zlacker

>>fajmcc+(OP)
If you work for Palantir and if you work on these systems: You have blood on your hands. You know that it's not right what is happening on the ground right now. Do something.

>>chinat+Ma
I assume if someone works for Palantir they're an unabashed Yarvinist and fine with it.

>>librar+8g
That's a pretty broad generalization, but OK I'll bite.

- I think Yarvin has a lot of good points. No one should be ashamed to admit the truth of a matter. I can't stand his voice, I think he has annoying mannerisms, but nonetheless the man has a point and I'm not ashamed (especially by unknown and strange online personas) to say so.

- Palantir is objectively a profitable job. I've learned a lot here and the people I work with are brilliant.

- I don't think I have "blood on my hands" and rather instead think that people who use that tactic are resorting to strange emotional manipulation in place of a salient argument.

Let's be honest, simply conjecturing that someone ascribes to a political view isn't discourse. It's a potshot. You're assuming that anyone who reads your comment and leans in your direction is going to agree and vote with you. This is literally the lowest and cheapest form of engagement. It's also the most self serving. It does nothing to advance the conversation or prove your point.

Most importantly, this is the exact type of behavior that is furthering political polarization and discouraging actual discourse.

Really shows the state of things right now tbh.

>>no-dr-+8l
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?

>>andrew+zw
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.

>>alpine+lD
> 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.

>>mindsl+1L
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.

>>alpine+WR
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.

>>mindsl+QS
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.

>>alpine+n91
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".