If your ideology has differential effects on people by race, then you may well be participating in a racist ideology even if you detest it.
Most notably: current policies are addressed at punishing illegal immigrants, but it's clear that it's being targeted at non-white and mostly Spanish-speaking people. There are numerous incidents of people being racially profiled despite being American citizens, and no steps are being taken to minimize that. The policy is popular with those who are explicit about their racial supremacy.
If you support programs that hurt people of a different race, then calling you a "Nazi" is not inapt, regardless of what you think of the actual Nazis.
> If your ideology has differential effects on people by race, then you may well be participating in a racist ideology even if you detest it.
Mine don’t, I don’t like that people are being unfairly targeted if they’re citizens or have legal rights to be in the country. That said, I don’t want illegal immigrants to be harmed or mistreated. And it’s not just me, many Americans feel the same way.
The issue is more complex than simply a humanitarian cause. The effect of letting in hundreds of people is something you can balance over time, but letting in millions over a relatively short period has both economic and geopolitical ramifications. Besides that, borders exist for more than security, their permeability has implications for national sovereignty as well. For Americans who aren’t racist, the issue is multifaceted and just as important as the plight of an economic immigrant or asylum seeker.
If you look at who is entering the U.S. illegally, it includes people from strong economic powerhouses with healthy growth projections and competitive GDP, like Brazil, Mexico, China, India and so on.
When you just absorb the economic or political issues of other countries by taking in their poor, then you don’t ever let those societies reflect on what they’re doing wrong or right for their people. Countries should be responsible for their people, and if they’re unable to be that way for one reason or another, their people need to examine why and ask their leaders some tough questions. Immigrating to other countries, for jobs, safety, or education, is not a good or sustainable way of doing things, which is why we’re currently having the issues that we’re having.
I also think asylum seekers should be sent to countries that most match their cultural backgrounds, and repatriated when conflict is resolved, or sent somewhere where they have family ties. There needs to be a better way to bring normalcy into the lives of people affected by war or conflict other than turning them away, or indefinitely opening your doors to anyone who claims asylum, where there is a non-zero occurrence of fraud.
Good and responsible governance is the only way to ensure better outcomes for people. Political extremism isn’t going to enable good governance.
I see him as a clever person. It points out that the very title of the piece exhibits exactly the same behavior that it pretends to call out. That's a time-saver: if the author is that un-self-aware, then the article itself is not worth the time to refute.
Modals are different from toasts. Modals take over your screen; you go into a separate "mode" for them. Toasts are non-modal; they just take up screen space but you don't have to interact with them.
"Toast" usually implies something that goes away on its own, though that's generally considered bad UX.
It's just jargon. Every field does that. In this case, you can really tell that it's two bits of jargon made up at different times, because one is dry and technical, and the other is a pun on "pop-up".
Why would they? They elected this administration by a fairly wide margin, and everything it has done is in keeping with its campaign promises. It's been more effective at that than any administration I can think of.
Sure, it's horrifying to the people who voted against it. But I see nothing here to change the minds of people who voted for it.
There will probably be some midterm losses, because the same persistent economic problems are still troubling us, but I don't expect to hear much of "I didn't realize that they were bloodthirsty monsters". I expect more of "Yeah, they're bloodthirsty monsters, which I like, but I won't vote for them anyway because the economy is bad."
I'm not sure what you mean. Unicode doesn't have fonts. It has code blocks and code points. Fonts are how your computer chooses to render those code points.
On my browser, I don't see anything special about C, H, P, or Q on the page that you link to. They look similar to all of the other double-struck characters. Perhaps the font you are using is wonky?
It says that the mathematical blackboard-bold symbols appeared in Unicode first, and the full set of double-struck characters appeared later. That includes C (complex), H (quaternions), etc. It's possible that your font is rendering those as actual-bold (for which blackboard-bold was supposed to be a hand-written substitute).
As far as I can tell, being born here is the only reason that I'm considered a citizen. My parents were also considered citizens for the same reason. But if we go back a few generations, I don't think the paperwork exists to prove that their great-grandparents were citizens. There might be a copy in some Ellis Island archive, but I'd be hard pressed to locate it.
So... lacking that documentation, does the recursion unwind? Being descended of not-provably-naturalized-citizens, am I at risk of deportation?
> What was the test for citizenship before the 14th amendment?
Basically, the same. Inglis v. Trustees of Sailor's Snug Harbor (1830) established:
The rule commonly laid down in the books is, that every person who is born within the ligeance of a sovereign is a subject; and, e converso, that every person born without such allegiance is an alien. . . . Two things usually concur to create citizenship; first, birth locally within the dominions of the sovereign; and secondly, birth within the protection and obedience, or in other words, within the ligeance of the sovereign. That is, the party must be born within a place where the sovereign is at the time in full possession and exercise of his power, and the party must also at his birth derive protection from, and consequently owe obedience or allegiance to the sovereign, as such, de facto.[0]
It excluded slaves and it excluded Native Americans. Native American US citizenship was established in 1924 by statute.[1]
First - there's no point in worrying about something before it's clear what will happen. Personally, I find it extremely unlikely that any decision will be so broadly defined as to be applicable to more than a handful of people.
Second - I propose that it doesn't matter. I lean toward the Trump administration's positions on probably 2/3 of the issues commonly discussed today, and even from that position I would be incredibly outraged if mass denaturalization were to come to pass. The country would no longer be the America I love at that point, and I would feel very little if any affinity for it.
If what you fear comes to pass, I wouldn't see it as something happening to you - I would see it as a clear signal to emigrate as soon as possible, and at pretty much all costs.
> First - there's no point in worrying about something before it's clear what will happen
You don't think it's important to prepare for things that have a non-zero likelihood of occurring? This case has already worked its way to the Supreme Court, it's obvious something is happening with it.
> Second - I propose that it doesn't matter. I lean toward the Trump administration's positions on probably 2/3 of the issues commonly discussed today
Is the anti-immigrant rhetoric of this admin one of the things you do or not lean towards?
> You don't think it's important to prepare for things that have a non-zero likelihood of occurring?
Of course that's not what I meant. Preparation is not the same as worry. Worry solves nothing; what's needed is a cycle of observation, analysis, preparation, and action.
> Is the anti-immigrant rhetoric of this admin one of the things you do or not lean towards?
Absolutely. (ETA for clarity: meaning I absolutely disagree with their statements that incite division and feed hate)
I truly try to limit my sharing of my own views on HN, because that's not in the spirit of the community and not why I come here. If you're honestly interested in how I see it, I can copy over a post I just made on a right-wing forum on this topic.
I assure you, I have no hate in my heart for anyone. What I feel is driven by empathy, what I say is informed by empathy, and what I do is -- to the best of my ability -- a result of careful rational thought.
> Preparation is not the same as worry. Worry solves nothing
Would you prepare for something you did not have any worries about? I assume any preparation would be in response to a worry/fear/uncertainty about a situation. You study for a test because you are worried you will not know the answers. Preparation and worry seem intrinsically linked. Worry is the onus through which preparation becomes necessary.
> I truly try to limit my sharing of my own views on HN
Is that true? You freely gave your opinions on this issue and the admin in your previous comment, and you seem to talk about your opinions on these things elsewhere on HN. I was just trying to understand what parts of this admin you lean towards, and if this is one of those cases.
If you copy a post from that other forum here, I would read and likely respond to it if it was relevant to my earlier question.
> I assure you, I have no hate in my heart for anyone. What I feel is driven by empathy, what I say is informed by empathy, and what I do is -- to the best of my ability -- a result of careful rational thought.
I have a hard time squaring this with "leaning towards agreeing with 2/3rds of the admin's decisions." Trump is highly vindictive and has made that a cornerstone of this "revenge tour" presidency. But that is probably a conversation for another, more politically-inclined forum.
> Preparation and worry seem intrinsically linked. Worry is the onus through which preparation becomes necessary.
It sounds like we have a different definition of "worry". What I'm trying to say is that it's neither helpful nor healthy to become emotionally invested in something that is unlikely to happen. By "preparation" I mean I use those things as inputs to my decision-making process in general, and use the fact that I'm taking the concern into account to otherwise put it aside.
> Is that true? You freely gave your opinions on this issue and the admin in your previous comment, and you seem to talk about your opinions on these things elsewhere on HN.
I try to be transparent, and bring up political stuff only when it's directly relevant to understand why I'm making a statement. If I don't have facts to bring to the conversation, I stay out of it. I'll challenge someone if they support an argument with something that is either untrue or incomplete, whether or not I agree with their conclusion.
At no point do I expect or intend to change anyone's mind; that's not the point. When it comes down to it, I don't believe that a belief that won't survive being challenged is worth holding, and I want to know if I've missed something. To put it another way, any time I mention something political here, it's because I see someone who holds a contrary belief and want to challenge my own beliefs on the subject.
> I was just trying to understand what parts of this admin you lean towards, and if this is one of those cases.
Why?
I'm an anarcho-capitalist; the vast majority of my beliefs are going to be at odds with most people regardless of political affiliation. I don't have a political litmus test for who I interact with and (at the risk of being blunt) if you do, I'd prefer you just go ahead and assume that I fail it.
I pride myself on being transparent, and if you're honestly interested in understanding each other's perspective I'm more than happy to oblige. If not, then nothing I can say will matter and it's not worth upsetting anyone over.
> I have a hard time squaring this with "leaning towards agreeing with 2/3rds of the admin's decisions."
Oh, me too. Me too. It's not a comfortable position to be in when I dislike the man personally while simultaneously believe some of the results of his actions are positive for the country.
> Trump is highly vindictive and has made that a cornerstone of this "revenge tour" presidency.
I 100% agree. I wish that weren't the case, but do see some bright side to it - I really, really hope the Democrats sees Trump's popular support as a reaction to their alienating a very large portion of the electorate. I'd love nothing more than to see both parties temper their divisiveness and be more empathetic to those on "the other side".
Oh, and I'll also say that if it doesn't work out that way, I don't see much positive in the future for the Republicans, either. It's at least equally likely that this is the beginning of a descent into tyranny.
> But that is probably a conversation for another, more politically-inclined forum.
Yep, that's my point. I love talking politics and philosophy, but my respect for the norms of this community outweigh that. It's been my experience that most of these conversations quickly turn adversarial - if you go through my comment history you'll likely see that I often disengage when that happens, or wait a day or two to reply to avoid starting a flame war.
>> I was just trying to understand what parts of this admin you lean towards, and if this is one of those cases.
>Why?
Because I can't square your previous statements without understanding what parts are acceptable to you and which are not. You have not provided anything for me to understand your position politically except that you don't think it's worth worrying about the Supreme Court potentially destroying birthright citizenship.
> At no point do I expect or intend to change anyone's mind; that's not the point. When it comes down to it, I don't believe that a belief that won't survive being challenged is worth holding, and I want to know if I've missed something. To put it another way, any time I mention something political here, it's because I see someone who holds a contrary belief and want to challenge my own beliefs on the subject.
Well put, and I agree. Arguing a belief is the fastest way to improve and correct it. That is why I was trying to get a more well-rounded picture of your opinions on this admin, because I want to understand your context surrounding your political ideas.
> Yep, that's my point. I love talking politics and philosophy, but my respect for the norms of this community outweigh that. It's been my experience that most of these conversations quickly turn adversarial - if you go through my comment history you'll likely see that I often disengage when that happens, or wait a day or two to reply to avoid starting a flame war.
We can end it here to keep with those norms. I appreciate you responding with some of your opinions and your honesty.
It sounds like we have good intentions and are on the same page as a whole :)
> We can end it here to keep with those norms.
I'll do you one better - I have a pseudo-anonymous email address in my profile. Shoot me a message and I'll share real contact information if you'd like to continue.
reply