My understanding is that they also aim that way to reduce moving parts - since knobs, buttons, and switches are more likely to fail after 5000 uses. That, and they can update touchscreens to do whatever they want differently, like serve up ads.

I think there’s multiple ways it can happen. Sometimes, incoming cultures aim to be inviting and inclusive, and do what they can to become involved with the surrounding community. But other cultures really silo themselves and never speak to “the foreigners” - while continuing to take up more and more of the area. They speak their home language, don’t discuss the existing culture or even share their own. They don’t act like guests, just tenants - sometimes not realizing that thanks to refugee programs they’re often paying “guest rate”, not “tenant rate”.

However, that certainly isn’t always the case. I’d point to the Italian and Hispanic cultures in America as some that have become distinctly American. It’s harder for me to give examples of the “silos” since, by definition, you don’t see much of them; but sometimes during elections, church gatherings, or other census-related actions, you’re reminded they exist.

Whenever I hear about these town halls, I’m really unsure if it’s actually Trump voters turning up. Chances are, if the cult “won” they’re celebrating and believing every paper-thin lie, right up until they suffer direct personal consequence, not attending town halls with a list of questions and concerns.

I hear this a lot, but I don’t think it’s the gotcha people claim it is. Most genocide in the modern day tries to aim for economic strangling by eliminating/stealing what few opportunities exist for some populations. See, for instance, the IDF’s efforts to starve Gaza rather than shoot every single Palestinian. Or fascist America’s efforts to deny jobs (even the ones that are not in competition) to disabled or minorities.

I don’t see it as “I’ma move and get rich”, I see it as “I’ma move and not starve on the street”.

We definitely see a gross incentive where companies don’t want people to become citizens because it allows their labor to be cheaper.

I think back in Trump’s first term, he had one policy that I genuinely agreed with - that the H1B Visa program should have a very high minimum salary to it, returning it to its intended purpose of being used for rare, high-talent specialized positions. As it stands, HR will just invent overly specific criteria so that they can deny local citizens jobs, claim they can’t find anyone, and then hire cheap H1Bs - and threaten them with deportation anytime they complain.

Needless to say, because it was a good idea and anti-corp, Trump dropped it almost immediately.

Hollywood and the anime industry have done much the same - helping people around the world normalize the feeling of living in their home societies.

I’m from the bike/pedestrian-friendly community of /fuckcars. It’s a far whiter immigrant mentality, but I imagine trends like that wouldn’t have occurred if not for Dutch immigrants; or even American immigrants visiting the Netherlands, most specifically the Not Just Bikes channel.

https://www.currentaffairs.org/news/2020/10/how-private-prisons-profit-from-forced-labor

It’s still kinda legal, just takes some extra steps and signatures, and a bribed judge - of which there are many.

That’s also setting aside people that are effectively slaves to low wages, unable to do anything but work with no chance for upward mobility.

I agree their censorship is too high in China, though, but I think it’s a result of siege theory.

Buddy, fuck right the hell off. The USA is not the only country with free media. Small countries do it too. Al Jazeera is quartered in Qatar, and is critical of both the USA and China. China enacts the Great Firewall because they’re power-hungry, not because they want to fucking stay safe, and they are not in any regard a third world country.

Split semantics on exact wording if you’d like. A better word might be “solely”. The Nazi party collected anyone of a variety of demographics they didn’t like, including foreigners, LGBT, physically/mentally disabled, scholars, etc.

I’ve seen images and footage put out by journalists. I’m just not bothered to re-locate them for the sake of a tankie.

The US brings up its own horrible events all the time.

I learned about The Trail of Tears, the era of segregation, and of the KKK in my history class in America. We make conscious efforts to be aware of and criticize our own faults - as well as those of other nations.

There is currently LOTS of criticism of the US government for its participation in the massacre in Palestine. Claiming otherwise is lying. China is relatively unique in that it has committed atrocities, and refuses to allow anyone in its own country to acknowledge them. Both countries have done bad things. One country recognizes those facts and attempts to learn from them.

Since the steps for Palestinian genocide started before Oct 7, and the IDF has been okay with killing their own hostages in high-yield strikes, not likely.

This is the bit that I’ve had a hard time with. And, to put it in less snide allegorical terms: Israel is in many ways the “invader”. They took land, took homes, that weren’t theirs. That invasion has been justified through massive harm to their people, and the need for a “safe space” they can call their own. But while that’s the in-person justification by individuals, the backroom justification used to ship the weapons is achieving a “Western presence” in the middle east.

Something the Jewish community might not get is: They’re not the only group that’s been targeted for hate throughout history. The holocaust didn’t even specifically target jews. We don’t get to make a “Transgender state”, or a “Black American state”, and especially not displace others for that. In some ways the world needs to accept that, whether by 10 miles or 100, we’ll still be neighbors on this planet and not totally unreachable. Set that distance, and it means you only get boiling points like 9/11 rather than shots fired in a neighborhood.

Much as Bernie will definitely continue to be the face of the movement, I have doubts he has many years left for politics. We’re in need of new faces for that same initiative.

I’m confident AOC could raise an impressive amount of campaigning money as a single senator. But, impressive enough to account for an entire party, taking seats in thousands of positions across hundreds of local districts? Much as I’d like it, I don’t see how it can happen.

I’d also like it if campaign money wasn’t necessary, but 99% of America doesn’t actively follow politics; it’s needed to bring it to their doorstep. We’ve been covering the gap in things like Elon Musk’s campaign funds via a lot of volunteer work, but that can only go so far.

Some context:

• https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c36e41dx425o
• https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2020/03/02/how-border-apprehensions-ice-arrests-and-deportations-have-changed-under-trump/
• https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/immigration/3266633/biden-did-not-abolish-ice-not-problem-democratic-party/

The basic idea is, while Trump aims for very visible rhetoric to inflame his racist base, ICE’s presence has still gone up regardless of which president is taking the chair. In fact, Biden beat Trump’s deportation numbers (and I’m sure given his ego, he aims to inflate that further, and finds due process one of his obstacles).

One thing that can be said is that when ICE has been in the news, it was never visibly aiming for cruelty under Democratic presidents. But that’s also only accounting for the cases that we know about. And, the last article points out how even through a full term, Biden not only failed to address the growing worries of cruel behavior within ICE, but built them a new quarter-billion-dollar headquarters.

I mean, you have to go where the evidence takes you, even if you don’t like the results. The best thing you could perhaps say about Biden or Obama, was simply that any of their direct participation in border patrol activities followed rule of law.

Generally, CBP/ICE has stayed above much direct scrutiny or supervision, and if an individual doesn’t have reporters, lawyers, or family asking after them (sometimes even then) a lot can be hidden even from administration.

It’s very likely Trump did not do much to “push” ICE’s behavior, he just enabled them, and they reward him by threatening his direct opponents.

What might be scary is if America’s Auschwitz moment is revealed to be completely independent of administration. We’ve already heard many stories about ICE during each presidency, just that many details were hidden or unconfirmed.

It was the same way at the end of WW2. Even many Germans were aghast at what they’d been doing at the camps.

I’m going to warn you: There’s a lot that ICE and the administration have gotten away with because of people claiming “No way. Their actions would be too ridiculous if that’s what it was. There must be more to it.”

What we knew already even before scarce details emerged:

• Judges are extremely slow to take deliberate actions, to affirm their position as a fair arbiter that gives all sides chances to respond
• ICE has scarcely ever provided sufficient evidence for many of their arrests, including most of the high-profile ones
• The immigrants involved in this crime showed no indications of being violent or dangerous (even though ICE claimed they were)

So no, I don’t think ICE can be given benefit of doubt in this case. Every officer involved with this one can be arrested - and they can provide their argument when they go on trial.