8 ms·

To equate immigrants who have followed due process to a homeless person insisting on staying in a property owner's living room is appalling. It's understandabl

by Mutinix 22d ago

To equate immigrants who have followed due process to a homeless person insisting on staying in a property owner's living room is appalling. It's understandable for everyone to have varying views on immigration and immigrants, but this sort of rhetoric is a vile, racist and xenophobic dog whistle.

0xDEAFBEAD 22d ago
[flagged]
- cloverich 22d ago
  It is sufficiently incoherent as to suggest you aren't interested in the serious discussion you are requesting in response. You could better refute this by starting with a policy you would consider cruel, and the in turn demonstrating how this one doesn't fit it. Historically i've tended to agree that "the cruelty is the point" was too dismissive for the policies in question. But with immigration policy of this admin, I'm not sure that's the case. For a while they were deporting people to the equivalent of a Gulag, and literally suggested that if people were afraid of that outcome they should self deport. I think that would be a pretty fair example of a policy where the cruelty was the literal point: The hope was it would be viewed with sufficient fear as to dissuade people from staying in the country illegally. However seriously you think immigration should be taken, and however many people you feel should be deported, there are policy choices that do not involve that level of cruelty that could be chosen instead. That they are intentionally not is what the term "The cruelty is the point" is meant to imply.
  - 0xDEAFBEAD 22d ago
    >You could better refute this by starting with a policy you would consider cruel, and the in turn demonstrating how this one doesn't fit it. I actually don't think it is that common for policy to be cruel just for the sake of being cruel ("the cruelty is the point") >For a while they were deporting people to the equivalent of a Gulag, and literally suggested that if people were afraid of that outcome they should self deport. I think that would be a pretty fair example of a policy where the cruelty was the literal point: The hope was it would be viewed with sufficient fear as to dissuade people from staying in the country illegally. The point of law enforcement is to deter and prevent lawbreaking, not be cruel for its own sake. Suppose you observe that meals in prison aren't very tasty. Would you criticize this policy on the grounds that "the cruelty is the point"? You can argue that the punishment is too harsh, but that still doesn't prove that cruelty was the point.
    - Erem 22d ago
      Nobody is buying the analogy comparing deportation to Gulag equivalents to imperfect prison meals
    - cloverich 21d ago
      Government cruelty as such has been an explicit subject of American constitutional discourse since the founding - its in the Bill of Rights even. It comes out of a political tradition deeply suspicious of rulers using punishment to terrorize, humiliate, or vindictively hurt people. Case in point Obama was deporting just as many people as Trump and it didnt require cruelty to do so. Which begs the question, why is a Gulag needed by Trump? The "cruelty is the point" argument is that 1) it isnt, and 2) they know that.
Georgelemental 22d ago
An immigrant who has followed due process is equivalent to a homeless person who has convinced the property owner to willingly let the homeless person stay in the property owner's living room. The property owner is allowed to change their mind about the arrangement at any point, unless and until the person obtains part ownership of the property (citizenship).
- ImPostingOnHN 22d ago
  The property owner in this case is the American people, who I'm pretty sure don't support this. They may have hired a property manager, but if the manager goes rogue, what the owners say is more important.
  - 0xDEAFBEAD 22d ago
    OK but that's a much different argument from "the cruelty is the point".
    - ImPostingOnHN 22d ago
      The legal perspective doesn't preclude that the cruelty is the point.
      - 0xDEAFBEAD 22d ago
        Consider the possibility that people might simply have different views from you.
        ImPostingOnHN 22d ago
        You're right, that is always a possibility for any random thing. Okay, done. Now you do the same.
        0xDEAFBEAD 21d ago
account42 22d ago
Do you have an argument or do you just want to play leftist thought-terminating slur bingo?

by Mutinix 22d ago

0xDEAFBEAD 22d ago

[flagged]

cloverich 22d ago
It is sufficiently incoherent as to suggest you aren't interested in the serious discussion you are requesting in response. You could better refute this by starting with a policy you would consider cruel, and the in turn demonstrating how this one doesn't fit it. Historically i've tended to agree that "the cruelty is the point" was too dismissive for the policies in question. But with immigration policy of this admin, I'm not sure that's the case. For a while they were deporting people to the equivalent of a Gulag, and literally suggested that if people were afraid of that outcome they should self deport. I think that would be a pretty fair example of a policy where the cruelty was the literal point: The hope was it would be viewed with sufficient fear as to dissuade people from staying in the country illegally. However seriously you think immigration should be taken, and however many people you feel should be deported, there are policy choices that do not involve that level of cruelty that could be chosen instead. That they are intentionally not is what the term "The cruelty is the point" is meant to imply.
- 0xDEAFBEAD 22d ago
  >You could better refute this by starting with a policy you would consider cruel, and the in turn demonstrating how this one doesn't fit it. I actually don't think it is that common for policy to be cruel just for the sake of being cruel ("the cruelty is the point") >For a while they were deporting people to the equivalent of a Gulag, and literally suggested that if people were afraid of that outcome they should self deport. I think that would be a pretty fair example of a policy where the cruelty was the literal point: The hope was it would be viewed with sufficient fear as to dissuade people from staying in the country illegally. The point of law enforcement is to deter and prevent lawbreaking, not be cruel for its own sake. Suppose you observe that meals in prison aren't very tasty. Would you criticize this policy on the grounds that "the cruelty is the point"? You can argue that the punishment is too harsh, but that still doesn't prove that cruelty was the point.
  - Erem 22d ago
    Nobody is buying the analogy comparing deportation to Gulag equivalents to imperfect prison meals
  - cloverich 21d ago
    Government cruelty as such has been an explicit subject of American constitutional discourse since the founding - its in the Bill of Rights even. It comes out of a political tradition deeply suspicious of rulers using punishment to terrorize, humiliate, or vindictively hurt people. Case in point Obama was deporting just as many people as Trump and it didnt require cruelty to do so. Which begs the question, why is a Gulag needed by Trump? The "cruelty is the point" argument is that 1) it isnt, and 2) they know that.

Georgelemental 22d ago

An immigrant who has followed due process is equivalent to a homeless person who has convinced the property owner to willingly let the homeless person stay in the property owner's living room. The property owner is allowed to change their mind about the arrangement at any point, unless and until the person obtains part ownership of the property (citizenship).

ImPostingOnHN 22d ago
The property owner in this case is the American people, who I'm pretty sure don't support this. They may have hired a property manager, but if the manager goes rogue, what the owners say is more important.
- 0xDEAFBEAD 22d ago
  OK but that's a much different argument from "the cruelty is the point".
  - ImPostingOnHN 22d ago
    The legal perspective doesn't preclude that the cruelty is the point.
    - 0xDEAFBEAD 22d ago
      Consider the possibility that people might simply have different views from you.
      - ImPostingOnHN 22d ago
        You're right, that is always a possibility for any random thing. Okay, done. Now you do the same.
        0xDEAFBEAD 21d ago

account42 22d ago

Do you have an argument or do you just want to play leftist thought-terminating slur bingo?