CORONAVIRUS PANIC WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE

[MadMojoMonkey]

IDK, man. It's pretty straight up child abuse to take a 9-year old from their parents, and put them in a place with no adults, no structure, no activities. That's assuming you're meeting all their basic needs for shelter, clothing, food, hygiene, etc.

The real shitter about that whole mess was the separation of suspected illegal border crossers, which was just open door for racism and prejudice to make the decisions.

I'm not saying the powers above wanted racism, but when you have the boots on the ground trying to decide who "looks American" and "talks American" in the blink of an eye, even you and I are definitely going to have a lot more doubt for someone who doesn't sound like a TV show. It doesn't mean we were being racist... it's just that we're in a hurry and easy decisions are easy, and not easy decisions get put aside for someone with more time to sort it out.

It's just... really hard for me to see that as anything but common sense, and that's what makes it hard to not think that the policy was intended to target and hurt brown people. But then, our current administration doesn't care who it hurts, so it's probably not racism.

FFS, Trump has bragged in a recent press conference about not providing as much aid to NY because their governor isn't kissing his ass.
It's not beneath him to allow people to suffer to make a point, whether those people are brown or not.

[boost]

IDK, man. It's pretty straight up child abuse to take a 9-year old from their parents, and put them in a place with no adults, no structure, no activities. That's assuming you're meeting all their basic needs for shelter, clothing, food, hygiene, etc.

The real shitter about that whole mess was the separation of suspected illegal border crossers, which was just open door for racism and prejudice to make the decisions.

I'm not saying the powers above wanted racism, but when you have the boots on the ground trying to decide who "looks American" and "talks American" in the blink of an eye, even you and I are definitely going to have a lot more doubt for someone who doesn't sound like a TV show. It doesn't mean we were being racist... it's just that we're in a hurry and easy decisions are easy, and not easy decisions get put aside for someone with more time to sort it out.

It's just... really hard for me to see that as anything but common sense, and that's what makes it hard to not think that the policy was intended to target and hurt brown people. But then, our current administration doesn't care who it hurts, so it's probably not racism.

FFS, Trump has bragged in a recent press conference about not providing as much aid to NY because their governor isn't kissing his ass.
It's not beneath him to allow people to suffer to make a point, whether those people are brown or not.

I'm tempted to troll you and ask how it is you're able to make such moral stands-- but then in saying I'm tempted to, I guess I kinda am...

But really, I concur 100%. Claiming that mass separation of families crossing the boarder is in the interest of the children, without supporting evidence is a blatant retcon to justify the administration's pandering to a xenophobic/law and order/"they're stealing our jobs" segment of its base.

[wufwugy]

I'm tempted to troll you and ask how it is you're able to make such moral stands-- but then in saying I'm tempted to, I guess I kinda am...

But really, I concur 100%. Claiming that mass separation of families crossing the boarder is in the interest of the children, without supporting evidence is a blatant retcon to justify the administration's pandering to a xenophobic/law and order/"they're stealing our jobs" segment of its base.

I'm down with that. I would like to see evidence of what range is thought to be rapists and sex traffickers.

What do you think about this:

A lot of common ground could be found if conservatives (for lack of a better term) admitted they could be more compassionate towards illegal border crossers, and if liberals (for lack of a better term) admitted that the law is being flagrantly broken.

My first guess as to why those important ackowledgements aren't being made is because conservatives don't prioritize compassion when laws are broken, and liberals don't prioritize upholding the law when people hurt.

[boost]

I'm down with that. I would like to see evidence of what range is thought to be rapists and sex traffickers.

What do you think about this:

A lot of common ground could be found if conservatives (for lack of a better term) admitted they could be more compassionate towards illegal border crossers, and if liberals (for lack of a better term) admitted that the law is being flagrantly broken.

My first guess as to why those important ackowledgements aren't being made is because conservatives don't prioritize compassion when laws are broken, and liberals don't prioritize upholding the law when people hurt.

Typo?

I'd argue that rigid adherence to the law is a far worse sin.

Trust me, I cringe every time I hear some upper middle class Oberlin liberal arts grad cry "no person is illegal!" But by and large people opposed to the way families are being handled at the boarder fully understand that laws are being broken, but see the way the laws are being enforced as unacceptable. In other words, they agree that laws should generally be enforced, but they think the law must either be unjust or it's being needlessly enforced in an unjust way.

[wufwugy]

Typo?

I meant it.

I'd argue that rigid adherence to the law is a far worse sin.

Sometimes it is.

A society that always adheres to the law rigidly would be a dreadful one to live in. But so would one that discards law because an instance of adherence causes some suffering. As I know you know, there needs to be a balance. Society needs both.


Generally speaking, conservatism upholds the law because it's a system known to work. Reality is uncertain enough that it is a virtue to stick to standards even when uncertain. But because those standards are never perfect and they can cause undue suffering, liberalism challenges them.

I'm half of each.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I'm tempted to troll you and ask how it is you're able to make such moral stands-- but then in saying I'm tempted to, I guess I kinda am...

It's Utilitarianism.

If all I have to go on is the feels, that's the one for me.

[boost]

It's Utilitarianism.

If all I have to go on is the feels, that's the one for me.