situation, it's real and make sense. Thank you and good luck!
What I feared would happen appears to be happening on Saturday: anti-immigrant anti-muslim folks from outside the city and outside the state are gathering to rally in the Minneapolis Cedar-Riverside neighborhood and cause trouble.
The federal administration will use this to ratchet up the violence against peaceful protesters like myself, who are simply trying to stand up for our neighbors and friends and our city and our state. We have whistles and cell phones. The federal government has guns and is killing us.
Last night a man was shot by ICE agents, who were (reportedly) attacked with shovel(s) while trying to capture the man, injuring one ICE agent.
BEFORE this began we had 7 million people protesting simultaneously nationwide—they are "out on the street". Minneapolis has organized hundreds into rapid response teams against ICE. The killings get more news than the protests, particularly as much of the media has been bought up by republican owners.
In Philadelphia, residents are being filmed patrolling with automatic weapons in advance of ICE supposedly heading there next. Read what @asa400, another local like myself, is saying in another comment to parent.
Many locals on social media are cheering on the shootings. America is incredibly polarized right now. It's not like all the public is against the government. Nearly half of those most likely to vote in past elections support this. “It wasn’t Hitler or Himmler who abducted me, beat me, and shot my family. It was the shoemaker, the milkman, the neighbor, who were given a uniform....” —Karl Stojka, Auschwitz survivor EDIT: added "(reportedly)" and rearranged sentence
>Last night ICE agents were attacked with shovels, injuring one. A man was shot.
We don't know if the shovel thing is true, video has emerged that doesn't show the shooting but does show the victim's family's 911 call in which they claim the agent shot through the door at the fleeing victim.
>Every ICE agent is armed, and most have ready access to automatic weapons. These are not well-trained members of an elite organization with a storied, patriotic culture. ICE is a personalist paramilitary organization, and the president has indicated that these ICE agents are immune from consequences, even if they kill people.
This is what terrified me: Not that the ICE officer shot the woman in the car. But what happened afterwards. That he muttered "fucking bitch" after shooting her, that he walked nonchalantly after shooting a person, and everybody was recording him. This person goes to his car and drives just like that ...
I think it's important to realize how divided the U.S. is right now. Half the country is in favor of what ICE is doing in some form or another. Some people on the right are denouncing the _way_ ICE is accomplishing this. But they are far from outraged.
The other half of the country is as dumbfounded/shocked as the rest of the world.
This isn't like the French revolution where a majority of the country was suffering and rose up against the few.
This is very nearly 50% of the country wants to make the other 50% squirm.
It cannot be understated the role that Fox News has played to get us to this level of division.
The channel "The Necessary Conversation" has some good examples of just how radicalized some American's have gotten. It's 2 kids interviewing their MAGA parents. I think it's not uncommon for American's to know people like the parents in this video.
I know what you mean about the country being split politically, but I think using the 50% number is a misleading illusion. Only 31.8% of the voting-age population voted for Trump, so 68% did not vote for these policies.
I get that we often assume that the non-voting population is as evenly split in their support as those who voted during the election. But I think that is going to be wildly off the mark as well. Why? current presidential approval ratings are net -15%, and 2025 elections showed avg 15% swing in district that he won in 2024. His biggest support %s are from old people, and lowest among young voters.
My prediction is that we will see political ads playing non-stop showing ICE brutalizing main street America, and showing how tariff driven inflation is destroying paychecks. The mid-terms will be a dramatic correction which is why you are seeing the ground work to call everything illegitimate or rigged, and attack our established means of voting.
As someone who was waving a "fuck ice" flag on a street corner in rural Colorado yesterday as part of our weekly protest of their facility, anecdotally I'd say about 60% of the 100 or so cars I watched looked away, with about 30% showing some active support and the other 10% or so showing active opposition.
I don't think that folks are braodly supportive of ICE here, though I think that a) the folks who do support it are loud and b) most of the folks who don't support it have fairly reformist politics and are opposed, for instance, to us protesting while open-carrying.
For the record, I am highly worried that open-carrying by the counter-ICE folks at these events will be the next escalation- I carry a stop-the-bleed kit (and did some formal training). We are more worried about getting shot by counter protestors at this point.
> It cannot be understated the role that Fox News has played to get us to this level of division.
Yeah, it's been a sharp shift, as someone who've watched/read Fox News (and other news of course) for decades out of the US. Fox News always been a bit strange with it's vitriol, but at one point, I can't remember if it was around the middle of Obama's second term, or later, but it took a really sharp turn further into emotional reporting and partisanship. Again, Fox always been a bit special, and other news channels also did similar turns further into their sides, but I can remember seeing the change as it was happening.
There is another documentary I quite liked in similar vein but on an individual level, called "Dear Kelly", that follows a far-right conspiracy theorist and tries to give some understanding into Kelly's struggles and radicalization. Released independently and can be found here: https://www.dearkellyfilm.com/
The fact that ragebait is the most effective way to drive engagement (and therefore to make money off of a captive audience) feels like the first falling domino that sunk us into our current predicament. Certainly the Murdoch empire made its fortune that way.
If the future has justice, Murdoch heirs will have to deal with the same consequences as the Sacklers.
The crime by Fox News is not that they presented a viewpoint, but that they did so at scale, in a knowingly disingenuous manner, to derive financial benefit, for decades.
The other children are also cowards for not taking the legal fight over the inheritance of Fox equity to the limit.
This is anecdotal, America is geographically quite large. For a lot of people, where these events are happening are more than a days drive away (10 hours or more), it's not happening "here".
A lot of people here _enjoy_ the authoritarianism, judging by the votes, the voter turnout, and the private discussions I've had with my neighbors. They believe this is good for the country and that there'll be more opportunities for their kids.
A lot of other people are holding out for the midterm elections, to see if the will of the majority shifts, because otherwise its risks open civil war. And maybe just a touch of American exceptionalism—this can't actually be happening here, it'll all blow over—and distrust in the story that the media is feeding them is accurate.
And some are just fatalistic, this isn't really a surprising turn of events. America has been creeping toward this for more than a few decades, since Regan at the very least.
I think you hit the nail on the head. I count myself mostly in the "holding out for elections" group but a little bit part of the fatalistic group as well. The really sad part of the whole experience is how many people I know that support everything that is going on, and they are not in any way claiming ignorance.
A broad answer: because America is more violent. The ICE officers are armed and absolutely will use their weapons if given half a chance to. Maybe I’m wrong but I don’t think any rioters in countries like Spain go to a protest with a bet real chance on their minds that they might die.
> Maybe I’m wrong but I don’t think any rioters in countries like Spain go to a protest with a bet real chance on their minds that they might die.
That's the thing, they do, and have in the past too. Some might even recall riots ~70 years ago that kind of spiraled out of control and led to a civil war.
Looking at what's happening in Iran as we speak might be a good idea as well, where they've had enough, know that there is a good chance of their regime literally executing them on the spot, yet they're brave enough to continue fighting, because they realize what's at stake, and have run out of other options.
> The ICE officers are armed and absolutely will use their weapons if given half a chance to
So this was the whole point with the 2nd amendment right, that when/if the government repress you in that way, you have weapons to fight back? Or am I misunderstanding what that part is/was about?
Americans are much more comfy than Iranians are though. As much as Americans might dislike what's going on, they're not fighting got their own survival.
Democracy, authoritarianism are all abstract and vague concepts
The people who love the second amendment are the ones that support the president. Most of them would gladly shoot me or you if their president told them to. In fact, a significant portion fantasize about being able to shoot other Americans and get away with it.
This is one half of the country holding the other half hostage. Despite what you think, there are many protests going on. But a lot of Americans simply agree with what is happening.
Democracies are vulnerable to many things: populism, vote-rigging, importing migrants to vote for a given party, and much more. Without a reboot, many democracies slide into autocracy. First, the government bans weapons, then curtails civil rights under the guise of child protection, offending religious sensibilities, blocks websites, and gradually tightens penalties for free speech. It all happens gradually. And suddenly you can't write your opinion online without being arrested. The UK is a case in point. Unarmed people are doomed to change things not only in authoritarian countries, but even in nominally democratic ones. Examples include peaceful and not-so-peaceful protests in Iran, Belarus, and Russia in the struggle against the authorities. Peaceful protests without the support of the army and the elite always end in failure. Another example is the protests in the UK against the influx of Muslim migrants, where the authorities support the latter.
> Unarmed people are doomed to change things not only in authoritarian countries, but even in nominally democratic ones. Examples include peaceful and not-so-peaceful protests in Iran, Belarus, and Russia in the struggle against the authorities. Peaceful protests without the support of the army and the elite always end in failure.
I'd take issue with that, because once it becomes an armed conflict then the full power of the state military will be deployed.
And modern nation-states of mid-size or above all have militaries than can crush any civilian armed resistance, simply because of the lethality and capability gap between civilian and military weapons.
The only winning move for a populace, then, is to try and keep resistance sub-armed conflict (and avoid being bated into armed resistance).
> So this was the whole point with the 2nd amendment right, that when/if the government repress you in that way, you have weapons to fight back?
Not as far as I understand. The 2nd amendment was from a time when we did not have much of a standing army and the country relied on militias for firepower. Some of the proposed language for the second amendment makes this clearer, but it was cut in the final version.
The tyranny bit was probably always someone's fantasy, and the self-defense aspect is basically a shift of interpretation that is much more recent.
(White) Americans of the center and left have long since lost the conviction that you may just need to bleed for your children’s freedom. It’ll come back, hopefully not too late.
The thing is, to most white Americans, their childrens' freedom isn't at stake. The majority of white voters have always supported Trump, and probably support ICE, whereas most of the rest simply don't don't consider it their problem.
And unfortunately that probably won't change until ICE kills more of them and makes it their problem.
You are right that America isn’t going to fix this problem until Trump supporters feel the pain. It is coming, but I’m afraid of what we will have to go through to get there.
> So this was the whole point with the 2nd amendment right, that when/if the government repress you in that way, you have weapons to fight back?
The point of the second amendment was, in no small part, so that the central government wouldn't deny the states the means to commit genocide against the indigenous population on their own, because the states didn't trust he central government to be sufficiently enthusiastic about it. That was the major security concern alluded to by the “necessary to the security of a free state” bit.
The Federalist papers were campaign ads for ratification of the base Constitution from a faction opposed to adding a Bill of Rights (an opposition explicitly stated in the Federalist Papers; it was, in fact, the central theme of Federalist #84.)
They are neither a reliable summary of the motivations for the provisions they support nor any kind of argument for the provisions in the Bill of Rights.
>The point of the second amendment was, in no small part, so that the central government wouldn't deny the states the means to commit genocide against the indigenous population on their own,
What kind of revisionist history is this?
The feds were telling the states "screw off, we do the negotiating" before the ink was even dry on that. Steamrolling the natives was never really a seriously contested job or a point of political contention, the feds were always gonna be the ones to do it.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the case of the Cherokee forced relocation from Georgia, the Georgia state government told the federal government (Andrew Jackson) that if the gold-bearing lands weren't depopulated of indigenous peoples then the state would start killing them (after already having terrorized them with armed state militia).
That's 20+yr later and an entirely different generation of politicians though, a far cry from the "we'll just slip this in here so we can harass the red man" that the person above is alleging. And it was done with state backed forces, not like they would have been handicapped by lack of a 2a.
In Minneapolis and other cities, you do have protests, you have the people following ICE, and it's a valid discussion to have that without the protests and the "mostly peaceful" resistance from Minnesotans is helping the nation see what criminals ICE people are, and what an awful thing they're doing to the country.
Mass resistance movements tend to come at unpredictable moments. The killing or particularly well documented crime of a government, for example. Something acute will trigger it, like George Floyd or Renee Good (whose murder triggered widespread outrage, protests, and despite the bots on Twitter, some shift in the view on ICE from the middle and right).
If, for example, a brigade of soldiers or officers opened live fire on protesters, I think the country would shut down.
Another point, as others have mentioned: It's actually the massive amount of armament on both side of the equation that keeps people from taking the next step. The citizens of Minneapolis could probably take out a hundred ICE agents a day, but now we're in a civil war because the next steps are insurrection act, hundreds of people dead in days, potential of the MN state guard being activated to fight against national forces, and it's already three steps ahead of whatever would happen in Spain.
Just shows that the second amendment is an obsolete idea, and in today's real world it's more likely to oppress people's right to protest than help them fight tyranny.
ICE goons can shoot people because in America, law enforcement officers shooting citizens is thoroughly normalized. It's normalized because law enforcement officers getting shot is thoroughly normalized. It's normalized because the nation decided every village idiot can have a gun and the government can do nothing about it.
But then I still hear people say that this is what the 2nd amendment is for... Meanwhile, to make sure they have the heavier weapons, law enforcement goes absolutely bananas on what they carry.
The second amendment was written in a time when a firearm was a musket.
Grandpa's 30-06 from WW2 from 200 yards will penetrate anything but trauma plates.
If it's a hand-carried firearm of any kind (including crew-served weapons like the M249, M240B, M60), it's not a "heavy weapon."
> The second amendment was written in a time when a firearm was a musket.
At the time the Second Amendment was written, there were entire private navies with actual cannons far more destructive than any man-portable firearm available today. No background checks on those ships or cannons, either, btw.
They didn't just have muskets at that time, repeating firearms were just too expensive to outfit entire armies with them. When you can supply 10 guys with muskets for the same cost as 1 guy with a repeating firearm, you pick the 10 men even if the 1 guy can fire just as fast.
There is also the Cookson repeater available in the late 1600s. And in 1756 was advertised for sale in the Boston Gazette.
Multiple founding fathers, including George Washington, were also offered purchase of repeating firearms, some for use in the military, some for personal usage. But of course this is still before interchangeable parts so production is of course still expensive and repairs must be done be a highly skilled gunsmith and not just some apprentice blacksmith.
This is chicken-or-the-egg reasoning. Maybe the reason such violent behavior is unthinkable by a hypothetical Spanish LEO is because past protest has been so strong?
My counter-hypothesis is that America has never really known authoritarianism, religious wars, etc., so Americans are, on average, more supportive of Authority.
Yeah, I think your last point is a good one and something to consider too. Large part of our perspectives are shaped by what we've experienced, and what our predecessors experienced, and if you don't have the experience of walking through mass-graves created by the government executing dissidents, you don't have a frame of reference for that being a possibility.
So, from my perspective, there were in fact a number of "religious wars", but the folks who lost all ended up on reservations or murdered and in mass graves. I mean 650K folks died in the mid 19th century in a single 5-year war. And that's not counting how we might code the Atlantic slave trade or the post-reconstruction violence, or labor violence into that history.
As a person who has been involved with an riot in a small town, I think that, in the deep unconscious of most folks in the US, is something structure:
"well, there wasn't violence in the 19th and early 20th and mid 20th and late 20thC century... well okay, there was violence but they put folks who were resisting into mass graves or incarceration and everyone was better off for it".
That is, consider that the obverse of your claim might be true:
the violence committed by the US has been so totalizing that it's victims have never even counted as victims and that holocaust so complete that it only exists in the subconscious of white US citizens.
I find that idea to be a very easy way to understand why white folks are so passive and pro-authority.
> My counter-hypothesis is that America has never really known authoritarianism
Funny, because the racist authoritarians most people point to as the canonical example were themselves directly inspired by the US example. I think a more realistic reason is that this particular brand of race-heirarchy-based authoritarianism that mostly only affects white folks if they are seen as challenging what it does to everyone else has been normalized in the US since before the founding, varying only in intensity and the degree to which its intent is overly stated.
If you think that America and Europe have similar experiences with authoritarianism, I guess we just don't share basic ground truth. The fact that you are flip about it is just silly, and makes you seem unserious.
> If you think that America and Europe have similar experiences with authoritarianism
I didn't say the American and European experiences with authoritarianism were the same, or even similar, I said the American experience with a very specific orientation of authoritarianism, with a specific focus, is extremely deep and pervasive, and that that has explanatory power on the relatively mild reaction of the American public to a change in the intensity and overtness of that particular flavor of authoritarianism.
This is, in fact, very different from the European experience.
sure. but to me it seems like the there was this vain hope that somehow we could thread the needle. that if we would accept to unjustice and stick it out, that eventually the courts and electoral process would be robust enough. that escalation would just lead to where we've already gotten, where peaceful protestors are being killed for 'disrepect'. that somehow pointing out all the obvious falsehood and gaslighting would be enough to convince people that this was going sideways. this was always going to end in martial law, but our complacency is generational.
American here; studied and lived in France and participated in some big protests there. The US just doesn't have the protest/strike culture that Europe has, it's not part of our tradition; the majority of people don't even know how or understand the implications...Also most cities in the US are built for cars , not pedestrians and people on the street.
- The American political system has been very successful in telling its people that the only acceptable way to show discontent and enact change is by voting on elections.
- Lots of people are okay with it because it can only happen to the "bad guys", and why would it ever happen to them since they're the "good guys"... right?
> The American political system has been very successful in telling its people that the only acceptable way to show discontent and enact change is by voting on elections.
Has it? Because I recall a bunch of people gathering in the wrong building on Jan 6
... yet still tens of millions of eligible voters don't even bother
the country is very low-density, there's no one obvious point to protest (there was Occupy Wall Street... and then the Seattle TAZ and .... that's it, oh and the Capitol January 6th), strikes and unions are legally neutered, it's just not the American way anymore
the country has a lot of experience "managing" internal unpleasantry, see the time leading up to the civil war, and then the reconstruction, and then there was a lull as the innovation in racism led to legalized economic racism (the usual walking while black "crimes", vagrancy laws, etc), and then the civil rights era, with the riots, and since then (and as always) police brutality is used as a substitute to training and funding
I think a general strike might be effective for low-density places, though that requires enough people taking part to make it truly effective. That way you don't need an obvious place to protest apart from your workplace and it'd be a non-violent protest that would definitely get the attention of the wealthy.
We had nationwide riots for months back in 2020 over a police officer murdering a suspect, and that resulted in approximately zero actual political change. During the recent shutdown over the budget, we had one of the largest protests in the country’s history and massive shifts towards the opposition in elections followed by them immediately folding in exchange for essentially nothing.
The political class is very well insulated from the popular will in this country, and I fear we may be nearing the boiling point.
The politicians on the right are not well insulated -- they are very responsive to what their constituents' popular will is, to a fault. The left still hasn't figured out what the hell they're going to do next. Probably just continue the "we aren't Trump!" chanting and hope that's enough to win elections. Meanwhile their own constituents are just as frustrated with status quo as the right was.
You should read James Baldwin. Or read up on the debates post revolutionary war in the United States about the French revolution.
The truth is the land of the free has always been quite conservative. Which frankly, is true of most societies. In many ways that's what a society is.
Worse still, ICE stomping people out in the street is what freedom means to a vast swath of Americans. The rest are scared and leaderless and let down by an opposition that betrays their trust at every turn.
And yes Europeans keep telling Americans how to protest, but really they are little better. "Far right" candidates are already projecting big wins in the UK today. To say nothing of the victories far right parties have already secured in Europe. Spain is more familiar with blatant facisim and totalitarianism than Americans are. So idk... imo Europeans really pat themselves on the back too much... what would you do?
Provoking a riot is of questionable value anyway when he won a pretty convincing national victory at the polls just a year ago... no one has any answers as far as I can see, only empty expressions of anger... protest harder means what? I think a better start would be a coherent, defensible list of demands than anyone from a governor to a street activist can convey intelligently. Then you can try to enforce it.
But ultimately you can't muster more force than the state. If that is your only suggestion then it's a fruitless one.
> American life is so much more distributed than European life.
It isn't though, Google Maps estimate going West>East coast in the US to take 44 hours (pure driving without stops), and puts going from the South of Spain to the North of Sweden to take 50 hours, more or less the same.
Then Europe is a bunch of countries, most of them speaking different languages, with way more difference in culture than the states of the US. I'm not sure it matters though, it really isn't relevant, but probably the wrong thing to bring up regardless, when the reality looks the opposite than you seem to think.
FWIW, when the (last) civil war in Spain happened, you had volunteer civilians coming from Sweden (among other countries) to defend their ideals, even if it wasn't their fight, completely different culture and language. But if you care about something bigger than yourself, then you act.
"My country is large" isn't an excuse to not stand up against tyranny, not sure in what world it would be.
The whole "just barely surviving financially" sucks though, especially considering the poor labor movements and almost non-existing union support, and poor grassroot organization. It always felt weird and artificially suppressed, but without those thing, it certainly seems easier to take over an entire country. Hope others learned their lessons with this.
> Then Europe is a bunch of countries, most of them speaking different languages, with way more difference in culture than the states of the US. I'm not sure it matters though, it really isn't relevant, but probably the wrong thing to bring up regardless, when the reality looks the opposite than you seem to think.
There's certainly more cultural similarity across the US, but that doesn't mean there isn't a sense of emotional and geographic distance. Remember that the typical riot participant is not a political theorist who has some deep theory of how discharging their duty will enact change, just an average guy who's mad as hell about what's happening and not going to take it anymore.
> That would be like driving from Key West to Prudhoe Bay which looks to be 91 hours.
Haha, yeah, at least I got a laugh from it, thank you :) A fair comparison then I guess would be from Canary Islands to Svalbard, if we're aiming to make it as far as possible to make some imaginary point no one cares about :)
Plenty of Minnesotans have come out to protest, just like in other cities where ICE is active. Many people outside the cities, even just in the suburbs, haven't seen any of it at all and it's just something that's happening on TV that doesn't really exist to them. I've never seen an ICE officer in my life, despite living in a area with many immigrants from the Middle East. Minneapolis might as well be Spain to most Americans.
Because it’s cold? Here in Minnesota it’s 17F / -7C. Factoring in the wind chill it feels like 7F / -14C.
There are other reasons too of course (geography, lack of urban density, distrust of news, apathy, etc etc) but I think the weather is a definite factor right now.
Americans have had 100 years of stable government and in the past political solutions have eventually been enacted. The Civil Rights bill was passed. Nixon pulled out of Vietnam. I think a lot of people are still expecting sanity to return. I hope they're right.
You've got three groups here. Federal cops, undocumented immigrants and the kind of people who turn out to protest the former acting against the latter. Very few people in this country finds any one of these groups particularly sympathetic and there's wide demographic swaths of the country that actively hate two if not all three of them. So yeah, everyone sees stuff that's very, very, wrong here, but nobody's really in any rush to intervene except the people who already are protesting.
A political solution will likely come of this, as everyone with a brain knows that the preconditions for all this shit are something that need to be prevented in the future.
Edit. To be clear, I'm talking about the people who are actually physically involved here.
There are more than three groups. What about the group of people who are unhappy that masked goons are violently arresting citizens? What about people unhappy that ICE stopped a naturalization ceremony literally minutes before they were to become citizens?
As well as going door-to-door and forcing entry without a warrant, besieging Spanish language immersion schools, and other dragnet horrors. Meanwhile, official DHS social media accounts are posting literal Stormfront ethnic cleansing memes. I’m not sure how anyone but the most ardent ethnonationalists can be OK with this. Even if you think all undocumented immigrants should be deported, "hunt them down like dogs and to hell with everyone else" is beastial.
You need to specify what you mean by "more than". Last night ICE agents were attacked with shovels, injuring one. A man was shot.
BEFORE this began we had 7 million people protesting simultaneously nationwide—they are "out on the street" as you put it. With protests around the country every day. Minneapolis has organized hundreds into rapid response teams against ICE. The killings get more news than the protests, particularly as much of the media has been bought up by republican owners. You seem to be missing the news, and saying it does not exist.
In Philadelphia, residents are being filmed patrolling with automatic weapons in advance of ICE supposedly heading there next. Read what @asa400, another local like myself, is saying in another comment to parent.
Many locals on social media are cheering on the shootings. America is incredibly polarized right now. It's not like all the public is against the government. Nearly half of those most likely to vote in past elections support this.
Americans are not passive. Look at the videos of any of these incidents. People are supporting those under attack, collecting evidence, and protesting. The message is clear.
Peaceful protest is the key. Riots, violence, and fighting are not peaceful and only play into the administration's aims.
When Americans resist and protest peacefully, as they have been in the largest numbers ever in the country's history, it exposes the brutality and baseness of those commiting the heinous acts.
Through such peaceful protest as we see, America will overcome this.
The big question is, what next? How to hold people accountable, fairly, while rebuilding the system and rebuilding trust?
Those things work in democratic and ordered societies though, and you need to figure out other approaches when democracy and freedom stops being something the government still cares about. The current leader of the country attempted an insurrection, yet was still allowed to become the leader after that? I think you're beyond being able to change this through just peaceful protests, although it's definitively a part of the answer.
Who are you gonna report this brutality to, when the judicial arm of the government is just following the directions of the administration? How do you hold people accountable, when the system to hold anyone accountable is being undermined?
> Because I have a kid to take care of. A job I need to keep, and a way of life I'd like to maintain.
Exactly, so why not go out on the streets and actually defend those things then? Currently your (presumed) inaction will cause those to be harmed, you're not "saving those" by saying and doing nothing, you're effectively giving them away if you don't actively protect them.
Because actually defending those things requires violence and I shy away from that. Sitting on the sidelines and protesting doesn't do a damn thing. It just makes the maga people laugh harder. Case in point: our own president sharing an AI video of himself wearing a crown and dumping feces on protestors.
Fair, avoiding violence is usually not the way to go, so fair point.
Protesting does do something though, the very least showing other people a direction to go in, to at least show something. It's hard to argue it does nothing, because images and videos do end up on social media and the news, and you really need the rest of the population on your side, if you actually want to change stuff.
You know what actually doesn't do a damn thing? Not doing a damn thing. Literally anything is better than nothing, just showing support is better than nothing. Talking about it is better than nothing.
> You know what actually doesn't do a damn thing? Not doing a damn thing. Literally anything is better than nothing, just showing support is better than nothing. Talking about it is better than nothing.
That's fair. And I'm talking about it right now and everywhere else I can in safe ways.
As far as protesting goes, I agree with you. It is better than nothing. It does help show people they're not alone. But as I said mentioned, this isn't happening where I live. It would literally take me days to travel to Milwaukee or another hotbed. Some people are stronger than me and take time off and make other sacrifices to attend rallies, and I admire those people, but it's not feasible for me. Or I suppose a more truthful way of saying it is it's not worth it for me because of the sacrifices I'd have to make just for the chance of getting hurt or being added to a list.
If nothing else, thank you for sharing your honest perspective, I appreciate it :)
> Or I suppose a more truthful way of saying it is it's not worth it for me because of the sacrifices I'd have to make just for the chance of getting hurt or being added to a list.
It's really sad to hear that the chilling effect is working so effectively. I of course understand why you make the choice you make, that's not strange, but that they managed to turn your society into this is nothing but sad to hear.
going to small protests has done a lot of good for my ability to regulate. Being involved with a cadre of street medics has made me feel a little less crazy.
It's nice to get off line and into the streets- the reasons are terrifying but it feels better to be with my friends in the road than to be at home fretting about stuff and writing dumb HN responses :D
Are any of those things threatened and need defending?
Assuming OP isn’t an illegal alien or attempting to impede federal law enforcement, they’re fine.
Assuming his job isn’t reliant on employing or generating revenue from illegal aliens, also fine.
Way of life: America had immigration laws since 1875 - his great great grandparents probably lived under more onerous immigration regulation (Chinese Exclusion Act, etc) than modern Americans and immigrants live with. Also fine.
ICE is going door to door in some neighborhoods looking for non white people. US citizens have been arrested and detained, sometimes violently, and then released with no charges. So yes, our way of life is being threatened.
If “fraud, human smuggling and unlawful employment practices” - the subject of the door-to-door operation - is a way of life, that’s a sad state of affairs. Is the argument that Minnesota isn’t emblematic of those issues or that those issues can’t be investigated because a “non white” community is involved with it?
As for citizens being detained, interfering with and obstructing a law enforcement operation will get you detained, whether it’s ICE, FBI, or your local cop on a traffic stop.
Here is an example of ICE invading a home without a warrant, reported by Fox. [0] That is definitely against our way of life.
Your list of crimes is just as prevalent in white people. Statistically immigrants commit fewer crimes than native born citizens. Undocumented immigrants commit even fewer violent crimes [1]. So if we're doing house to house searches for criminals we should start with citizens.
Does not matter one bit. Law enforcement may not break down doors without a warrant except in limited cases. This was not one of them. They violated the constitution and our way of life.
> Legal ones...
I'm guessing you didn't read the cite. It clearly shows that undocumented immigrants commit significantly less crime. Once you read it I'd be interested to know if it changes your opinion at all.
The majority of illegal immigrants did commit a crime by virtue of being illegals, violating 8 U.S.C. 1325, so the crime-rate for illegals is certainly higher than non-immigrants right out of the gate.
For the less-than-half who have “only” committed civil immigration violations, the point still remains that they are here illegally and are subject to civil immigration proceedings.
I’m unfamiliar with the details of the door knocking case, but I’ll defer to the courts on it. More broadly, plenty of citizens have had their fourth amendment rights violated, petitioned the court for redress, and received it - that doesn’t mean we stop enforcing traffic laws, drug laws, or disband the local police.
Naturalization: not mentioned in my thread that I can see, but just like parole, TPS, and other immigration proceedings, it’s only permanent when it’s permanent.
“if we wanted to reduce crime, we'd go after citizens first”: Yes, I agree! Let’s fund the police and prosecutors, reinstate requirements to post bail for crimes, and enforce our existing laws, even for things like shoplifting, drug possession, and panhandling.
Constitutional limits don’t depend on innocence. Even if the target is removable, warrantless home entry is still a Fourth Amendment problem absent consent/exigent circumstances. Payton v. New York is the baseline: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/445/573/
“If you’re not an illegal alien you’re fine” isn’t how real enforcement works. Mistaken identity and broad neighborhood sweeps predictably hit citizens/legal residents, especially when decisions are made off appearance/location.
The “crime-rate is higher out of the gate” line is definitional sleight-of-hand. Not all undocumented people violated 8 U.S.C. §1325 (improper entry). Many are overstays, and unlawful presence itself is generally a civil violation, not a criminal conviction category comparable to assault/theft. §1325 text: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1325
You can support immigration enforcement and still insist it be done with judicial warrants/consent and without turning civil status issues into “crime stats” rhetoric.
Just because it's happened before we don't have to put up with it. The door to door searches must stop. It is clearly a constitutional violation.
Since you like to defer to the courts, I assume you believe it wrong that the government shipped people like Kilmar Garcia to an El Salvador prison without any court being involved?
> Naturalization:
Sorry, I got threads mixed up. In Boston, ICE canceled a ceremony minutes before immigrants were to be sworn in as US citizens. You don't have a problem with this?
That study is yet another that fails to account for the fact that immigration status is not known immediately upon arrest.
> Studies purporting to show low illegal immigrant crime rates in Texas fail to account for the fact that illegal immigrants are not always identified immediately upon arrest. In many cases, illegal immigrants are identified only after they are imprisoned. Given sufficient time for data collection, it appears that illegal immigrants have above average conviction rates for homicide and sexual assault, while they have lower rates for robbery and drugs. [1]
There is also the question of how many illegal aliens actually exist in the US, which severely complicates calculation of rates for their population.
“Simply incorrect” overstates what your CIS link shows.
Yes, status isn’t always known at arrest, and time-lag/unknown-status classification is a real measurement issue. But that’s not a demonstration that the cited studies are false; it's a methodological dispute about how Texas data should be interpreted.
Even CIS effectively concedes the key limitation: “any crime” conviction rates aren’t meaningful under their own description because identification is biased toward longer prison terms/serious offenses. That means their approach can’t legitimately be used as a general claim that “undocumented commit more crime.”
The Cato author rebutted that article, and he and CIS traded rebuttals until this post, where the Cato author backs his point up with copious FOIA data. There seems to have been no further follow-up, so this could be the last word on that particular exchange:
Illegal aliens are shown to commit more crimes than citizens when time is given to determine immigration status. [1]
> Studies purporting to show low illegal immigrant crime rates in Texas fail to account for the fact that illegal immigrants are not always identified immediately upon arrest. In many cases, illegal immigrants are identified only after they are imprisoned. Given sufficient time for data collection, it appears that illegal immigrants have above average conviction rates for homicide and sexual assault, while they have lower rates for robbery and drugs.
There is also the question of how many illegal aliens actually exist in the US, which severely complicates calculation of rates for their population.
Your pdf is a repost of the exact study (Light) cited here as being flawed.
"Is the argument that Minnesota isn’t emblematic of those issues or that those issues can’t be investigated because a “non white” community is involved with it?"
The issue is that you can’t randomly break down citizen’s doors without a warrant. Minnesota is only targeted because some rightwing TikTok asshole decided to """investigate""" daycare fraud and they wouldn’t let a creepy rando into their facilities for some reason.
"As for citizens being detained, interfering with and obstructing a law enforcement operation will get you detained, whether it’s ICE, FBI, or your local cop on a traffic stop."
> Are any of those things threatened and need defending?
If you don't think authoritarianism or fascism actually has a way of harming those things, then no, I guess not.
I think for most people who had to learn about these things in school growing up, for like 7 years or something, together with grandparents who experienced these things for themselves, it's pretty clear what's happening, but without actually having that perspective, I could understand it feels like "What is everyone so upset about? Doesn't seem so bad".
It’s a disservice to the horrors of the Holocaust to implicitly compare returning Mexican nationals to Mexico, Somalis to Somalia, or hell, even Venezuelans to El Salvador with sending box cars of people to death camps.
The US has had and enforced immigration laws for decades, with Obama alone deporting 3 million people.
What aspect of Trump doing it is uniquely fascist/authoritarian?
> What aspect of Trump doing it is uniquely fascist/authoritarian?
Short non-extensive list:
Has enforcement been explicitly prioritized based on political control of areas? Yes, senior directives and public statements emphasized prioritizing deportations in Democratic-led cities.
Suppression of lawful civic activity? Yes, crowd-control force was repeatedly used against protesters, media, and observers near ICE facilities.
Have officials labeled resistance or disputed encounters as "terrorism"? Yes, senior DHS leadership publicly used "domestic terrorism" language in contested use-of-force cases.
Are there credible reports of physical or sexual abuse? Yes, civil-rights groups report detailed allegations at detention facilities
Are raids conducted with armored vehicles, masks, and heavily armed teams as standard practice? Yes, reporting documents armored vehicles, masked agents, and surge-style operations.
Have internal watchdogs or ombuds offices been dismantled or defanged? Yes, DHS eliminated or reduced multiple civil-rights and detention-oversight offices.
Has ICE expanded use of spyware, location tracking, or similar tools? Yes, contracts for advanced spyware and surveillance capabilities were activated and expanded.
Is enforcement content coordinated to generate viral political narratives? Yes, internal messages show coordination to amplify arrests and raids for public impact.
Is ICE currently exhibiting multiple indicators of a political-police / coercive-repression trajectory? Yes, politicized targeting, coercive force, anonymity, weakened oversight, surveillance expansion, political messaging.
Would you like me to go on? I have a couple of more, but I don't want to spam.
Do Americans not learn about fascism and authoritarianism in school when you grow up? Together with what to watch out for and more? Because it seems really obvious for us who did have that upbringing.
> Do Americans not learn about fascism and authoritarianism in school when you grow up?
Like, in historical names and dates, sure.
In terms of process, signs, and systemic issues? Not really, even before the recent push in many parts of the country to make the curriculum even more friendly to, particularly, white nationalist authoritarianism, historical and more current.
>Has enforcement been explicitly prioritized based on political control of areas? Yes, senior directives and public statements emphasized prioritizing deportations in Democratic-led cities.
Florida, Texas, and others use local law enforcement to enforce immigration detainers and cooperate with federal enforcement. Makes sense to go where the problems are.
>Suppression of lawful civic activity? Yes, crowd-control force was repeatedly used against protesters, media, and observers near ICE facilities.
Crowd control is used against riots and unlawful assemblies frequently: see G8 summits, Seattle May Day, Ferguson, and any time a sports ball team loses a contentious game in LA.
>Have officials labeled resistance or disputed encounters as "terrorism"? Yes, senior DHS leadership publicly used "domestic terrorism" language in contested use-of-force cases.
And? Homeland calling an assault on an officer terrorism is hardly surprising, and is still less weird than the idea that using the wrong pronouns is a hate crime.
> Are raids conducted with armored vehicles, masks, and heavily armed teams as standard practice? Yes, reporting documents armored vehicles, masked agents, and surge-style operations.
So when Clinton’s BP raided Elian Gonzalez, it was fine because it wasn’t Trump? Remember, the question was “what is Trump doing that is unique”.
> Has ICE expanded use of spyware, location tracking, or similar tools? Yes, contracts for advanced spyware and surveillance capabilities were activated and expanded.
Domestic spying by the federal government has been a thing for 100 years. Again, we’re talking unique.
> Is enforcement content coordinated to generate viral political narratives? Yes, internal messages show coordination to amplify arrests and raids for public impact.
Every task force, raid, and “crackdown” by law enforcement, even down to an organized enforcement against DUI, is intended to create that perception.
Do non-Americans not learn that the federal government has engaged in this conduct for 100 years?
We’ve enforce immigration laws, policed our populace, and had to balance 1st/4th amendment rights against the interest of a functioning state for a long time.
> So when Clinton’s BP raided Elian Gonzalez
That followed a court order. And many people were very upset about it.
>We’ve enforce immigration laws, policed our populace, and had to balance 1st/4th amendment rights against the interest of a functioning state for a long time.
Nothing on this scale since the internment of Japanese Americans in WWII. And even that did not involve (AFAIK) the mass disappearances and torture of thousands of people.
>Nothing on this scale since the internment of Japanese Americans in WWII
Obama removed more people than Trump. Clinton removed and returned more people than any president. Crazy the world didn’t end in the 90s or 2010s, huh?
You do yourself a disservice by having a storybook version of the Holocaust in your head. It did not start with gassing and boxcars of people. Relative to how things turned out, the victims were treated quite "humanely" at first. The problem is that they were completely dehumanized, which made mass murder the "obvious" choice once resources and logistics started to get strained.
There was a recent story that described cramped jail cells full of dozens of wailing and weeping detainees while ICE agents nearby were laughing. We’re seeing dehumanization happen here at an alarming pace. And already, the administration seemed to relish sending noncriminal migrants to foreign torture/rape camps for essentially a life sentence. The components are all there for a repeat of the recent past. Will they coalesce? What’s going to stop them?
Remember: most Nazis were not gleeful, cackling sadists. They were normal-ass bureaucrats who'd been conditioned to see their victims as non-human.
What physical government oppression have I missed now? I'm not trying to claim Spain is perfect, because it really isn't, especially considering "freedom of speech" (depending on your perspective of it) and some other things Americans might take for granted.
But I'd say that usually when there are large issues impacting large parts of the population, then you can be pretty sure that there will be country-wide protests against it, many times with smaller violent elements, because people here make their opinions and feelings known.
My point is that what Americans face here is a collective action problem, which is no different than many of the problems facing Spain. While you might go out and protest, there are other collective action problems you're not solving today, even though you could if you took action as a group.
So you don't do anything because you have a job you need to keep and a kid to take care of, but you're perfectly okay with moving to a completely different country on short notice?
Yes because one of those can get my face smashed in by a baton. Moving is a far safer option for my family.
Call it selfish if you want (hell, I'd even agree with you) but my priority is my family and my life. This idea that I have to care about "my country" is patriotic BS pounded into us to make it more likely to join the army.
The US, for better or worse, isn't a cohesive country of people interested in a collective, but a smash and grab of economic gains sourced from those who are forced to live in it and cannot flee to developed countries. You come to it, or stay in it, to make more income you would in developed countries at the detriment of everyone else.
Whether you believe the economic human factory farm that is the US is worth saving or preserving will be a function of your lived experience and mental model. "What are you optimizing for?"
I think it's something different than "Americans are passive" - rather, many of them/us perceive the context of what you're seeing very differently. I can share some of this perspective though I don't insist it's the only way to feel.
1. Americans on the ground are clearly feeling the effects of illegal immigration. As an example: a an African American janitor in our kids' school voted republican in 2024 for the first time in his life, because the park in his Brooklyn neighborhood has become a shanty town and he can't work out there. In that election we've seen nearly every demographic move more republican than before, and I think this is the key issue for them.
2. In that context, when ICE does something, even when we don't like it, people can understand it in the context of a larger problem they/we want solved. When you perceive "passivity" - it's because you come in from a perspective of not wanting the underlying problem solved which is fine, but it's different for people who like "what" is happening even if not "how" it's happening.
3. There are plenty of people protesting and violently rioting if that's what they feel like.
I don’t think data supports this. Polling has shown a lot of people who voted Republican in 2024 (Latinos especially) have snapped back again already, at least partially because of what ICE is doing.
ICE are terrorizing a city and its residents no matter what their immigration status is. Even someone who strongly wishes to curb illegal immigration should have a problem with that.
I would bet that's true just on a statistical level - but my point is that plenty of people still feel that way, or at least have felt that way recently enough about the underlying problem that won't cause them to riot.
There's an interesting other angle that I heard about "terrorizing a city" type thing -- there are many million illegal immigrants in the US who entered in just the last few years, when the prior admin did not attempt to limit. The size of the problem basically leaves no "nice" solutions that are perfectly palatable to everyone. Maybe like "nobody wants to hear about an amputation" but unfortunately some situations are bad enough that you have to.
> The size of the problem basically leaves no "nice" solutions that are perfectly palatable to everyone.
Why not? What is it about the presence of illegal immigrants in a place that makes terrorizing the entire population a good tradeoff? The people who live alongside these immigrants are the ones out on the street protesting so it seems to me they don't consider it a price worth paying.
>I would bet that's true just on a statistical level - but my point is that plenty of people still feel that way, or at least have felt that way recently enough about the underlying problem that won't cause them to riot.
Exactly. If people you hate are getting in a fight you're staying right there on the porch and that's how a lot of the country feels right now.
> As an example: a an African American janitor in our kids' school voted republican in 2024 for the first time in his life, because the park in his Brooklyn neighborhood has become a shanty town and he can't work out there.
Okay, first off, I am just very confused by this sentence. How is the "shanty town" preventing him from working? Does he work from his home in Brooklyn? Is the school located in the park? Does he want to work in the park but is force to work at the school? I know this isn't the most important part, but I haven't been able to parse the story. Edit: others explained that this is "work out" there, and not related to being a janitor. Thanks. I feel the rest still stands.
Further, I don't understand how what is happening is supposed to solve the "underlying issue". How does 3000 federal agents breaking windows and shoving people in Minneapolis help a Brooklyn community poor enough to become a shanty town? It would be like if I, in my job, had an backend outage on our website, and I went to the design team and began berating them while I fixed a couple UI issues. Sure, I might solve some real problems, and it could feel good in some cathartic way (especially if I've had unanswered complaints for years). But I wouldn't call it "fixing the underlying issues".
I believe it is most likely that the people who still support this style of enforcement have been hurt much like you, some acutely but many just slowly over time, and have bought into the idea that some "other" is at fault. And they want to see that "other" dealt with in some way, any way. Even if it means people get hurt, because they themselves have been hurt. So why not the "other"?
But I don't believe a shanty town in the most populous city what is supposed to be the richest and most prosperous country on Earth is caused by the poorest few percent of people living here. I don't think an illegal immigrant in Minneapolis is at fault, even if they have a "criminal background" (insidious phrasing that inflates numbers by lumping in people who may have paid their debt to society). I don't want to see people hurt.
> > As an example: a an African American janitor in our kids' school voted republican in 2024 for the first time in his life, because the park in his Brooklyn neighborhood has become a shanty town and he can't work out there.
> Okay, first off, I am just very confused by this sentence. How is the "shanty town" preventing him from working? Does he work from his home in Brooklyn? Is the school located in the park? Does he want to work in the park but is force to work at the school? I know this isn't the most important part, but I haven't been able to parse the story.
So just to clarify, GP said he was being prevented from _working out_, i.e. exercising.
> it's because you come in from a perspective of not wanting the underlying problem solved
Where is this assumption coming from? Of course I don't want people to break the laws of the country or immigrate illegally, I never argued for that either.
What I don't understand, if Obama managed to throw out more illegals than Trump did for the same duration of time, yet with a lot less chaos and bloodshed, and you truly want less illegal immigrants, should you favor a more peaceful and efficient process? Instead of a more violent and less efficient process?
The BBC piece is about recorded apprehensions/encounters being very low (still “<9,000/month”), not that the “flow” is “largely eliminated.” Encounters aren’t the same thing as total unlawful entries, and “very low” isn’t “eliminated.” https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cp8wd8938e8o
The ABC/Brookings story is about net migration turning negative in 2025, mostly due to fewer entries. Net migration is not a measure of the unauthorized population, and the article even notes removals in 2025 are only modestly higher than 2024. https://abcnews.go.com/US/us-1st-time-50-years-experienced-n...
I saw you were briefly downvoted but you're correct. The number and % of illegal immigrants in the us has shot up in an unprecedented way during the prior administration, meaning whatever techniques could be argued to have worked earlier (although to your point, did they work?) may not be adequate to current scope of problem.
A shanty town? In Brooklyn? Yeah, all those hipster trusties who couldn't afford Manhattan (but can still drop 5k a month on a studio in BedStuy or Williamsburg) are really making things bad there.
You ever visited Brooklyn back when it was actually a tough place?
I suspect that these people misattribute poverty and urban decay to illegal immigration when it’s largely a home-grown issue -- in large part due to a concerted effort from right-wing media to slander those immigrants.
What people voted for 14 months ago and how ICE is being used are two different things. Polling shows a majority of Americans do not support how ICE is behaving and do not feel like it is making them safer. There are not plenty of people "violently rioting" at this point. Blowing whistles and yelling at federal agents isn't rioting. If you want to see what violent riots look like, see the Iranian footage.
I think your second part of the most makes my point -- most americans are overall OK with what's going on because of the underlying issue. That's why it doesn't look like Iran.
On the first part, I hope the last few elections made it clear that polling is... unreliable at best. For example, asking the question like "in light of the recent shooting of Renee Good, do you feel ICE is making your city safer" vs asking "Do you feel like having removed X,XXX illegal immigrants with prior convictions has made your city safer" would yield a very different result.
For what it's worth, as an immigrant myself and a typical over-educated NY liberal (at least, formerly) I don't like the details of what's going on but I understand why it is.
I live in Europe, in an immigrant ghetto. Well, I'm not sure whether the word "immigrant" is correct, because most residents are second or third generation and have passports.
The cultural gap is just too much. There are explosions 24/7 and the amount of trash on the street hurts my eyes. A party by my window at 2AM - check. It happens that you have a group of six guys walking down the middle of the road and the fuck are you going to do. There's only so much you can explain by poverty and lack of privilege - especially when they were born in one of the world's richest countries while the country I am from started poor but developed immensely.
When voting, immigration policies are for me #1 issue. I just don't want the entire Europe to look like this.
You got downvoted for stating your experience in a way that feels unpalatable to someone who doesn't have to deal with this. But your story is a perfect example of what I am talking about. If you live in MN or somewhere else that's drastically changed in this way in recent years, you're (a) thrilled that someone is finally doing something and (b) just not gonna be super upset about things that go wrong in the process even though obviously you don't want them going wrong.
Yep, in all EU countries, this would lead to country wide protests with the usual result being the fall of the government and new elections. Seems like the US is missing this element of democracy.
To be fair, Minneapolis is raising hell and has been for the last week. There have been many protests in other cities as well.
I would also say that Trump and his cronies would absolutely love if this boils over into a violent riot. That would give them permission to double down.
I keep hearing this idea that boiling over lets them double down, but at the same time, it is not acceptable to let them keep doing what they do. Once the government starts using physical violence against the people and openly violating constitutional law, there is no choice, but to push back.
But that pushback can look different. Personally, I think that needs to be a massive general strike across every major city.
> Personally, I think that needs to be a massive general strike across every major city.
Yes, this tends to be really effective, especially when you're fighting the upper-class, which is more or less what's happening here as far as I can tell.
Get all the cleaners, cooks, hotel workers and other "servants" to strike, pool up to fund a salary-light for them while they strike, and you'll see changes quickly as the upper-class can no longer enjoy their status.
>Yes, this tends to be really effective, especially when you're fighting the upper-class, which is more or less what's happening here as far as I can tell.
You're not fighting the upper class. It's the blue collar workers and the people who hire them who support ICE and strict immigration.
That's true, when workers are not aligned with each others, some get confused who is actually on your side vs against you, and frequently they believe the upper-class will protect them and provide them with support and wealth. I don't think I even have to share examples of how this works out in practice, yet for every revolution it keeps happening with the same results more or less.
You are fighting the upper-class, while some of the working-class people are mislead to fight on the other side. Slowly but surely they'll realize where to go, but often the promises of wealth and what not gets to strong for the individuals to at least try to move up.
Framing this as "literally anyone who works" vs "everyone above that" is a dishonest slight of hand to distract from the fact that the top slice of that category spent decades peddling policy that made things worse for the bottom half (and in many cases kicked them into the non working dependent/welfare class) because it made asset values go up and those whiny blue collar types were just backwards and dumb anyway (or whatever they told themselves to justify it).
I also don’t get why the Democrat leadership is caving in on funding the government. An indefinite shutdown is called for at this point until the train of ethnonationalist authoritarianism is stopped.
Totally fine with general strikes, particularly for the business that are accommodating and providing logistical services for ICE. Very much opposed to shooting wars. We don't have the firepower or the political power (yet).
The government is built around a monopoly on violence - that’s kind of the point.
Claiming that government using violence to enforce the law and function of the government is some redline seems a bit silly and incompatible with any approach to government outside anarchism.
You should read more of the thoughts of America’s founding fathers. Government authority ends when its actions violate the Constitution (especially when checks and balances have failed) and the people are the final arbiters of what the government can and cannot do. Your analysis is completely antithetical to the values and ideals the United States was founded to protect.
If the government repeatedly uses violence outside of the bounds of the Constitution and checks and balances have failed to correct that behavior then that is a real crossing of a redline based on the principles outlined in our founding documents.
1) Drawing on the thoughts of the founding fathers to argue “the government is violating the rights and protections enjoyed by Latino and African illegal immigrants” would certainly be a unique position, given who and what the constitution protected.
2) Even setting that aside, what current actions violate the Constitution?
The First Amendment has seen time, place, and manner restrictions, particularly when it crosses the line into rioting or obstructing government operations.
The Fourth has allowed for brief questioning, reasonable suspicion, and the recent Vasquez Perdomo emergency order held that these recent stops are constitutional - so even your “checks and balances” idea is working against you, as multiple branches of government are in concurrence here.
The “founders didn’t intend to protect X” argument is more about history than law. Whatever the founders personally believed, the Constitution they wrote and endorsed (as interpreted for well over a century) restrains government in its treatment of “persons,” not just citizens. Non-citizens (documented or not) still have due process protections, and law enforcement still has to stay inside Fourth Amendment limits.
On “what actions violate the Constitution”: you’re also overstating what’s been “held.” An emergency order/stay is not a merits ruling that a policy is constitutional; it’s often just “this can proceed for now while litigation continues.” And the fact that multiple branches haven’t stopped something yet doesn’t mean checks and balances are “working”, it can just mean they’re failing in slow motion, which is exactly the scenario the founders warned about.
As for the specific amendments: time/place/manner doesn’t cover suppressing disfavored speech under pretext, and reasonable suspicion can’t be race/ethnicity-by-proxy or broad dragnet logic. If you want to argue the recent ICE-related tactics are clearly constitutional, cite the exact language you’re relying on and I’ll read it. But “emergency order exists” does not equal “constitutional on the merits.”
>…the Constitution they wrote and endorsed…restrains government in its treatment of “persons,” not just citizens.
Sure, it does now, but your original statement was “You should read more of the thoughts of America’s founding fathers”. But, do remember the founding fathers didn’t seem very concerned about the early government’s treatment or protections of many groups of people. Otherwise, we wouldn’t have needed:
The Bill of Rights
Amendments 13,14,15, and 19
The civil rights act
Title 9, etc
>Non-citizens (documented or not) still have due process protections, and law enforcement still has to stay inside Fourth Amendment limits.
Sure, and those protections aren’t being violated, as evidenced by the Supreme Court holding that doesn’t even find enough risk to the plaintiffs to temporarily pause these enforcement actions. Just like they also agreed that TPS could be ended, parole could be ended, 3rd country deportations were allowed, etc.
At a certain point, when Congress doesn’t care to legislate against it, the Supreme Court via rulings/shadow docket allows it to continue, and the President authorizes it, the action is legitimate.
You can not like it, and you’re welcome to vote against it in the midterms and in 2028, but that doesn’t make it unconstitutional.
Just as emergency order doesn’t equal constitutional, complaints about enforcement of existing laws does not equal unconstitutional.
You’re conflating three different things: (1) founders’ personal moral failures, (2) the legitimacy theory they articulated, and (3) what an emergency posture from SCOTUS actually proves.
On (1) vs (2): yes, the founding generation tolerated massive injustice. That doesn’t refute the point I was making. The Enlightenment idea they leaned on is that rights pre-exist government and government power is delegated and limited. The later amendments you list aren’t a rebuttal to that framework, they’re the country painfully applying it more consistently over time via the mechanisms the Constitution itself provides.
On the Court point: “SCOTUS didn’t temporarily pause X” does not equal “no constitutional violation.” Emergency stays/injunctions turn on things like posture, standing, likelihood of success, irreparable harm, balance of equities, and deference; not a full merits finding that the challenged conduct is constitutional. “Shadow docket lets it continue” is not the same as “the Court blessed it.”
And the biggest issue is your last paragraph: legitimate does not equal constitutional.
Congress failing to act, the President authorizing something, and courts not immediately stopping it may show the government has the power to do it right now; it does not show the action is within constitutional limits. If that were the test, then any coordinated abuse across branches would become “legitimate by definition,” which is exactly what checks and balances are meant to prevent.
If you want to argue “these protections aren’t being violated,” then argue the specifics: what’s the standard being used for stops, entries, detentions, and removals, and how is it being applied? “It’s enforcement” is not a constitutional analysis.
You’re just trying to robe your personal idea of what’s constitutional in some fairytale amalgamation of modern social justice and enlightenment writings.
The reality is simple: the founding fathers did not and would not care that illegal (or heck, even legal) African immigrants were being arrested and deported, as evidenced by the fact that many of them literally held slaves. So, your opening position that I “should read more of the thoughts of America’s founding fathers” is wrong.
To checks and balances, the current state of government action is ironically in line with how those founding fathers would want government run.
Hamilton: “The courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature… to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority”. If the courts don’t see fit to constrain this exercise of power, it’s within the authority.
Washington himself led a militia against the Whiskey Rebellion, since the members were using intimidation, violence, and obstruction to impede a government function (wow, sounds familiar…)
Turning back to the present day, the standard being used is simple: The Immigration and Nationality Act authorizes
immigration officers to “interrogate any alien or person
believed to be an alien as to his right to be or to remain in
the United States.” 66 Stat. 233, 8 U. S. C. §1357(a)(1).
Immigration officers “may briefly detain” an individual “for
questioning” if they have “a reasonable suspicion, based on
specific articulable facts, that the person being questioned
. . . is an alien illegally in the United States.” 8 CFR
§287.8(b)(2) (2025); see United States v. Brignoni-Ponce,
422 U. S. 873, 884 (1975); United States v. Arvizu, 534 U. S.
266, 273 (2002). The reasonable suspicion inquiry turns on
the “totality of the particular circumstances.” Brignoni-
Ponce, 422 U. S., at 885, n. 10; Arvizu, 534 U. S., at 273.
If you want to argue these protections are being violated, you should probably make a stronger case than the one before the court that’s likely to lose. I’ll defer to the Supreme Court for constitutional analysis, as the founding fathers intended.
You’re still dodging the point by arguing founders’ personal depravity instead of the political theory they articulated: rights don’t come from government, authority is delegated, and it has limits. The fact that many founders violated their own principles doesn’t erase the principles, it proves why limiting doctrines and later amendments were necessary.
And the “they wouldn’t care” claim is overstated even on its own terms. The founders were divided and inconsistent, but several explicitly condemned slavery and/or refused to participate in it:
Jefferson (who was deeply compromised personally) still wrote this about slavery’s corruption and consequences:
> “Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever…” (Notes on the State of Virginia, Query XVIII (1784), as transcribed by Encyclopedia Virginia)
Jefferson also documented that Congress removed an anti–slave trade passage from his draft for political reasons (i.e., to get unanimity):
> “The clause too, reprobating the enslaving the inhabitants of Africa, was struck out in complaisance to South Carolina and Georgia, who had never attempted to restrain the importation of slaves…” (Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography (1821), as reproduced by Monticello / Avalon Project)
John Adams:
> “my opinion against it has always been known… and never in my Life did I own a Slave.” (John Adams to George Churchman and Jacob Lindley, Jan. 24, 1801; Gilder Lehrman Institute primary source)
So no, it’s not accurate to collapse “the founders” into “they endorsed whatever abuses you can point to.” Some did; some didn’t; many were hypocrites; but the rights-and-limits framework is real, and it’s the framework the country later used to correct (some of) those failures.
On Hamilton: yes, courts are an intermediate body. But it does not follow that “if the Court doesn’t stop it (especially on an emergency posture), it’s therefore within authority.” Courts can be wrong, courts can be procedural, and emergency orders are not merits adjudications. “Not enjoined today” is not the same thing as “constitutional.” If that were the rule, coordinated abuse across branches would become self-legitimating (exactly what checks and balances are meant to prevent).
Washington and the Whiskey Rebellion is a non sequitur. Nobody is arguing the government can’t enforce laws or respond to violence. The question is whether current enforcement is staying inside constitutional rails.
And on your legal citations: sure, INA authority exists. But statutory authority doesn’t dissolve the Fourth Amendment. Your own lead case, Brignoni‑Ponce, is precisely about limits: reasonable suspicion has to be based on specific articulable facts, and it can’t collapse into ethnicity/race-by-proxy plus “totality of circumstances” handwaving.
So let’s keep it concrete: what specific factors are officers using in practice to form reasonable suspicion, and what safeguards prevent that from becoming a dragnet? “The INA authorizes questioning” is not an answer to whether particular stops/detentions are constitutional.
Finally: “I defer to the Supreme Court” is fine as a personal posture, but it’s not an argument that the Constitution has no redlines unless five Justices say so on a given day (especially not on the shadow docket).
> “to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions: a very dangerous doctrine indeed and one which would place us under the despotism of an Oligarchy.” (Jefferson to William Charles Jarvis, Sept. 28, 1820)
On the other hand, the gov using violence to break the law (e.g. detaining citizens who have committed no crimes under the pretense of immigration enforcement) is not silly.
If officers actually have reasonable suspicion that a specific person violated 18 U.S.C. §111 (assaulting/resisting/impeding federal officers), then a brief Terry-style stop to investigate can be lawful.
But you’re smuggling a lot into “reasonably suspected,” and it doesn’t answer the concern being raised:
Suspicion has to be particularized. “Was in the area,” “was protesting,” “was filming,” “looked like they might interfere,” or “was near someone who did something” isn’t reasonable suspicion of §111 for that individual. The Fourth Amendment requires specific, articulable facts tied to the person detained.
Stop vs. arrest still matters. Even if there’s RS, that supports a brief detention. If you’re talking handcuffs/transport/prolonged detention, you’re usually in probable cause territory.
So yes, §111 can justify enforcement. But it can’t be a magic incantation that turns broad crowd-control or “immigration enforcement” pretext into constitutional detentions.
If you think these detentions are “perfectly fine,” what specific facts are officers using, in practice, to establish §111 reasonable suspicion for the particular people being detained?
Don’t forget half the population (within polling MOE) supports this, believing ICE/ removal operations are making America safer by enforcing our existing, long standing immigration laws.
Obstructing feds in those operations, rioting outside government buildings, and driving cars at uniformed officers aren’t going to net you a ton of sympathy with people supporting law enforcement actions.
Polling from them says about half of Americans have an unfavorable view of ICE, a far better rating than Congress, for example at 80% disapprove.
So you’ve got a swath of people who are fine with what ICE is doing, or don’t care to even make their dissatisfaction known via a survey, much less the ballot box or via a riot.
Ok, so revised: half the population wants ICE abolished and nearly half the population has a favorable view of ICE.
The OP question was why aren’t Americans rising up and resisting ICE, and the answer I gave was because about half the population doesn’t even dislike them enough to answer a survey negatively.
I'm not sure that revision is correct either. What poll shows half the population with a favorable view of ICE? I can't find anything that high. The highest I see from reputable pollsters is 40%, and most show it is decreasing.
Americans aren't passive: we actively did this. The rioters are in the masks and uniforms. We went so far out of our way to arrive at this godforsaken idiot collapse.
spain isn’t a great example here. it has some of the most racist fans football has ever seen and yet there’s no action. only italy probably compares. if there was a government agency going after black and brown people (ie non-white) i wouldn’t bet on the spanish population to come to their rescue. lamine yamal, a young footballer of moroccan descent hasn’t been spared the vitriol of the spanish hooligans even though he was top 3 best player at the recent euro (where he helped spain to victory).
point being, given that ice is going after non-whites and is getting by, a spanish ice will get by too, with probably more ease.
Sad as it is, I think Spain only barely makes it into the top 10 on the UEFA racism ranking. Serbia, Hungary and Israel are probably the top contenders, with Albania and Poland completing the top 5.
I'm not sure that's even in the same class of issues as what's happening in the US and frankly, a bit surprising to hear. Have you seen/been with ultras in the Nordics? Even been to derbies played in Copa Libertadores? Both of those I'd immediately rank as way more violent than what we see here in Spain.
I've read multiple comparisons between US groups like Patriot Front and the Proud Boys and hooliganism in terms of the culture and demographics. Similar backgrounds, similar attitudes, similar behaviors (get smashed, go start fights). It's just more overtly political here rather than being organized around a sports fandom.
Decades of copaganda paired with police brutality. A fairly large portion of americans view anyone with a badge as "the good guy" by default.
But, I think people are also fearful about what happens after the riots start. Nobody is excited about Trump using a riot as an excuse to declare martial law and deploy the military everywhere. There's still some hope that cities and states will step up and do their job. These ICE agents can and should be prosecuted.
> Are people inside the country not getting the same news we're getting on the outside?
They aren't. And unfortunately a LOT of US media is sanewashing. We have dedicated channels like fox news which are basically framing everything as "violent protesters attacking the police for trying to arrest bad guys". But even centrist and slightly left mainstream media is bending over backwards to give excuses and "both sides" this. Doing things like using a lot of passive language or just not reporting on the raids all together. You basically need to be online or tuned in to alternative media to learn about this stuff.
There's also the very simple and real fact that fascists already have the power. People are scared. There's about 30% of the citizenship who could literally drive a car through a protest or open up fire who'd be completely protected by the state for those actions. Most of the people that'd do that are already employed by ICE.
>" But even centrist and slightly left mainstream media is bending over backwards to give excuses and "both sides" this."
Our "leftist" or "centrist" news sources are owned by right wing billionaires. There is no real actual leftist or even centrist news source that has any sort of clout here in the US.
man honestly all this stuff pisses me off but I'm just trying to survive over here in my own life. Got friends from all over but no one is really ready to put their life on the line. Like, most disagree with Trump's agenda, many find it offensive, but bottom line is staying healthy, finding work, paying bills, taking care of ppl immediately around you is more important.
Truth is, lots of Americans are really divorced from the reality undocumented immigrants are facing right now. Lots of immigrants from 10-15+ years ago aren't worried if they are law abiding (anecdotal). The online rhetoric rly doesn't match daily life in my most places aside from the active hotbeds.
Isn't the same true of in the EU though? Immigrants and refugees from Syria were treated quite harshly and has led to a significant rise in far right parties across Europe. These parties are actively harassing immigrants and non-white groups. But there doesn't seem to be riots in the streets over it.
It's almost flipped how the US and Europe have dealt with threats. The US has a long history of organized hate groups having the run of things. I don't Europe has experienced anything like the KKK for as long. However Europe is not far removed from fascist and authoritarian regimes. So things are more fresh in the minds of citizens and they are more likely to fight them. However when attacked through another method it subverts that and allows tacit approval from the public while their neighborhoods are transformed for the worse.
> These parties are actively harassing immigrants and non-white groups. But there doesn't seem to be riots in the streets over it.
It is true, we have vigilante groups going around sometimes acting violent against people they think are immigrants, it is a real problem. It isn't all across Europe, and it isn't super common, but it happens, and that's enough.
I think the difference is in who is coordinating these efforts, because none of those vigilante groups are the country's own border patrol doing that in "official business" capacity, they're small groups of individuals usually associated with some far-right political groups, rather than tax funded government groups.
If the latter were to happen, you can be pretty sure people wouldn't put up with it, because most of us realize what's coming after that, because we were all forced to study history growing up.
> So things are more fresh in the minds of citizens and they are more likely to fight them
Yeah, this seems to be a big factor, most of us here (Europe) still have parents (and grand-parents) who remember and witnessed a lot of awful shit, and growing up would immediately reprimand you if you just pretended to like that, or carry thoughts in those veins.
We are very weary of that in Europe. I consider it to be the case thag the "Rechtsruck" (sudden movement to the right) is a global phenomenon. Alls the right extremist are orienting themselves after the model of what Trumpism is doing which at least thats true for my personally, is why I am ver y concerned of what is happening kn the US. I grew up to a jazz sax playing father to whom the culture the GI brought here was progressive and related to freedom. It feels loke that idea of the US is dead now.
As to why this phenomenon is happening - i would speculate that it has to do with the polarisation that is happening in the face a ever faster progressing disintegration of the social fabric into technology accompanied by the prospect of a scarcity of resources caused by an impeding breakdown of the biosphere and the climate system with which it coevolved plus on a more local scale an extreme increase of inequality of wealth distribution.
Not attacking you OP, but oh look, the top comment again concern trolling the topic to something else less inconvenient. It's wild how common that is on HN.
Basically we Americans have given up on our system. Both on the left and the right. It's why the right elected Trump, and it's why the left silently elected Trump by not voting.
Minneapolis mayor told protestors to remain peaceful. The Democrats always want to follow the rules even when the other side has abandoned them. To be fair to Mayor Frye though, Trump wants to provoke rioting to invoke the Insurrection Act, which he threatened to do today if the Democratic officials don't "fall in line". So there is that.
First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist
Then they came for the Socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist
Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist
Then they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew
Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me
There are a lot of differences. Americans are not being passive. For one thing, reasonable or not there is still a lot of faith in the election process and many are expecting all this craziness will put Republicans on a back seat for decades. For another, these ICE groups are well armed and operate in numbers. Many Americans are also armed and have deep misgivings about political violence and where this is headed. Where you see "passive" many of us see "knife edge". Also, many live staying busy and near exhaustion to start with and have trouble coming to grips with just how bad this is as no one has ever shown this much contempt for laws without consequences. There is an expectation that the constitution will hold any test. And those following closely understand that just about everything Trump has done including tariffs are illegal and the courts are closing in.
Worth mentioning that America does not have a protest culture like Europe. Being largely rural makes gathering for political expression impractical, and in this particular case Trump and his militias are deliberately trying to stir up chaos in order to rationalize cranking up the pressure. Protests make noise and get you targeted but what is needed now is real change.
In a Richfield Target, video shows federal agents detaining Target employees, including one being tackled/handcuffed while saying “I’m literally a U.S. citizen,” and they were later released:
Okay, go for the first one where ICE shoots a pastor directly in the head from a rooftop with a pepper ball (their claimed reason was they were blocking a vehicle, but in the video the pastor is on the sidewalk and there is no vehicle in sight anywhere. Also, that is not the way that sort of weapon is supposed to be used for crowd control as it could seriously injure someone).
Thanks for that. Here’s what I’ve found for the governments response:
- Demonstrators were throwing rocks and bottles, and shooting fireworks at ICE agents.
- Demonstrators were blocking vehicles, impeding ICE operations.
- The demonstrators were trespassing on federal property and were repeatedly warned before force was used.
I have been unable to find anything claiming those are false. Let me know if you have a source that contradicts these.
If it turns out all of those are true, does that justify the use of pepper spray to you? It does for me. I’ve shot paintballs ( not pepper spray balls ) many times and do not believe they can be reasonably aimed for a headshot. I’ll consider that a ‘lucky shot’.
Let me know it you have proof against the government claims, or if you feel unnecessary force was used if they are all true.
I hear you on the “maybe they threw rocks/blocked vehicles/got warned” list (but that’s basically DHS’s standard script in every crowd-control incident.)
Two things:
The video of the pastor getting hit doesn’t match that story in that moment. I don’t see an imminent threat that would justify rooftop agents firing pepper balls into a crowd and someone getting tagged in the head, do you?
More importantly:
A federal judge also wasn’t just like “sounds fine to me.” This went to court, and the judge issued a TRO/preliminary injunction restricting exactly this kind of conduct (indiscriminate force and targeting peaceful protesters/press/clergy who aren’t posing an immediate threat). That is strong evidence that the court thought the pastor had a serious case and that ongoing harm was likely.
So even if we grant (for the sake of argument) “some people were doing dumb/illegal stuff somewhere,” that still doesn’t justify shooting projectiles into a crowd in a way that predictably risks serious injury (especially head/face hits). “We can’t aim these well” is not a defense, it’s literally the reason you shouldn’t be firing them like that, right?
Also worth saying: a TRO/PI isn’t a final “verdict,” but it’s still a judge basically telling the government “you can’t keep doing this while the case plays out.” That should tell you something about how convincing the government’s version looked when it mattered.
If you’ve got a source showing rocks/fireworks/clear warnings right before that rooftop volley in the same spot, please link it. I’d be happy to look. But between the video and the fact a judge stepped in, I’m siding with the pastor’s account here.
> I find it hard to believe that any law enforcement agents anywhere would tolerate these actions without similar response.
It’s interesting that that’s your perception. In a lot to countries it’s very rare for the police to kill anyone in the sorts of circumstances you’re describing.
Interesting. How do they deal with things like people driving cars towards them?
That’s the only fatality situation in the current unrest.
Another protester was shot yesterday, the agent was being attacked with a snow shovel and a large stick. The protester was shot in the leg ( not fatal ), which is sometimes suggested as a less permanent way of stopping such an attack.
Renee Nicole wasn’t driving a car at anyone, but regardless, it is stupid to shoot someone who’s driving a car at you as it won’t stop the car. What you need to do in that situation is get out of the way.
The truth of that can be seen in the recordings where the car is driving away from the ICE person, till it crashes violently into a mast or something after the driver (Renee Nicole) was shot by the ICE person.
That was an aside because I think inaccurate summaries of what happened in the videos should always be corrected, however bad MAGA want to post truth this.
But the question we were discussing was whether or not it was normal in other countries for police to shoot the drivers of cars as a means of stopping them. So no agreement on the facts of the Renee Nicole case is required.
> Why would I want to riot over immigration enforcement enforcing immigration laws?
So you are not seeing the same news the outside world are seeing? Is there censorship happening? Because what we're seeing, isn't "enforcing immigration laws", it's brutal murder of civilians, together with actually being worse at getting people out of the country. Obama did a better job at kicking out illegals, yet without these public broad-daylight murders. How does that compute to be "enforcing immigration laws"?
>So you are not seeing the same news the outside world are seeing?
Yes. Me personally, at least, in that I don't watch broadcast television at all. Hell, quite alot of it from the same links and tweets you click on. No Fox News or anything like that, but I suspect that if I gave you my personal opinions you'd swear that I was parroting those outlets. (Something I've noticed all my life... most people can't accept that I might independently arrive at the same conclusions.)
>it's brutal murder of civilians,
I watched it from 5 angles. It wasn't murder, it was self-defense. Open and shut. Cars are deadly weapons, she pointed the car at him as if she was bullet-proof. Found out otherwise. Everything to the contrary is sophistry. "Sure, she waved a gun around, but she didn't point it at his face!" and so forth. He had milliseconds to react, but he's supposed to see the wheels that he's not looking at turned away and he's supposed to care when on a Minnesota road with a bad driver and slush the direction the wheels point might not even matter.
>Obama did a better job at kicking out illegals,
Perhaps. So? If Trump appoints him deportation czar, I won't object.
>yet without these public broad-daylight murders. How does that compute to be "enforcing immigration laws"?
Plainly false. Did you bother to look this up? Not only were federal agents accused of this during his tenure, several of them were ICE and CBP in manners similar to what we're seeing now. Maybe the news outlets you favor didn't bother to report those, selectively.
I am pro-immigration-control, in a pretty strong sense. Not "anti-immigration", since it's a valuable tool when controlled properly, but I believe we have not been properly controlling it, by a long shot. The consequences have been disastrous, so I sympathize with the desperation and anger born from that.
But no amount of sympathy can excuse the general behavior of ICE and the stain it leaves on the idea of the USA. In this case - I have watched all the same videos, and there is simply no way to view that murder as clearly self-defense without leaning on a pre-decided hatred of the victim as an "enemy".
Just as the left's ideas on immigration are clouded by idealism in the name of anti-racism, the right's ideas on immigration are clouded by racism. What's best for a society lies somewhere in between, and at this point may require some tough enforcement, yes, but ICE is not enacting that - they are just enacting the right's hatred, terrorizing America in an un-focused, illegal, immoral, violent, unprofessional manner. As Americans understandably push back against that (as Americans are famous for), you will get escalating messes like this.
The deep irony in your comment is that every view you’ve expressed is itself informed by the propaganda you have been viewing.
ICE are detaining American citizens. It’s been documented countless, countless times. The killings they have committed are clearly debatable in their justification. Staying they are justified does not make it so.
> you are receiving propaganda just like everyone else. It's filtered and manipulated to make the US appear worse than it is.
Of course, I realize that all news I read, from CNN, Guardian to Reuters, Fox and White House press release all have biases. Reading both sides gives you the in-the-middle perspective you need, and I recommend everyone to do the same, even if some sources like Fox are kind of hard to get through sometimes, but it's important to read both sides of every story.
> "Extra judicial murders" are federal ICE officers justifiably defending themselves. ICE is in Minneapolis and many other cities to deal with a huge population of illegals that need to be deported as expressed by the popular will of our recent democratic election.
ICE agents defending themselves isn't exclusive with "extra judicial murders", you can defend yourself but do so in the wrong way. You don't have permission to execute anyone you think might harm you, then the situation would be much worse.
Instead you have "proportional force" or similar, and I guess that's up to each observer to decide what they think that is, because it seems like the courts aren't even gonna have their input considered about it. Hence the "Extra judicial" part.
A pervasive "Someone needs to do something!!!" attitude is why. Americans will forever wait for the school principal to come and get everyone into trouble
There is a lot of direct action happening right now in Minneapolis, with people keeping watch on every block. I agree this level of organizing should be happening nationwide.
Fixed like Putin is "fixing" his borders through immoral violence, murder, oppression, ...? (Trump's regime are mimicking it well.) Or do you mean something else?
Are you saying USA, in the majority, is still imperialist? Is still racist? Is still white supremacist?
Some folks have observed that the Proud Boys, Oath Keepers, and other established far-right groups aren't marching as much recently:
> “How many pardoned January 6th insurrectionists have been hired by your respective departments?” Raskin (D-Md.), ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, asked the two officials [Bondi and Noem].
As your link implies, they're not marching because they've joined ICE. Last year [1] Enrique Tarrio, head of the Proud Boys, announced an app where people could report "undocumented immigrants" for crypto.
Are there countries where people of any other country can enter without controls outside of those who form a union to control ingress from non-union members?
Like can I just get a plane ticket and stay indefinitely in Peru, Russia, UK, Cuba, Mexico, Ukraine, Uganda, Abu Dhabi, Costa Rica, India, etc?
You can rage against the question, but the question remains.
It’s a diverse sample of many kinds of countries with a diverse set of cultures and and governance and yet they all control entry into their countries.
What happened to the SA when they became to powerful. And also when the people of Nazi Germany (so Nazis) became fed up with the thugs.
Out of interest: is there something like a person considered to be a leader (like Röhm) amongst ICE?
Police don't deserve "respect" for being police. They don't get to shoot or brutalize people for "disrespecting" them. They are servants of the people and should humble themselves appropriately and act with that consciousness, not act as though they are noble beings superior to other men, not beholden to earthly law.
Why should civilians respect federal LEOs when they detain citizens, who have committed no crimes, under the pretense of immigration enforcement? Why does the lack of respect for LEOs justify beating non-violent civilians, smashing into their cars, randomly shooting pepper spray and tear gas, and raiding homes without a warrant?
The perspective that is constantly missing from these one-sided ICE threads on HN and Reddit (but often exposed in videos after the fact): What are the civilians/protesters actually doing in these situations?
This kind of "I'm a sovereign citizen, you can't touch me" behavior used to be rightfully belittled by the same crowd only a few years ago.
Yeah, all those sovereign citizens going to their... doctors appointments? Really? This is how far we're shoving the boot up our ass these days? Okay.
Look. We have so much evidence of misconduct by ICE that the only reasonable thing to do is just assume there is misconduct. There's no Le Enlightened Centrist take here - these people act like gangs, and have zero respect for Americans citizens or their property.
A lot of people are looking for fights. In saner countries the police are trained to deescalate situations like that, not go around picking fights with anyone who’s looking for one.
It’s insane. I watch the actual source videos from as many angles as I can find, and I’ve not once seen this false narrative of unreasonable retribution by LEO’s. Not once when I find the full context.
> I’ve not once seen this false narrative of unreasonable retribution
Idk man that’s pretty crazy. Sounds kind of like you have no concerns about living in an authoritarian hellhole where state police have absolute authority and are only accountable to the highest executive power. Maybe read some books about how that usually ends up for most people. We’re out here ringing alarm bells so more books don’t have to be written.
Same. I'm not american, but I see the same thing from the same crowd in my home country. They tend to think it's perfectly ok to lie if it's for a good thing (as defined by themselves).
I’m here in the ground, I’ve seen them detain people for no cause. Masked agents grabbing guys out of a Home Depot parking lot and throwing them in a van only to drop them off later after scaring them. No charges.
Maybe you’ll be lucky enough to get picked up so you can get your proof.
I hope you stay safe and avoid getting assaulted by those fascist assholes. I've seen a lot of grim stuff already just from my own network of friends and the videos pouring out of there.
The amount of credulity you’re exhibiting is incredible given the tidal wave of evidence that there’s a highly politicized, highly funded paramilitary organization of the government that has to date not been publicly held accountable for any of its actions that clearly violate the rights and safety of even the lawful residents of the United States.
> she was clearly deliberately obstructing traffic,
You are lying. She waited for the pedestrian to cross.
Also, obstructing traffic is not valid reason to be violent against someone. ICE or cops being violent in that situation is them abusing their power big time. So, again, we are back to Brownshirts comparison.
Yeah sure. Just like the other lady was just "dropping off her kids at school".
The officers told her to move. She had plenty of opportunities to do so. But she continued to yell at them, and block the road.
At the point an officer is breaking your window to detain you, you don't resist / try to drive. You comply.
Slamming people into the ground, firing tear gas canisters into their faces, or killing them are not valid remedies for the state to take even if obstruction is happening. (even if they're being like really annoying with whistles and stuff!)
edit: even if they referred to the ICE agent as "fatty fat fat fat" meanly
As a matter of fact, arrest is the proper remedy for obstruction, which is at least a misdemeanor and sometimes a felony, and it may include those first two things, or even the third if they violently resist. And despite widely spread misinformation online, ICE has the legal authority to arrest anyone, even citizens, if they see them doing this.
There’s really no other way law enforcement could work, I don’t know what people are imagining. You don’t get to surround or block LEO from conducting business and just say “neener neener” and there’s nothing they can do. If you escalate to physical violence then you’re simply gambling with your life and there’s no other way it could be in the world we life in, except in maybe a very low crime society.
It’s one thing if you accept all this and do it anyway, but people keep acting shocked by what happens. “why did you have real bullets?”.
What if LEOs have a clear pattern of acting outside of the Constitution and lying about the circumstances around “obstruction”? Can you see a point at which it no longer makes sense to comply? I believe the founding fathers have much to say on this subject.
I think, having been arrested and had other encounters with police, I am going to be the most docile lamb in the world and talk to my lawyer later. I haven’t seen anything that’s not very typical cop behavior.
If you think revolution is the answer I don’t agree, but surely you see that risking your life is table stakes.
I think your position is reasonable in reasonable times, but variables can and do change and our responses must change with them if we hope to adapt and survive. But this is all academic at this point, even if warning signs are popping up everywhere.
"Blocking traffic" is at this point a tired trope. Any sort of disruptive action is described as "blocking traffic", which is somehow framed as a form of violence. (My favorite version is when people argue that it is a form of unlawful detention akin to kidnapping.)
This would be more accurately framed as "parking illegally", which is the sort of thing for which you occasionally get a ticket placed under your windshield wiper, not the sort of thing for which armed, masked agents violently arrest you.
Purposely moving your car in front of law enforcement officers' cars to prevent them from arresting a suspect is in fact obstruction.
This is not "violence", but you will be arrested if you do this. If you resist arrest, you will be forcefully arrested/apprehended.
If you then attempt potentially life-threatening physical harm to the officer you will likely be met with deadly force.
There are two different things at play, and it's important to be clear about them:
- Legal protest. Standing out of the way, yelling, singing, signs, etc. 100% protected, only subject to reasonable crowd control (by the local LEA), eg to move people off the roadway.
- Civil disobedience. Intentional non-violent violations of the law. Intended to slow/disrupt government activity. You are breaking the law to make a point, and should be willing to accept the consequences. The violations are almost always minor, with at most a week or two in jail and a fine. Law enforcement has a legal obligation to apply proportionally in the enforcement, if they are non-violent then little or no force is acceptable in detaining or citing the protestors.
>If you resist arrest, you will be forcefully arrested/apprehended. If you then attempt potentially life-threatening physical harm to the officer you will likely be met with deadly force.
Translation: you'll be summarily executed if the officer vaguely feels "threatened"
You can call it whatever you like, it's going to happen, and you know it will. You have the choice to not throw your life away by fucking with ICE and trying to aggravate and harass them on purpose, and to not become a clickbait internet video of someone getting shot for being stupid.
All of this conveniently ignores the question of whether the ICE agent's act was legal or ethical, and is bordering on victim blaming. And the record, I am against the women's behavior. I just think the ICE agent's response was totally disproportionate, and that we shouldn't be killing people for such activities. I'm also against stealing, but that doesn't mean I'm going to cheer if a shoplifter gets summarily executed by a cop, or think "the shoplifter has the choice not to throw their life away by not screwing with the cops" is an acceptable excuse for the cop's behavior.
Most of those are shorts clips that do not show the context of the situation. These sorts of clips are what is causing people to believe the actions of federal agents are not justified when they actually are. When the initial clip of Renee Good came out people thought that the she did not drive into the agent but now that other angles have come out it is clear that she did hit the federal agent. It is always important to find the whole clip and not just propaganda clips
I'm not understanding your point either, so here's how I'm interpreting what you're saying, in good faith: "she was in the way, so it was worth shooting her. fullstop".
So I'm struggling to understand why you seem to be okay with shooting someone for being in the way. So please explain to me why you think "obstruction" was worth shooting her.
She wasn't shot for obstructing federal agents. The series of events are as follows:
1. She obstructed federal agents
2. She resisted arrest/detainment
3. She accelerated into a federal agent
4. She was shot
I don't think that she deserved death. It's unfortunate that you are misrepresenting my comments. I believe that she made a series of bad decisions and was solely responsible for what occurred. I understand that we are living in emotional times but arguing in bad faith does not improve the situation. We should maybe stop this discussion as it doesn't seem that we are getting anywhere. I hope that you have a good day
My mom's dad was shot and killed by police. Absolutely nobody in my family knows anything about it, but the default is "he was a bad person and deserved it" or, "he probably did something wrong." The coroner's report shows his death as a suicide, despite police shooting and killing him. This was a time before cameraphones and before I was even born, so it's impossible for me, let alone anyone else to know what happened.
A lot of how you approach this discussion reminds me of the side of my family that defaults to thinking that the police did nothing wrong, or that their actions were justified or within policy, even without knowing the full facts (or, any; it's willful ignorance out the wazoo), plus a handful of assumptions. And, just -- a person died and that's all you can muster? Callousness and an air of benevolence?
So can you. Your past experience was terrible, but that's no reason to ignore or misrepresent what others are saying.
What GP and I are both seeing in the Renee video is assault with a deadly weapon on a law enforcement officer. Lethal force is a valid response. That doesn't mean she deserves it, but that she was doing something stupid without realizing just how stupid it was. Most of these protestors are the same, they're new to this and being tricked by anti-ICE activists into thinking it's completely safe without getting all the information.
"Deserved" is a stronger word than "earned" or "merited", there's a sense of satisfaction or entitlement (though negative) behind that word. Something like, to say that she deserved death means saying she should have died for what she did, that it was the right outcome. That's not what we're saying. It's more like, the actions the officer took weren't in the wrong despite the bad outcome. She made really bad choices, and she was the one at fault, but there were better possible outcomes given the exact same series of events and she didn't deserve to die. But it's not a surprising outcome either.
Another quick aside since I suspect this is a second point of confusion, "lethal force" does not mean "with the intent to kill", it means "force that is likely to cause severe injury or death".
It has been well established that ICE agents are intentionally stepping in front of slow moving cars to justify a claim of self defense.
They also intentionally bump into people and then claim they are being assaulted. Their superiors have made it clear that will face no consequences for this, and they have aggressive quotas to meet.
In what world do you think it's acceptable to knee someone in the face repeatedly when they're on the ground and not resisting? You clearly didn't watch the videos at all.
Saw the video that you are referring to and it looks like the person is in fact resisting. Also I would not call that good law enforcement and don't agree with the officer doing that
Resisting? Where? Can you point to me in the 44 second clip where he is resisting? Because when the ICE agents move out of the way he's sitting there, completely still. He's so still that they lift him up entirely, with zero resistance or movement. What the fuck do you think he should do in order to not be resisting arrest, given that he's already completely still? You can see between the officers legs the only movement he's doing is when he's being kneed in the face.
It seemed like he was resisting to me because the agents were struggling to get him in handcuffs. Without a full video it is difficult to tell for sure though. The video is missing a lot of context. What happened before that video clip would make all the difference in determining whether or not he was resisting and how much force was necessary. Again I don't condone the agent kneeing the man in the head
Every time, the excuse is 'I need more context' when confronted with evidence because you do, in fact, condone it. Or else you wouldn't start your argument with 'he was resisting arrest'. And don't think I didn't see what you posted originally, you originally didn't even watch the damn clips and I had to tell you which one specifically to watch. Go back and watch any of the other clips I posted. Watch them very carefully.
Yes but if shown proof would it change your mind about anything? Are you against federal law enforcement covering their faces, beating and detaining people illegally?
- ICE boxed in a Woodbury real estate agent recording their movements
- She was run off the road into a snowbank by ICE for laying on her horn
- A woman attempting to drive past a raid
- Feds pushed an unidentified motorist through a red light
- Fired projectiles at a pedestrian walking “too slowly”
Where does the Palantir app come into any of these stories?
Maybe, but really consumerism wasn’t a thing for most of history because almost no one had the money to decorate intentionally in the way we do today. The very wealthy did to varying extents. When we look at the past we always imagine ourselves to be the ones in Downton Abbey, but most people were lucky to inherit some furniture.
I would argue that the reverence for real wood and craft you espoused (and I share) is in part possible due to living in a consumerist society. For what it’s worth it is still possible to buy those same quality goods today, and certainly at lower cost . However, I would balk at paying the historical fraction of my income (or multiple if we go back to the 1700s), for a new bed.
In short cheap dishonest crap is what we ultimately want. It lets us focus our time and resources elsewhere
> Maybe, but really consumerism wasn’t a thing for most of history because almost no one had the money to decorate intentionally in the way we do today.
This reminds me of being a kid excitedly repeating the trope I’d just learned: “Back in your day it was nice because you didn’t need to lock your doors!”
To which she responded “Because none of us had anything worth stealing.”
A good depiction of the gritty realities and the meaning of material striving for the very poor in turn of the century farm life is the novel Independent People, by Halldor Laxness, an Icelandic nobel laureate.
Keep in mind that Halldor's book is depicting a situation fairly specific to Iceland: people recently freed from debt bondage, in a desperately poor and isolated area caught between much larger forces. It's not an attempt to accurately depict what it meant to be working poor for American laborers, like say grapes of wrath.
My first exposure to this - tired of $40 particleboard bookshelves and tables, I went looking for solid wood furniture, reasoning it was fine to spend a little more for something that would last. I found it- and discovered humble, small tables were a months pay.
I don't want cheap crap, but I suddenly appreciated why we've moved away from tables that can support a car.
This is true of basically everything people complain about having gotten worse over time.
Whiteware and kitchen appliances are the same - you can absolutely buy a fridge, or a stand mixer or whatever that will work well and last forever. It's just the value proposition compared to cheap crap that will still likely last for a few years but at a 1/5th of the price is not great unless you're going to use it really heavily.
Last time I had to buy a refrigerator it seemed like the choice was between one that cost around $1k and one that cost $10k. I really couldn't find a mid quality option. There wasn't a price point at around 2x the cheap ones for better quality. Those price points exist, it's just that they're usually the same cheap fridges crammed full of pointless features that actually make the whole thing less reliable because it's more stuff to break.
What I wanted was a refrigerator with a reliable compressor. That's where it really seemed like the only options are cheap and astronomical.
This is actually super helpful! I ended up with a less expensive GE model because it seemed like they were the only brand with positive reliability reports besides the super expensive premium brands.
Compressor is replaceable. Also, how do you judge reliability of a compressor before buying it?
Instead, try to find a refrigerator with access to the cooling pipes. Last fridge I threw away had a leak that couldn't be patched because the pipes were all embedded in the plastic walls of the fridge.
Yeah I think the caveat is that the compressor and maybe seals, lights and few other bits are the ONLY repairable parts of most fridges. The whole structure of a modern fridge is foam panels and sheet metal folds that aren't ever meant to come apart after being assembled.
Got a nice Samsung fridge for 500€, it is running without issues for 10 years already. There is no sense to buy expensive fridge unless you need a professional one.
Not sure there's much market for quality plywood furniture. It's neither cheap nor fancy, just functional, which as a market segment has vanished. The price of today's plywood also seems to have closed a lot of the gap with hardwood - it's often actually a superior material depending on project.
> because almost no one had the money to decorate intentionally
Poor people always decorated and still do. There is basically no larger human culture where decorations dont take a place. The only ones I can think of are small religious orders that dont decorate to deprieve themselves.
You go to any poor area and see dirt, mess, issues and people showing off decorations in their houses or on themselves.
> to decorate intentionally in the way we do today
Most people not so long ago did not have the luxury of saying “that shirt is so last last year” , or “that living room set is a relic of the 90s!”.
Of course people always find ways to decorate and show off, but that’s different than what OP talked about WRT quality furniture. In the past that stuff was so expensive you bought it and lived with it, possibly across multiple generations. If the style changed you probably couldn’t afford to just swap it out.
> luxury of saying “that shirt is so last last year” , or “that living room set is a relic of the 90s!”.
I do not think that luxury is a good thing. We are able to afford it, by having wage slaves in other parts of the world. Also now these kinds of shirts have become of so low quality that you need to throw them away. It is simply an enormous waste of resources, mostly of human work and lifetime.
A lot of online culture laments the modern American life and blames the Boomers for all of our "woes".
The 1950s - 2000s post war boom was a tailwind very few countries get to experience. It's funny how we look back at it as the norm, because that's not what the rest of the world experienced.
There's a reason everything in America was super sized for so long.
Things have averaged out a bit now, but if you look at the trendline, we're still doing remarkably well. The fact that our relatively small population supports the GDP it does is wild.
> The fact that our relatively small population supports the GDP it does is wild.
Yes and no. It is very impressive what humans can do and the US is a remarkable country for managing to achieve what they have. On the other hand, if we're talking GDP it is basically just a trendline [0] of whether you let people better their own lives or not.
The main reason for US success on the GDP front is that the median administrator chooses to make people fail and the US does the best job of resisting that tendency. To me the mystery is less why the US succeeds but more why polities are so committed to failing. It isn't even like there is a political ideology that genuinely wants to make it hard to do business [1]. It mostly happens by accident, foolishness and ignorance.
I think you have one big piece of it: economic progress has a lot of search problems and it is impossible to master-plan it; consequently free intelligence beats centralized regulation. It's a bit out-dated now[0] but The Fifth Discipline distinguishes between 'detail complexity' (things that have a lot of bits you have to figure out) and 'dynamic complexity' (systems that have feedback loops and adaptive participants). It might simply be that handling systems with dynamic complexity is out of the reach of most humans. Economic regulation strikes me as something that can be particularly like a thing that modifies a dynamic system.
In fact, creating good policy in a modern economy might be so dynamically complex that no mind alive today can simultaneously comprehend an adaptive solution and act in such a way as to bring it about.
Perhaps, given this, we are simply spoiled by the effectiveness of certain economic actors (e.g. the Federal Reserve) in maintaining an monetary thermostat. Their success is not the norm so much as it is extraordinary.
0: which is humorous given this, because the Seinfeld Isn't Funny effect applies to things that become mainstream - insight and humor both disappear as the spark or joke become common knowledge
> The main reason for US success on the GDP front is that the median administrator chooses to make people fail and the US does the best job of resisting that tendency.
Every component here is ill-defined and doubtful, especially the claim that lower regulation is the "main" reason.
Well; in some sense. The only person on HN who talks seriously about economics is patio11 because he writes those long-form articles that go on for days and could use a bit of an edit. Which is imperfect but certainly the best the community has come up with because it takes a lot of words to tackle economics.
That acknowledged, I did link to a profession economist's blog and he goes in to excruciating detail of what all his terms mean and what he is saying. I'm basically just echoing all that, so if you want the details you can spend a few hours reading what he wrote.
> On the other hand, if we're talking GDP it is basically just a trendline [0] of whether you let people better their own lives or not.
Focusing on GDP handwaves away so much around externalities that it's hard to know where to start with it.
How much worse off would people be if the US GDP was 20% lower but FB/Instagram/Google/everybody-else weren't vacuuming up ad dollars by pushing as-addictive-as-possible mental-junk-food in people's faces to make them feel bad about themselves? How much of that GDP is giving anyone optimism for improving their own individual condition?
How much of the nostalgia for the olden days is about agency and independence and perceived trajectory vs purely material wealth (from a material standpoint, many people today have more and better stuff than boomers did as kids, when a single black and white TV may have been shared by a whole family)?
Would regulation preventing the heads of big-tech advertising firms from keeping as much of that profit for themselves really be a net drain? Some suggestions for that regulation, harkening back to US history:
1) bring back super-high marginal tax rates to re-encourage more deductions and spread of salaries vs concentration in the top CEOs and execs. worked for the booming 50s! preventing the already-powerful, already-well-off from having another avenue to purely focus on "better their own lives" seemed wise there. seems like there were mega-wealthy super-tycoons both before the "soak the rich" era in US history and after it, but fewer minted during it?
2) instead of pushing more and more people into overtime or second jobs, go the other way and revitalize the earlier 20th-century trends towards limited work hours. get rid of overtime-exempt classifications while at it. Preventing people from working 100 hours a week to "better their own lives" and preventing them from sending their kids to work as early to "better their own lives" seems to have worked out ok.
3) crack down on pollution, don't let people "better their own lives" by forcing others to breathe, eat, and walk through their shit
4) crack down on surveillance, don't let people "better their own lives" by monetizing the private lives of others; focus on letting others enjoy their own lives in peace instead
> It isn't even like there is a political ideology that genuinely wants to make it hard to do business [1].
Eeeeeh. Very debatable. One could argue that both extremes of the bi-partisan political spectrum are laser focused on making the individual businessman powerless. They just hide it all behind altruistic rhetoric.
Having grown up in East Germany, that is the truth. From both my grandparents, born early 20th century, to me things continuously got better. Apart from the war of course. They started little better than servant class and ended up with their own big nice houses, and in comfort. That is true even for the GDR. They lived through war and famine and at least four different currencies and types of government.
They also got more and more educated. From the lowest education to ever higher education degrees, one more step in each new generation. My grandfather tried many new tech hobbies as theY appeared, from (actual, original) tape recorders over mechanical calculators to at the time modern cameras and color slides, to growing hundreds of cactuses in a glasshouse, maybe as a substitute for being unable to travel to those places. I still have lots of quality 1950s and 60s color slides of people and places in East Germany.
Looking around. even the GDR until the end experienced significant improvements over what existed before, at least for the masses. Except for the environment especially near industry.
>A lot of online culture laments the modern American life and blames the Boomers for all of our "woes".
>The 1950s - 2000s post war boom was a tailwind very few countries get to experience. It's funny how we look back at it as the norm, because that's not what the rest of the world experienced.
Especially ironic when perpetrated by youth from countries outside of America - like mine. I'm not a boomer, but my parents generation had it rough and my life was much easier in comparison. Importing "boomer" memes is a bit stupid in this context. Hell, even the name makes no sense here, because our "baby boom" happened later, in 1980-1990s.
Yeah, like I said, we blame boomers who voted for and supported Reagan.
I’m very aware that a healthy minority opposed him and his policies.
Thank you for your work on ARPANET and remaining a proud socialist! Computer networking is what drew me in to the technology space (not programming like most folks here, I presume), and socialism just might finally be having its due time here in the US (e.g., Mamdani, Katie Wilson).
The HN SQLite worship posts have gotten out of hand. What’s next a post on how appending to files is faster than Kafka?
It’s great that some people have workloads that this is a fit for. What’s more common is the use case managed databases like RDS etc solves for. You have some quantity of data you want to always be there, be available over a network for whatever app(s) need it and want backups, upgrades, access control etc solved for you.
I love SQLite and reach for it for hobby projects, but as a product for general business apps it is quite niche. It has the qualities that make for any popular product on HN, a great getting started experience and a complex maintenance and operational experience.
Honestly, I think it's a reaction to all of the over-optimisation that everyone gets caught up in - immediately starting on AWS, Kubernetes and micro-services. Most of the projects people work on will never reach the performance limits of SQLite and a single server.
I'm not saying that there aren't valid reasons to use AWS & clustered solutions etc, but we shouldn't always take that as our starting position.
One other challenge is for existing homes a water heater may only have a gas line running to it. Want a heat pump hot water heater? Hiring the electrician alone, not to mention potentially ripping up walls will ruin any economic advantage.
This was a major barrier for me. I had to replace an existing natural, tanked gas water heater. Ultimately I just bought a $750 replacement because I could easily swap it out myself. Installing a heat pump would have involved an electrician to install a new circuit, and possibly other changes. While there were some 120v models available locally, they all had pretty bad reviews. So I would have paid a couple thousand dollars more. Maybe I could break even over 10 years paying less for gas but that seemed like a poor use of funds.
> every single natural gas water heater is connected to 120V power for the ignition circuit
Mine isn't. During a long power outage, I still had hot water.
I was a bit surprised the water heater was working since I was pretty sure it had an electronic control system. So I went and looked, and sure enough, it was electronic, and somehow the LED was flashing blue like normal!
It turns out the electronics are powered by a thermopile which is heated by the pilot light.
a 1500W heat pump water heater with a COP around 3 will put 5500 watts of heat into the water.
My Rheem hybrid 220v heat pump water heater only has a 500w compressor but puts 1500-2000 watts of heat into the water pulling it from the hot garage.
I have the choice to run it in high demand mode which will run both the heat pump and electric 4500w element for around 6kw of heat into the water if I need fast recovery.
Keep in mind that there's going to be a CoP associated with a heat-pump water heater. Depending on (a bunch of factors) that 1500W HPWH could approach the performance of a 6kW standard EWH.
AFAIK there are actually no 1500w HPWHs currently, the normal hybrid 220v models have a small 500 watt compressor thats very efficient and keeps the airflow requirements low which helps with installation placement and ducting if needed, then still have the electric elements if needed to boost.
The 120v model HPWH's I have seen do not have electric resistive elements and instead have around a 1000W compressor, so they recover faster purely on heat pump and can run off a standard 15 amp circuit while staying well under the NEC 80% rule which would be 12 amps, they are closer to 10 amps.
They do require more airflow and are generally noisier due to larger fans and compressor.
Then you have dedicated split system HPWH's like SANCO that use an outdoor unit like a minisplit and pull around 1800 watts putting well over 6kw into the water, these are probably the future or whole house heat pump systems that heat both water and air(and cool) as combined unit.
6.6 kW, for... COP 4, T₁-T₀ = 30 [K] (lower value for warm climate), allowable 30 minute heating time, 50 gallon capacity. A cold climate could double that power requirement, or alternatively double the heating time.
It’s a fun trip down memory lane, but the real story today, the sadder story, is that there is no longer any use for simple little programs like this that scratch an itch.
They’ve all been solved 100x over by founders who’ve been funded on this site. It used to make sense to have a directory or cgi-bin of helpful scripts. Now it only makes sense as a bit of nostalgia.
I miss the days when we had less, could get less done in a day… but felt more ownership over it. Those days are gone.
I would argue those days are coming back. Thanks to LLMs, I have probably 10x more "utility" scripts/programs than I had 2 years ago. Rather than bang my head against the wall for a couple hours to figure out how to (just barely) do something in Python to scratch an itch, I can get a nice, well documented, reusable and versatile tool in seconds. I'm less inclined than ever to go find some library or product that kinda does what I need it to do, and instead create a simple tool of my own that does exactly what I need it to.
Just please if you ever give that tool to someone else to use, understand, maintain, or fix, mention that it was created using an LLM. Maybe ask your LLM to mention itself in a comment near the top of the file.
> They’ve all been solved 100x over by founders who’ve been funded on this site.
I’m kind of getting tired of software made by “founders,” who are just looking to monetize me and get their exit, as opposed to software written by normal users just wanting to be useful. I know I’m on the wrong website for this, but the world could use fewer “founders” trying to turn my eyeballs and attention into revenue.
There is still use for small niche programs. I host my own gif repository, a website for collecting vinyls and my own weather dashboard. I don’t expect anyone else to use these sites so they’re tailored to my user experience and it’s great.
> It’s a fun trip down memory lane, but the real story today, the sadder story, is that there is no longer any use for simple little programs like this that scratch an itch.
> They’ve all been solved 100x over by founders who’ve been funded on this site. It used to make sense to have a directory or cgi-bin of helpful scripts. Now it only makes sense as a bit of nostalgia.
Why does it make more sense to learn the syntax for someone else's helper scripts than to roll my own, if the latter is as easy or easier, and afterwards I know how to solve the problem myself?
Because time is finite and you probably set out to achieve something else which is now on hold. Nothing wrong with distractions but let's not glorify them :).
> Because time is finite and you probably set out to achieve something else which is now on hold. Nothing wrong with distractions but let's not glorify them :).
That's true, but it was also true before. To the extent that solving a problem to learn the details of solving it was ever worthwhile, which I think is and was quite a lot, I'd say it's still true now, even though there are lots of almost-but-not-quite solutions out there. That doesn't mean that you should solve all problems on your own, but I think you also shouldn't always use someone else's solution.
Call me old fashioned, but I don't think it'd be that bad for schools to be almost completely analog. Obviously not for classes like CS, but do math class es or English classes really need computers? The whole "digital learning" push feels like it hasn't resulted in significantly better learning than with a book, pen, and paper.
Totally agree. Unless the use of the computer is integral to the material at hand (learning to program, learning to solve problems numerically, modeling) it is superfluous. Tons of dough spent on making it "modern" just for the sake of it.
Why is this obvious? Unless you’re talking CS = Programming a specific language, I think it’d be better for the K-12 version of CS to be completely analog save for maybe a “lab” for students in later years of high school.
CS at the lower levels should be programming and playing with computers. What else should it be? Analysis of algorithms? That sounds dreadfully boring for a high schooler
As a senior in high school, I have wanted the latter for most of my time here. I can program and fool around with computers on my own time (and more efficiently than in class). After taking (and being bored in) AP CS A freshman year, I have just dedicated more time to high level math classes instead.
I took AP CS freshman year (30+ years ago), spent the rest of high school learning UNIX, becoming a sysadmin, putzing around with computers. I did spend a summer taking the Berkeley course teaching SICP, but I regret it. I recommend saving that for when you’re a freshman. There will be plenty of time for the theory.
Bulking up on math in HS is smart. I took AP Calculus and then went to community college to take more calculus.
Pretty much. We had one lab period and couple of classroom periods in a week. We even wrote java on notebooks! Can't imagine writing java without IDE autocomplete these days, but "back then"(it was just 7 years ago) I was banging out JOptionPanes and JButton event handlers for a selection sort frontend with pen and paper perfect syntax, all the options memorized. Of course, the salary calculator as well (you enter the different components, it subtracts tax and tells you the answer - obviously a simplistic version)
It really feels the same as weed/nicotine/alcohol/sex/other vices. If history has taught us anything, outright banning them only makes them into forbidden fruit. We need to explain (and frequently reinforce) these negative effects of modern phone use so kids can grow up understanding them. Right now, it seems like a lot of people really only start to understand the impacts of this kind of phone use long after they're addicted. Hopefully informing them before that happens would help.
Of course, this kind of thing is easy to do wrong. Programs like D.A.R.E. and THRIVE tried going the way of fear tactics which seems to really not work well. We need to have an open and honest discussion about "yes, this is fun. But it DOES have a bad side" instead.
The last sticking point there is that it assumes people will be rational and come to the conclusion of using with moderation. Hopefully people can be rational... Otherwise I think there's no hope for us in solving the brainrot epidemic.
From my own experience and that of fellow parents that I talked to, explanations will be dismissed outright by the all-knowing teenagers, and any attempt to have a rational conversation on the topic will fail. Just like any addict, kids will deny that they are addicted. I had to act once the smartphone addiction reached a disaster level. What worked the best for me was "no you cannot bring your phone to school or use it before the homework is done, that's my decision and I don't have to provide you with any explanation." Did this generate some resentment and a few tantrums? You bet, but I got the result I wanted, peace of mind and homework done on time.
I disagree with you.
> outright banning them only makes them into forbidden fruit
I think it should be fine to outright ban them in certain contexts, like classroom learning; just as they are outright banned (usually) in theaters or playhouses or places of worship.
And to cite your example, even in the most liberal jurisdictions I think it's not acceptable for students to take drugs in the classroom. Phones are basically the same thing.
Oop, I totally missed the "during the school day" part of the grandparent comment. I totally agree with banning them during the school day. My argument was against the point that the grandparent wasn't making which was banning phones from K-12 students both during and after the school day
Oh I just realized I missed the "during the school day" part of the comment I cited. That's totally my mistake. For what it's worth, I agree with banning during the school day but (although no one is making the point here) I would disagree with banning them from children everywhere always.
What is really needed is parents that teach their kids impulse control and how to prioritize, to know what is extracurricular and what is not. You can play video games, smoke weed, do whatever on your phone once your work is done, not before or during.
There was no mention of an outright ban, merely restrictions on use. Much as we have restrictions on where and when one can indulge in weed, nicotine, alcohol, and so forth.
We did this with our kids, now college freshman and high school junior, and it was absolutely worth it. In middle school we established "screen break" from Friday night to Saturday afternoon. It was challenging at first but they came to love it. We've had many conversations and read many books on those breaks (and still do). Advice to new parents: keep them off screens as long as possible, and then build in and enforce breaks that become a part of your family routine. Chances are they will end up noticeably different from other kids.
It seems some are. My kid is in 4th grade in a city public school (US) and the district just this year banned all phones, tablets, and smart watches during the school day. We’ll see how it goes.
For what goal? Just for them to get instantly addicted once the ban is lifted? For them to lack any communications with their friends and to be excluded from their social circles discussing the newest tiktoks or whatever?
First, lack of a phone won't cause them to be completely excluded from their social circles. If it does, then I'd argue those weren't their friends to begin with. Second, kids need to learn that social acceptance doesn't mean they have to do everything their friends are doing. Third, the long-term benefits of reducing their exposure to social media are outweighed by the short-term benefits of the instant gratification and shared experience of social media.
> completely excluded from their social circles. If it does, then I'd argue those weren't their friends to begin with.
I believe you underestimate the power of being "in". Even if the friends wouldn't be "true", it is still extremely valuable socially. That is, speaking as someone who, due to unrelated reasons, was prevented from fitting in fully. It may not hold much water from a stranger on the internet, but i would've given anything to be able to fit in more at that time. I believe it has set me back socially 3-5 years, with lasting consequences which I may never truly heal.
> Second, kids need to learn that social acceptance doesn't mean they have to do everything their friends are doing
Sure, but they won't learn that when you prevent them from participating activities with their friends. This isn't them deciding that they don't want to participate in something.
> Third, the long-term benefits of reducing their exposure to social media are outweighed by the short-term benefits of the instant gratification and shared experience of social media.
Attention spans can be fixed.
And besides, you shouldn't control any child like that. You might say "they will thank me in the future". But they never will. And the damage done by controlling their life like that is more lasting. Their relationship with authority, with you, with their own autonomy will be forever changed. (Speaking as figurative you, I don't mean to imply you specifically) This teaches them "You don't have a right to own things the authority doesn't want you to own" (Or it teaches them how to lie and hide contraband.)
> And besides, you shouldn't control any child like that.
Every parent exercises some form of control over their child. (Cookie before dinner? No, sorry.) Children need to learn boundaries and it's up to the parents to set those boundaries. It's basic parenting, and isn't as nefarious as you're making it out to be.
> You might say "they will thank me in the future". But they never will.
In my experience this is untrue. I grew up when TV was the primary medium of household entertainment, and yet I was the sole child in my class, and probably my whole school, to not have at TV at home (a deliberate choice on my parents' part). Now that I'm grown up, I'm thankful for it.
Somehow kids were able to make friendships before everyone was online all the time. Perhaps they don't need to be spending time discussing the newest tiktoks. Maybe their friends should be hanging out and doing things.
As the parent of a young kid: how do you do this? Does this just mean not giving them a smartphone until they’re teenagers? Not letting them take it to school. My oldest kid isn’t even four yet, but I’m already wondering about how to limit his eventual phone usage and also not make him a social pariah.
It should be enforced by the schools: put the phones in a tub in home group and hand them back out at the end of the day. If there’s an emergency call the office or the office calls you. Use exercise books for note taking, etc.
The "social pariah" thing is FUD. It's just people repeating what other people claim to be afraid of, and then becoming afraid of it themselves. Kids can be shitty--if they want to exclude someone or bully them, they're going to do it whether or not the victim has a cell phone. Conversely, if people will only be friends with you if you have a cell phone, then I have some bad news for you: They're probably not genuine friends.
You may consider it FUD, but that was 100% my reality. It's not about people only being friends with you because you have a phone, it's about the shared cultural experience that a group of kids have because of some media they have access to via the phone.
In my case (graduating high school in 2016), I wasn't allowed to watch TV, listen to the radio, play video games, or use the computer at all until I left for college. And especially as an adolescent, those were basically the cornerstone of all conversations between my peers. I never knew what anyone was talking about, and could never really bond with anyone over really anything but sports. And when smart phones became a popular thing in my age group, again I had no access to that or any of the media that it led to.
I will say though, as alienating as it was at the time, I don't particularly regret it because most of what I missed probably wasn't super important, and I think I gained an accurately cynical view on the content media machine as a whole. But I absolute rue the massive difficulties I had building social connections because of it that continue to this day.
No. It's not the smartphones that are the problem. Smartphones are a wonderful invention, capable of connecting anyone anywhere.
It's the apps, which overcharge everyone's (not just kids!) brains, by algorithmically "mAxImiZinG eNgaGeMent"
It's time to ban them all. Okay that's a bit much. Ban all algorithmic feeds, all apps must adhere to strictly chronological feed of the strictly subscribed authors.
If we can all agree that cannabis is bad for the still-developing mind, and can generally get on board with the idea that kids should be kept as far away from it as possible, because it's addicting, because it causes long-term alterations to brain development, because it diminishes motivation and hijacks executive functioning networks, why is it so hard for society to consider treating smartphones, social media, and highly-immersive video games like MMORPG's, with essentially all of the same effects, the same way?
I am part of the generation that grew up with MMORPG's from early childhood (I was about 9 years old when I made my first RuneScape account), but approaching 30, I don't game at all anymore for the exact same reasons I don't touch cannabis anymore. Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok, Facebook, it's all the same thing for teenagers. At a neurological level, these platforms are as highly addicting and neural-network-altering as actual psychoactive pharmaceuticals, legal or otherwise.
Paleolithic emotions, medieval institutions, and god-like technology is a combination that we're not nearly as well-adapted to as we think we are.
> why is it so hard for society to consider treating smartphones, social media, and highly-immersive video games like MMORPG's, with essentially all of the same effects, the same way?
I agree with you. I would consider social media and games addictive. It's just that the SMS app on my phone isn't addictive. Telegram app, the Photo app also isn't.
> Paleolithic emotions, medieval institutions, and god-like technology is a combination that we're not nearly as well-adapted to as we think we are.
Agreed. But my paleolithic emotions aren't addicted to the radio waves of my phone, but to the TikTok app specifically.
Sorry if my post was unclear, when I say "platforms", I am talking about Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok, open-ended MMORPG's, etc - I agree that the problem is the addiction-optimized psychological experiments, not the operating system or device itself.
Because phone is just a box of wires, without apps it's inert.
It's the apps, which corrode everyone's attention span. And unlike weed, I doubt there will be "algorithmic feed" dealers, because no one actually wants an algorithmic feed.
Sure - to be clear, I am not suggesting banning technology itself. Computers and the internet were also a boon of joy and discovery for me. I self-started programming in TI-basic back in middle school because "computer science" classes that covered anything beyond typing and "here's how to use to a web browser, here's how to use a text editor" skills weren't available until high school for me. I have vivid and fond memories of learning visual basic and making my own GUI apps after this, before eventually starting to learn javascript, python, and "real" programming languages like C.
None of this exploration ever required or involved Facebook or other social media platform or highly immersive video game, save YouTube.
And to be clear, I'm no proponent of the state simply passing universal bans, or infringing upon privacy of adults with facial recognition requirements for using social media, this is a responsibility of parents, many of whom I fear themselves haven't been adequately warned about how addicting these platforms are.
I don't think DARE-style assemblies for both students and parents would be the worst idea to warn both groups about the risks of these platforms, provided they were done honestly, rather than being filled with hyperbole. It doesn't infringe upon anyone's rights, and wouldn't really "cost" anything, but would help educate those who might lack the awareness on the subject.
> I don't think DARE-style assemblies for both students and parents would be the worst idea to warn both groups about the risks of these platforms, provided they were done honestly, rather than being filled with hyperbole.
Yeah that's fair. Probably can't hurt anything with that. But it's hard to get the actual danger across.
> None of this exploration ever required or involved Facebook or other social media platform or highly immersive video game, save YouTube.
That's why I am gunning to limit these kind of platforms, specifically.
> It doesn't infringe upon anyone's rights, and wouldn't really "cost" anything,
Well it depends. If these assemblies worked, they would "cost" the platforms potential engagement and potential revenue. Which is kind of a pointless distinction, I just thought it's interesting
No, that doesn't address the incentives that cause all those things: maximizing engagement to maximize ad impressions for money. You have to choke the money supply off at the source or the big corporations will just find other engagement mechanisms to hook users to get at more profits.
Instead, tax ad impressions per day per user on a sliding scale that makes it quickly unprofitable to display more than a handful of ads and use the money to fund media literacy classes in schools. Restrict the number and types of advertising that can be shown to children and adolescents, like forbidding animated ads.
I think you're putting too much emphasis on The Algorithm. It's a problem, and I agree it's probably the worst offender, but similar problems were observed decades ago with children (and adults...) allowed to watch too many hours of uninterrupted TV. Cutting back to chronological feeds might improve some things but I don't think that's the root of the issue.
I would suggest the primary difference between then and now is accessibility. As a kid, my screen time was limited not just by my parents indulgence but the social pressure from using a shared device. Smart phones let you carry your personal distraction with you.
I agree they are a wonderful invention but I'm not sure grade school students need to be connecting to anyone, anywhere throughout the entire school day.
> I think you're putting too much emphasis on The Algorithm. It's a problem, and I agree it's probably the worst offender, but similar problems were observed decades ago with children (and adults...) allowed to watch too many hours of uninterrupted TV.
Yeah that's fair.
> I agree they are a wonderful invention but I'm not sure grade school students need to be connecting to anyone, anywhere throughout the entire school day.
Well to their friends in other classes ("Wanna go out after 3pm lesson").
Additionally, and socially, smart phones, if banned, would be instantly seen as a status symbol. And it would also accelerate strong anti-autority sentimentality. The kids won't understand it, hell adults wouldn't. So it's also the case that you can't really ban them without really adverse social effects.
Sure, but the natural consequence is that they will be more inclined to distrust society, authority, and vote for anti-estabishment populist parties.
To quote a great man, we live in society. And it's better to work within a system and get to know it rather than it is to just hate it. And if the first experience of a large portion of youth is system beating them down, you can see how that's gonna grow a strong "tear it all down" mentality.
I don't buy arguments from parents about why they can't just take away their kids' phones, or simply decline to buy them a phone in the first place.
My family didn't have a TV growing up. (This was way before the Internet, when TV was king and HBO and cable were a status symbol.) Me and my siblings tried every argument in the book to get them to buy one, to no avail. Out of the loop on TV pop culture? Boo-hoo. Peers make fun of you for not having a TV? Too bad, so sad. The result was that I participated in more activities that engaged my body and brain. Aside from being bad at TV pop culture trivia from those decades, I turned out just fine.
At the end of they day, parents need to set the standards that they want their children to live by, and stick with them. Even today, a phone is a luxury that a kid doesn't really need, and will likely contribute to low attention span and cause them all manner of anxiety. Don't take my word for it; many studies will back me up.
You sound like one of the author's students. Just restricting juvenile phone use to dumb phones is obviously the more feasible solution than banning or manipulating entire platforms.
I never said ban platforms? TikTok, Facebook could still very well exist and still make more money than any of us ever will. Just without the brain rotting engagement algorithm
Why not educate the users about the dangers misuse and abuse lead to the attention span, instead of banning things?
I vaguely recall too students back in the era where our biggest distraction was MSN messenger and our university forums. They kept both off until late at night.
We're letting people experience the downsides of the attention economy when it's almost (if not entirely) too late to avoid the negatives.
> Why not educate the users about the dangers misuse and abuse lead to the attention span, instead of banning things?
Because social media is precisely in the short term benefit x long term risk that human brains are bad at conceptualizing. Same reasons for why we mandate belts in cars.
Hardly anyone in the "west" gets pulled over by police for seat belt checks (unlike say, India, China), yet nearly everyone still wears them, because they understand if they don't, they'll probably become a stain on the asphalt. I imagine if tomorrow, a law passed that seat belts no longer had to be worn, most people would still use them. Perhaps the regulation and enforcement are only needed initially when not everyone is educated on the long term risks.
To be fair, belts and phones aren’t the same things. Belts are popular now because wearing them is barely an inconvenience compared to the improvement in safety - abstaining from phones is way harder for the average person.
Reddit and HN can be very addictive, and Instagram and YouTube and TikTok with mere “highest upvote” per topic would still be. I’m doubtful that your strategy would do very much about the problem.
I’d actually prefer HN and Reddit to be just chronological (or “newest comment” on the above-thread level), like traditional forums.
Even on something as anonymous as 4chan where all comments are posted in chrono order I see a difference in behavior after they added direct links to comments so one could easily see how many reactions your comment got as opposed to actually reading every comment.
I've no clue why people have downvoted this; you're right as rain. A phone is nothing short of a digital slot machine and shouldn't be put in front of adults or children. These algorithms are designed for profit, not humanity. They have far greater control over us than they should.
The funny thing is, they don't even have control. They can't push propaganda. They can just accelerate human desire. Through all the brain rot they have created, they didn't even gain anything significant, just a few % bump in "kEy pErFormAnce iNdiCatoRs".
Capitalism is a system that rewards the selfish and greedy. If you don't pursue every bump in key performance indicators you can, then someone else will and they'll eat your lunch.
This is a really good take. My mother did this until high school and some of my favorite classes forced this. Lectures were so much more engaging with no computer distracting me.
> It’s also clear that kids whose parents restrict phone use seem to have superpowers compared to those that don’t.
Love this phrase. What might happen is that the next generation, upon seeing this opportunity, will do the opposite of their elders and highly value focus, and more readily dismiss quick gains.
Smartphones are easy to blame, but they aren't the core of the problem. They're not just a thing used in the US, but across the world and we don't see the same problems in say, European school systems. The actual issue is multifaceted:
1) Parents in the US are overworked, underpaid and (increasingly) unable to participate in the lives of their children. It should come as zero surprise then that phones are used as a way to get kids out of their hair. If you don't fix this problem then banning phones entirely won't matter, because parents will yell, scream and quite literally assault your schools for taking away phones from their kids.
2) Our K-12 educational system is broken. Kids are graduating with lower literacy rates than ever. College is functioning less as higher education and more like remedial programs, having to teach basic topics that should've been covered as part of the core curriculum.
3) Teachers are also underpaid, overworked and having to deal with the deficiencies in parenting as well as the advent of AI making cheating significantly easier and harder to detect.
These three factors all compound to create a whole generation that we're effectively failing. And given the attacks/teardown of college as an institution, I fear we're going to have our own version of the 'lost generation' until people get angry enough to fix it or our business capabilities collapse.
Parenting and upbringing could be an important and overlooked reason for this lost generation.
I can only speak anecdotally. Way before smartphones were invented, I had enforced limits on computer time to 1-2 hours a day via time tracking software. All this did was breed resentment between me and my parents that led to conflict and punishment. As soon as I got to college I was back to being on my computer all night nearly every day, relieved that I didn't have to put up with them anymore.
The technology restriction wasn't the beginning and end of my mentality all through college. The true cause was how I was raised and my relationship with my parents. They were the only real bullies I've ever had.
People will always attack apps, algorithms and corporations since they're easy to feel powerless about. But if a developing person is given good enough reason to doomscroll so that they able to forget the pain that was imbued in them from an early age, then 1) the outcome in the article results, 2) a major underlying factor in the analysis of why we're failing young people will be missed, and people will assume it's solely the fault of addictive "algorithms" and capitalism, and 3) it's unlikely that people are going to open up about stressors as personal as childhood trauma (a cause) as opposed to behavioral addictions like doomscrolling (a symptom), so the focus will be on attacking and regulating the symptoms, and this cycle of trauma will only exacerbate and repeat itself.
A certain level of trauma can steal decades away from developing persons and set them up for failure, with or without smartphones, and smartphones only make their problems worse. Not to mention, past a certain age people start to blame you for your own failings, even though many of them have roots in actions taken against you that were not your fault, and this only contributes to feelings of misery and hopelessness. Knowing this firsthand, it's no wonder so many people find little else interesting than doomscrolling all day - myself included.
You can regulate apps and restrict smartphones, but I have no idea how to fix bad parenting/emotional trauma at scale. What goes on in families is private by its nature, emotional abuse is legitimized if you never lay a hand on the child and some arbitrary standard of defiance is crossed, and intergenerational trauma can have completely arbitrary causes going back decades, which end up transmitted as meaningless stressors to a victim trapped in an endless search of anything at all to hold close to them...
A few years ago I got into the hobby of handmade leather goods, like wallets.
One thing that struck me as I learned more about the process was that I could with little training, make a higher quality, hand sewn wallet than even most luxury brands for less money by simply buying more expensive material. Indeed, the wallets I've made are still going strong.
What was also apparent was that I certainly had far less skill than the people constructing those mass market wallets. To be able to operate an industrial sewing machine at speed takes far more skill than learning to saddle stitch by hand. When you stitch by hand you can go quite slowly, and taking the time is the point of a hobby anyway. A sewing machine is slightly worse in quality (but not by a lot) but also scales way better.
If you watch videos of skilled folks sewing together shoes on youtube it's insanely impressive how precise and practiced those folks are!
Back to wallets, most hobbyists will take a very high end and thick piece of leather, cut out the pattern with an exacto knife, skive the parts that need it, hand stitch it with a saddle stitch, then finish the edges. Whereas a mass-produced wallet will often use a blend of leather, synthetic fabric for pocket liners, and be machine stitched, with some other machines used along the way. The hobbyist design is simple and robust, it's just layers of leather thicker than you'd find in a normal wallet.
A mass manufactured wallet, even many luxury ones use thinner pieces of leather and synthetic material and construction methods that are less robust. It's not all about cheapness though, some of these things require extra work. I think a lot of it is about producing a product that looks a specific way, even if it is less durable. For instance some luxury products will use a delicate finish (like a paint) that will look awesome, but just won't last as long as a thick piece of vegetable tan. A thin turned edge can certainly be a failure point as well, and that takes more effort to make! I also have to wonder if these brands intentionally want their items to wear out to encourage people to buy more. I imagine the sort of person who buys a Gucci wallet sees it more as a seasonal status symbol than as an investment.
> Indeed, the wallets I've made are still going strong
I'm confused - I purchase a new leather wallet from a department store (a UK one that has a reputation for quality) about once every ten years. How old are your wallets? Or how quickly did your other wallets wear out?
Wife bought a Saddleback Leather wallet for me. I suspect a grandson will inherit it. I wish I could afford other products of theirs. The leather is thick enough that even if a stitch came out, I figure it'd be worth having repaired.
A wallet that only lasts 10 years seems disposable at this point.
I bought a Saddleback wallet at least 14 years ago, and it's still in pretty good shape. There are a couple of stitches that have broken on the fold, but it's generally ok. Has a nice patina.
Though, it's thick. Really thick. And the card pocket edges are thick enough that they will destroy a credit card in 3 years or so. (Except for the top one on each side, and the hidden slot behind the visible cards.)
I was expecting to use it forever, but between the thickness and just not using nearly as many cards/cash any more, I'll probably give up on it and make a thinner one that's specific to the 3 or 4 cards I use and a stashed bill or two.
(Make because we now have way too much leather because my wife has started making barefoot shoes, and hey stash. Have a really nice leather laptop sleeve now too.)
Same, I've got a few Saddleback pieces including a wallet and it's seen some abuse over the past decade but it's supple and strong with no signs of wearing down anytime soon.
Who knows if their claim of "They'll fight over it when you're dead" is true or not, but can confirm the quality will easily outlast 10 years with no problem.
My question is; Why even have a "wallet" at this point?
My teens use these little things that attach to their phones to hold gym key, debit card and ID.
I use a traditional "wallet" or billfold as my abuelo used to call them, but I am positively a dinosaur using one. Also, the darn thing hurts my back if I leave it in my back pocket while driving/sitting.
Heck, I have been eyeing those crossbody bags or saccoche to hold the things that are in my wallet.
I still use cash for all of my in-person purchases, but I do live in a rural area where cash is still king and you will get discounts for cash because the people can't just ignore the 3-4% markup on credit like more well off communities.
Also if you need to carry more than just a drivers license and a single credit card for your job. Trailers have their own registrations that you don't want people to loosely throw in their pockets, different professions have license requirements you need to have on you, receipts and notes are still important because you don't want to just be giving everyone your personal bank statements with cryptic "Part/product 482302" and no breakdown on the individual charges involved. Same with auctions and stockyards. Also someones phone on a job is way more likely to get lost/dropped/stolen and you don't want all your identification and licensing and registrations and receipts being lost along with your phone, you basically throw away the entire next day or two or more re-obtaining all that and like they say, don't put all your eggs in one basket.
>Also, the darn thing hurts my back if I leave it in my back pocket while driving/sitting.
Not that anyone has ever had to worry about pickpockets in my generation (even criminals aren't as skilled as they were in eras past, I guess), but I've always carried it in a front pocket. I'd lose it a dozen times a month otherwise.
>My question is; Why even have a "wallet" at this point?
There are things I keep in it I need. It's been a long while since anyone mistook me for a teenager.
With handmade wallets, if you can replace the stitching, they will outlive you. It’s really lining and stitching that gives up usually. That’s why hobbyists rarely line and the stitches are usually in a groove and people use waxed synthetic thread.
The oldest are maybe old 5-6 years, but they still look great!
That said depending on how you store it ymmv. If you keep it in the same pocket as your keys you’ll have a different outcome from keeping it in a separate pocket of a bag or just even in its own pocket in your pants.
But there's also status signaling in having something that you can pass down to your descendants. Of course that signal only transfers to those in the know.
Edit: My childhood friend inherited from her parents (who inherited from their parents) a badge making company that made leather badges for first responders.
They went out of business last year and sold off all their leather stock.
> But while some readers might not subscribe to outlets that give away some of their best journalism for free, it’s just as possible that readers will recognize this sacrifice and reward these outlets with more traffic and subscriptions in the long run.
In other words we have a wild guess this will be sustainable for news organizations.
Stories like this are always popular on HN but I’m convinced get upvoted because people agree with the idea of more free stuff. I’m skeptical that this will improve the quality of reporting in an already under resourced journalistic environment. Maybe it’s a good idea, but it’s hardly obvious.
I have subscribed to them for other reasons recently, and this only solidifies my subscription to remain for another year.
I sure don't work for anything close to Wired or their parent organization, but if you want good journalism, support it with your dollars. A year's subscription is less than a nice dinner out (or even a not-so-nice dinner out!).
It doesn't sound like much of a wild guess to me. Basically every single publication is letting customers sample their news before paying (free articles, free trials, etc). This is just more of the same.
A lot of my paid media consumption comes from podcasts which create enough free content to keep me engaged but which offer enough extra content that I want to pay for that content.
At the scale of "small but functionally profitable podcasts" it seems to be working, so it's not like that model can't work out of hand.
I am not sure it will work for print publishing, but it seems to be working for the patreon-funded folks.
> it’s just as possible that readers will recognize this sacrifice and reward these outlets with more traffic and subscriptions in the long run
These hybrid models don't work. Depend entirely on generosity, e.g. Wikipedia. Sell your damn product. Or sell your readers' eyeballs.
I've hands down seen the best journalism from categories 1 and 2: folks focussed on the mission or confident enough in their quality to paywall everything. I've rarely seen it from 3. I've almost never seen it from those who try mixing. (The exception being those who sell traditional, i.e. non-targeted, ads.)
There's the other hybrid approach of depending on government funding and generosity (i.e. NPR.) Though I'm not sure that's a great option in this climate either.
> other hybrid approach of depending on government funding and generosity (i.e. NPR.)
About 30%, and indirectly at that: "eligible public radio stations may apply to receive annual grants directly from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB)" [1].
Just think, only a few years ago people talked about government funding as the solution to the financial crisis in journalism. Imagine where we would be today!
Yes and no - while it's taxpayer funded, you don't really have a choice as to whether your tax dollars fund it or not. I would argue that generosity requires intent.
Unless you're already a name brand (e.g. the NYT, a handful of very high profile columnists, etc.) you can't just assume people will know the value of your work. You have to demonstrate it in some way. Providing half your content for free while keeping half behind a paywall seems like a perfectly reasonable strategy to address this discoverability problem.
I can't speak to the broader effectiveness of this strategy, but I know that I have paid to see some of a writer's paywalled work after first being exposed to their free content.
> You have to demonstrate it in some way. Providing half your content for free while keeping half behind a paywall seems like a perfectly reasonable strategy to address this discoverability problem.
I feel like 404media is doing a good job at that. They irritate me sometimes but they break a lot of great news with a tiny staff and have an indomitable social media presence (at least on bluesky) that really gets people talking about them. Don't get me wrong, I'll never pay for their work because I feel like they get a little user hostile sometimes[1], but people less curmudgeonly probably are subscribing.
Eh, there's choosing a hill and there's voting with your wallet, and I'm doing the latter. Judging by the article I linked, if anybody's choosing a hill to die on it's 404.
> Unless you're already a name brand (e.g. the NYT, a handful of very high profile columnists, etc.) you can't just assume people will know the value of your work
Sure. This problem is conserved across private enterprise.
> providing half your content for free while keeping half behind a paywall seems like a perfectly reasonable strategy to address this discoverability problem
The New York Times runs a 12% operating margin [1]. Giving away half their content without sacrificing quality would require incurring the same 88¢ of costs for 50¢ of revenue; it just doesn't work. Sales and marketing is usually a single-digit percent of revenue for a reason [2].
The partial-reveal strategy particularly fails for news because I can now decide which articles I'll run through the Internet Archive. If you paywall everything, that's too tedious.
And not 0 either - meaning your numbers and thesis are wrong. The NYT is a successful publication using a "hybrid" model. In fact, basically every publication is.
That’s natural, I think the same way, but in person try to stick with the here and now. Anyone who’s ever been sick with anything knows that other people often probe with questions and advice that is often unwanted and takes the focus off the sick person.
The problem in my mind is that these systems are exclusively in service of dishonesty. ICE is clearly being used to further political ends. If it were actually trying to stem immigration it wouldn’t concentrate its officers in a state with one of the lowest rates of illegal immigrants.
Are you saying you agree with that cause or that you bear no responsibility?
reply