This is exactly what was happening with FCMP until the Trump administration cancelled the program. It had resulted in 100% of people turning up to their court dates but very few deportations relative to other approaches.

Assuming you actually mean infinitely and not infinitesimally in this post (mixing up words with exact opposite meanings is not a great way to make your point clear) then I assume you think it was a bad decision to scrap this? Do you think it's wrong to also make an assumption that the fact it was scrapped implies that the Trump administration care more about deporting as many people as possible than about about optimally handling immigration? Because that seems to be a very obvious conclusion based on the facts yet you seem to care more about "both sidesing" the whole thing by blaming it on identity politics and divisive rhetoric when this is very clearly and very obviously the result of the Trump administration's legislative actions.

On a different but still depressing note it struck me earlier how ironic it is that in the actions taken to supposedly address the "National Emergency" at the border Trump's policies have in fact managed to create a humanitarian crisis that requires emergency action.

I have a tendency towards not moralizing at all in these sort of conversations (except when I am sarcastically moralizing to try to make a point, which I doubt works anyways so I should probably stop) so what you see as both sidesing is just me attempting to address both sides without taking any sort of moral position (or at least that is the intent). I don't really believe in good and evil except in very extreme cases (like Hitler). People are for the most part products of their environments, that make what the perceive as rational decisions for their environment, and their behaviors can be explained as such.

Even when I am doing my "hypocritical liberals" shtick I dont believe that extreme leftist are worse than anyone else, I just think they are the same as the rest of us, and all the moralizing and self righteousness is an exercise in hypocrisy, delusion, cognitive dissonance, and confirmation bias.

Anyways, I recognize Trump and his policies are a giant part of this problem and most other problems (and maybe I dont outright acknowledge this as much as I should), but I dont think that blind opposition to him in itself will lead to positive outcomes, and I think a lot of people get so wrapped up in opposing him and getting all up in their feelings there isn't a lot of thought for how things will pragmatically play out, which I think can be problematic.

Well, the disconnect here is when I read or listen to a MLK speech (and I recently did read a few of them due to the other discussion about his politics) it evokes a very emotional uplifting positive response; and when I read posts/tweets from you, Fly, AOC or (insert any other extreme leftist) or listen to a Trump speech or any of the other right wing talking heads, it is pretty much the opposite; so whatever it is King did that was (and still is) so effective and inspiring, the rhetoric of today isn't doing it at all for me. And I am highly skeptical this rhetoric will lead towards any positive outcomes. But who knows, maybe I am wrong, it has certainly happened before.

its not hypocritical to oppose the conditions of these children and the treatment of these immigrants. it is moralizing but like ofc it is. this should be judged properly which is harshly. the perpetrators should be prosecuted extremely harshly with multi year prison terms

the ppl who defend this should be judged harshly and society should be repulsed by them and ostracize them. same as society did for other ppl who historically cheered for this type of torture.

given that you actually need convincing that taking blankets away from children as a form of punishment bc they lost a comb and poking them throughout the night so they cant sleep is morally wrong, I really dont think it is worth workshopping techniques to get you on the side of those who oppose such cruelty.

like, your morality is so malleable that seemingly inhumane actions are wiped and unworthy of opposition bc others used terminology that upset you? likewise chez. its like, yall arent the ones that should be recruited.

txs victor - fortunately I can totally oppose these camps without your recruiting me to anything.

Nor does the terminology upset me although who give a **** if it does.

I mean, someone on the religious right who was really strong in their moral convictions would make the exact same argument about voluntary abortions when both the mom and child were physically healthy. They would probably find it absolutely absurd that you are preaching about toothbrushes on one case; and supporting murder on the other.

And you are so quick to moralize and get self righteous on the conditions in asylum camps, when (depending on where you live) there is a pretty good chance there is thousands of homeless people with serious mental illness who seriously need help living on the streets around you, and you are somehow able to compartmentalize this and go about your day.

And the whole fact you are a (probably) white American and as such the direct benefactor of a horrible genocidal campaign against native Americans, and probably living on land that Native Americans were literally killed to clear the way for your personal benefit, and yet you are able to live with this.

I can go on and on.

From the inside looking out your moral code seems completely consistent, normal and acceptable; but I assure you from the outside looking in it looks completely arbitrary and capricious. That is how human psychology and culture works. Inside the fever dream everything makes sense, but from the outside looking in it is all absurd and arbitrary. So spare me the self righteous indignation.

How do you feel about Obama’s speeches?

I am not a big speech watcher. I can't think of any in particular off the top of my head, but every time I have heard Obama speak I thought he was cogent, reasonable and well articulated.

And FWIW pretty much every time I hear Trump speak it is absurd to the point where I am not sure if what I am watching is real life or a SNL sketch (although I will admit he sometimes has pretty good comedic timing, although even then you are never sure if his comedy is intentional or not). And I am amazed at the cognitive dissonance beyond performed in real time when I see people listen to him talk and come away with a positive impression. But I am more interested in trying to actually understand what is actually going on, than cartoonish vilification.

Try reading better and/or more.

Your fabricating bull**** apologetics out of whole cloth in the face of literal cartoon villainy. Like, who cares if Trump and Miller don't feel personal animus towards the refugees and are instead inflicting this suffering as a straight pandering power grab? Why do you post that like it's some sort of lessening of the evil that is taking place. That's still really ****ing evil!

You may well ask: "Why direct action? Why sit ins, marches and so forth? Isn't negotiation a better path?" You are quite right in calling for negotiation. Indeed, this is the very purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. My citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent resister may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word "tension." I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth. Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, so must we see the need for nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood. The purpose of our direct action program is to create a situation so crisis packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation.

-Is this what you are arguing is the goal of your rhetoric? To help people who disagree with you to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood?

See. This is inspiring ****. It is about the goal of bringing people together. And this is an extreme example of him being antagonistic. Most of his stuff is even more about inspiring people to come together.

Extreme leftism today has none of that. It is all divisive, divisive, divisive. You ain't MLK bro. And the divisive hate you spew doesn't inspire anyone to do anything but hate even more.

What about murdering unborn babies? Evil?

What about living on Native American land they were forcibly ejected from? Evil?

No, and yes. Your point?

babies aren't unborn so you can't murder something that isn't born.

yeah, we all agree what we did to the native americans was really evil.

The yous of MLK's day sure as **** didn't see his direct action as either unifying or inspiring, and it didn't bring people together.

I mean for ****s sake, Japan allows like 30 asylum seekers/year out of thousands. That isn't a typo. 30 (actually 27-28, but I'll be generous and round up).

Evil?

Sorta, but most of the people alive at the time they ****ed up the places they ****ed up are dead. Are the people seeking and then denied asylum held in concentration camps? Why is it important the the Shining City on the Hill not be any better than anybody else? Are we not supposed to remove the log in our own eye prior to going after the speck in someone else's?

I feel like there's a weird tension between these two parts of your argument. On the one hand, you're trying to make a point by appealing to some form of moral relativism, i.e. by more or less arguing that outrage about current detention policies is no more or less valid than outrage about abortion.

But on the other hand, you're also expressing a great deal of moral outrage about leftist moralizing.

The net effect, for me, is the impression not so much that you are actually a moral relativist or any less moralizing than the people you are criticizing, but just that you are more personally disgusted by leftists than by the detention policies being discussed in this thread. I'm not sure if you'd agree with that statement, but that's kind of how it comes across.

And I think Wookie's answers are sort of similar to mine, but to spell it out a bit more: I'm not strictly a moral relativist, and I think the situation outlined in the OP is morally outrageous. At the same time, I also do not agree with characterizing abortion as "murdering unborn children" so I am not outraged about abortion in the same way. All this tells you is something about the specific outline of my moral beliefs, but it's not clear why that should come in for criticism from you on these particular grounds, given that your posts also seem to reflect your own specific moral priorities.

this isn't japan. this is usa#1.

I mean, if your moral code tells you it is ok to murder babies, I don't know how much farther this conversation needs to go.

We've gone from discussing the Trump administration's problem of children suffering in cruel conditions to talking about how "the left" needing an "uplifting message" is the problem.

When MLK talks of direct action he speaks of action directed to the injustice. Non-violent protest and peaceful illegal action to disrupt the workings of ICE/etc. This is a good thing to do when the cause is right - as I believe it is in in this case. Then the idea is to negotiate and achieve progress. MLK also believed in talking and fair compromise - quite right too.

All good stuff and obviously such an inspirational speaker that it's unfair to expect the quality of delivery from others.

pretty good argument.. Check and MATE! #wegothim.jpeg

My moral code says that a person does not have the right to violate the bodily autonomy of another person, even if that violation is necessary to keep the person alive. Start a new thread if you want to talk abortion.

Good job flagrantly changing the text from your original question to misconstrue my position. Very charitable.