10 ms·

You can submit a public comment on the proposal to DHS at the link below: https://www.regulations.gov/document/USCIS-2025-0205-0002/comment https://www.regulat

by lesona 11mo ago

You can submit a public comment on the proposal to DHS at the link below: https://www.regulations.gov/document/USCIS-2025-0205-0002/comment https://www.regulations.gov/document/USCIS-2025-0205-0002/co...

fnordpiglet 11mo ago
I suspect this government isn’t receptive to commentary from anyone other than only one person. While I’d never discourage anyone from advocating their beliefs this feels like at best a waste of energy. They are going to do it because they decided to do it - the solicitation of comments is performative and required. The only way to stop it is via the courts and by voting next November.
- saghm 11mo ago
  There's even precedent for the current president's agencies compiling some pretty sketchy "comments" in the past due to not doing basic sanity checks on pretty obvious fake comments that happened to support their agenda, like when supposedly seeking input from the public about repealing net neutrality[1]. There were so many duplicates that only thirty 30 unique comments made up 57% of the overall total, and the second most common "name" among the authors was literally "The Internet". No one in the current administration cares about what random members of the public think about their policies, and that's by design. Even the government positions that are intended to be permanent across administrations aren't a safe bet at this point with was things have been going [1]: https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2017/11/29/public-comments-to-the-federal-communications-commission-about-net-neutrality-contain-many-inaccuracies-and-duplicates/ https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2017/11/29/public-comme...
- themafia 11mo ago
  > this government isn’t receptive to commentary from anyone Name one government of the past 60 years that was.
  - fnordpiglet 11mo ago
    Actually the comment collection process has in fact caused changes in policy over many administrations, largely because the policy makers were interested in achieving some goal aligned to their function and believed in our system. When commentary went strongly against their policy there was often a step back and reassessment. This administration appears to have two goals: maximally hurt people who hurt Trumps feelings and create the deep state they lamented but never really existed until now to continue to maximally hurt people similar to those who hurt trumps feels in perpetuity.
- mmooss 11mo ago
  You are 'this government's best friend, advocating for their opponents to give up and quit. In a remarkable pattern that I never thought I'd see in the rugged individualistic, idealistic, freedom-loving USA, a large group is literally self-defeating: They defeat themselves before even getting out of bed. That's why your opponents are unstoppable - because you don't stop them. The performative nonsense is their aggression display. They still want to win the election. Political and policy outcomes aren't all or nothing; the more they see, the more it will nudge them in whatever direction you want. Others will see it and it will nudge them too. If one person didn't embrace being a quitter, others would do the same.
  - the_gipsy 11mo ago
    First, the post literally gives instructions to do something. Second, the root problem is not incompetence, it's that half of America wanted exactly this, for a second time now.
    - mmooss 11mo ago
      > the root problem is not incompetence, it's that half of America wanted exactly this, for a second time now. That is the same psychology I described in the GP: Instead of looking in the mirror and figuring out what they need to do better, they blame outside forces. It's victim psychology - powerless, someone else's fault, etc. Your group failed; people didn't vote for it because you are well-known quitters and whiners and victims - and losers; you're ok with losing and quit when it happens - and you conduct shitty politics as a result. Who votes for that? Who even can stand to listen to it - it's sickening, depressing, disheartening. The right wing says, 'we believe in X and we won't be stopped no matter what; we will never give up'. That gets votes. That gets things done. Get out of bed, stop crying, and get to work. That you still hold on politically with this victim psychology shows how bad the right wing's message is. Never give up, never even talk about it.
      - the_gipsy 11mo ago
        > Instead of looking in the mirror and figuring out what they need to do better, they blame outside forces. I'm not American, so let me ask you: what do you think they should have done better? Maybe a not presenting a woman candidate? I ask because that's the most common denominator in their last two election losses.
- vintermann 11mo ago
  The government isn't one person, and I think both bureaucrats and judges are actually quite receptive to lots of people - only it's nebulous to who and why. Trying to please, and hoping to get rewarded, but neither you or they themselves are 100% certain of by who. Opaque power structures, everyone's paranoid, including the powerful.

by lesona 11mo ago

fnordpiglet 11mo ago

I suspect this government isn’t receptive to commentary from anyone other than only one person. While I’d never discourage anyone from advocating their beliefs this feels like at best a waste of energy. They are going to do it because they decided to do it - the solicitation of comments is performative and required. The only way to stop it is via the courts and by voting next November.

saghm 11mo ago
There's even precedent for the current president's agencies compiling some pretty sketchy "comments" in the past due to not doing basic sanity checks on pretty obvious fake comments that happened to support their agenda, like when supposedly seeking input from the public about repealing net neutrality[1]. There were so many duplicates that only thirty 30 unique comments made up 57% of the overall total, and the second most common "name" among the authors was literally "The Internet". No one in the current administration cares about what random members of the public think about their policies, and that's by design. Even the government positions that are intended to be permanent across administrations aren't a safe bet at this point with was things have been going [1]: https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2017/11/29/public-comments-to-the-federal-communications-commission-about-net-neutrality-contain-many-inaccuracies-and-duplicates/ https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2017/11/29/public-comme...
themafia 11mo ago
> this government isn’t receptive to commentary from anyone Name one government of the past 60 years that was.
- fnordpiglet 11mo ago
  Actually the comment collection process has in fact caused changes in policy over many administrations, largely because the policy makers were interested in achieving some goal aligned to their function and believed in our system. When commentary went strongly against their policy there was often a step back and reassessment. This administration appears to have two goals: maximally hurt people who hurt Trumps feelings and create the deep state they lamented but never really existed until now to continue to maximally hurt people similar to those who hurt trumps feels in perpetuity.
mmooss 11mo ago
You are 'this government's best friend, advocating for their opponents to give up and quit. In a remarkable pattern that I never thought I'd see in the rugged individualistic, idealistic, freedom-loving USA, a large group is literally self-defeating: They defeat themselves before even getting out of bed. That's why your opponents are unstoppable - because you don't stop them. The performative nonsense is their aggression display. They still want to win the election. Political and policy outcomes aren't all or nothing; the more they see, the more it will nudge them in whatever direction you want. Others will see it and it will nudge them too. If one person didn't embrace being a quitter, others would do the same.
- the_gipsy 11mo ago
  First, the post literally gives instructions to do something. Second, the root problem is not incompetence, it's that half of America wanted exactly this, for a second time now.
  - mmooss 11mo ago
    > the root problem is not incompetence, it's that half of America wanted exactly this, for a second time now. That is the same psychology I described in the GP: Instead of looking in the mirror and figuring out what they need to do better, they blame outside forces. It's victim psychology - powerless, someone else's fault, etc. Your group failed; people didn't vote for it because you are well-known quitters and whiners and victims - and losers; you're ok with losing and quit when it happens - and you conduct shitty politics as a result. Who votes for that? Who even can stand to listen to it - it's sickening, depressing, disheartening. The right wing says, 'we believe in X and we won't be stopped no matter what; we will never give up'. That gets votes. That gets things done. Get out of bed, stop crying, and get to work. That you still hold on politically with this victim psychology shows how bad the right wing's message is. Never give up, never even talk about it.
    - the_gipsy 11mo ago
      > Instead of looking in the mirror and figuring out what they need to do better, they blame outside forces. I'm not American, so let me ask you: what do you think they should have done better? Maybe a not presenting a woman candidate? I ask because that's the most common denominator in their last two election losses.
vintermann 11mo ago
The government isn't one person, and I think both bureaucrats and judges are actually quite receptive to lots of people - only it's nebulous to who and why. Trying to please, and hoping to get rewarded, but neither you or they themselves are 100% certain of by who. Opaque power structures, everyone's paranoid, including the powerful.