zlacker

[parent] [thread] 6 comments
1. johnny+(OP)[view] [source] 2026-01-26 20:55:22
>For the record: I don't believe there's a productive conversation to be had about ICE in Minnesota and wouldn't care to argue with anyone defending their actions.

Funny because I'm probably very radical about ICE and I can still find subtleties on how to reform this. I've never been "Defund the police", quite the opposite. I believe LEOs should have standing, qualities, and training that makes them stand by their emergency peers. Truly the best of the best. Getting that badge should be a similar thrill to being accepted into a top college. They should have years of schooling before truly starting to gain their title.

Getting into a firefighting isn't easy, so why should an LEO see of as a career as a backup for failing to graduate high school? That's where all this falls apart. And now the standards barely get these ICE goons a month of "training". That needs to change.

But with current times, that's not a topic I can discuss on X nor Bluesky. That makes it all the more frustrating that HN plugs its ears on such subtlety instead.

replies(1): >>tptace+11
2. tptace+11[view] [source] 2026-01-26 21:00:29
>>johnny+(OP)
I probably agree with like 90% of this but feel like if we actually tried to hash it out we'd get drowned out pretty quickly by vitriol.
replies(2): >>johnny+p7 >>jacque+18
◧◩
3. johnny+p7[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-01-26 21:32:10
>>tptace+11
If that's the case, then I suppose this community is no different. And I don't like saying that because 1) I don't personally believe that and 2) it's against guidelines. But reality can be disappointing at times.
◧◩
4. jacque+18[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-01-26 21:35:16
>>tptace+11
Then maybe you should put that assumption to the test.

>>46762767

Is a pretty good comment, but it got flagged, there is a degree of unfairness here.

replies(1): >>tptace+p8
◧◩◪
5. tptace+p8[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-01-26 21:37:11
>>jacque+18
I didn't flag it, but it's not an example of the kind of productive comment I was talking about either.
replies(1): >>jacque+c9
◧◩◪◨
6. jacque+c9[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-01-26 21:42:26
>>tptace+p8
I recall us having a conversation about checks and balances long ago and you were pretty strongly trusting in those keeping the US safe in the longer term. I am quite curious what your expectations are for the mid-terms and the presidential election three years from now based on the recent past, are you willing to write about that?
replies(1): >>tptace+p9
◧◩◪◨⬒
7. tptace+p9[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-01-26 21:43:56
>>jacque+c9
I don't understand what you're trying to do here but think at this point it'd be best if we just disengaged. Sorry, and thanks for understanding.
[go to top]