Meet Helen, 5, detained by Trump, forced to sign away her rights in court


Breitbart and Fox covered literally every bad thing Obama did (and things they liked were attributed to someone else).

Not on facebook, for just this reason.


I’m going to go ahead and be “that guy” here, and point out that calling this act “morally repulsive” is pretty weak tea. You’re saying that the morality you grew up with finds this unacceptable. But not everyone has the same morality, and that’s OK, because morality is a pretty narrow construct.

It would be a more damning criticism to call this deeply unethical, because ethics are different standards from morals. They apply to everyone by definition.

And this probably sounds really pedantic and pointless, and I don’t expect the red team to give a flying fuck, really… but it’s exactly this kind of confusion that makes it possible for these monsters to rationalize what they do. They have no language to distinguish morality from ethics, and so have assumed their particular flavor of morals are in fact the only ethical standard.

Until civil society can internalize the difference between morals and ethics, we are doomed to have to fight this kind of thing, forever and ever, Amen.


I hear he once wore a suit that was the wrong color!


What a Kenyan commie!


The good news is that this demographic is changing. The piece of geography that is now Whiteland is beginning to shift into a demographic where people of color are far more common. With luck the white is might bunch will no longer get to rule over the majority of this nation.


Obama did the bailout though, which was ridiculous. But, yes, 2008 wasn’t his fault. US Presidents are usually around just long enough to do enough good/harm that the next fellow in office gets praised/blamed for it.

And, yes, Clinton (B.) screwed things long before Obama was office. And likewise, Republicans hated Clinton, despite the fact that he was largely a Republican in Democrats’ clothing (‘tough’ on ‘crime’, easy on megacorps). He has a large share of the responsibility for the mess of the US prison systems (including the disproportionate share of black males in jail; but he played sax on Arsenio Hall once, and so black people liked him, and that carried over to his wife as well).


that was signed into law a month before the election in october of 2008. i fail to see how that falls on obama’s shoulders.


Anything but “something.” I say this a lot but, specific outcomes should dictate actions, not specific desires. I can totally make a lifesize cheeto sculpture of Trump, but just because I want to stop him by subjecting him to withering parody, it doesn’t mean I will. Functionally jamming the gears of treadmill immigration courts is much more practical, but requires coordination and careful strategy. There are many ways to go about it, but unfortunately most people want to go to a protest and go home, or break stuff and go home. Telling someone that they are going to have to devote more than an afternoon requires a social support structure.

Most people don’t have the resources or the vital human contacts to engage in effective activism, and are limited to the choices set before them by well-publicized actions like demonstrations and elections. Americans have a really limited imagination, where the most visible forms of public activism are also the most structurally benign. None of this is to say don’t vote or demonstrate, but more to your question: Asking people what they’ll do is kind of putting the cart before the horse if they don’t have a clue who they’ll do it with.




I seem to have wandered into a different timeline then (though it still has all the same Google results).


are you speaking in terms of “the mandela effect”?


Because EVERYTHING bad is Obummers fault! /s



I’d say my practical experience is that I’ve had bad luck with groups I’ve tried to work with. People do not like it when I point out flaws in plans and argue against certain actions. It’s hard to convey mannerism and speaking style in a format like this, but I’m socially well-adjusted and I pick up on cues. I mention that because want to be clear that I’m not just blithely walking into groups and telling them that they’re doing things wrong. I’m not one of those people who has to give input on everything, either. But sometimes groups are boneheaded and I feel obligated to point that out.

I’ll give you an example: I was asked to take part in actions against a local landlord that often takes advantage of people in the area using people’s naivete about the law and contracts. Cool beans.

I got an FB message that I was asked to repost about a particular landlord having bedbugs. I asked (using a different medium of communication) if that FB post was true–because guess what? There are libel issues if you’re going to spread that. I didn’t get a response. I didn’t expect 100% strict adherence to the law from this group 100% of the time. Hell, even the government has a shit track record with that. I did expect them to let me make informed decisions about the risks I wanted to take. If it was true, I’d post it from here to kingdom come, no problem. If it’s not true, I didn’t think it was worth the risk relative to the payoff. These people’s identity wasn’t secret, and it might open up non-activists to liability that they’re not prepared to handle. I expected a conversation. Especially because the landlords in question were (and STILL ARE because the actions of the group were so ineffective) vulnerable to legal action in addition to direct action.

Long story short–choose your group wisely. You can typically smell amateur hour a mile away.


This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.