Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting!
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
On July 03 2026 00:30 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: There are college Olympians that perform with their peers. Especially track and field. Oregon had one that played football. This conversation is fucking stupid and you all you should feel ashamed. Move the fuck on.
^ E: I don't give a fuck if a mod bans me. This thread is fucking braindead. KwarK should be temp banned for participating because he fucking knows better and is dragging this shit out. Stop. There are far more important shit to discuss. Fucking hell. I already dislike posting but seeing this? Fuck.
On July 03 2026 09:00 ETisME wrote: The entire reason we have women only league, is to foster and empower females.
Is it though? It’s nothing to do with the women themselves wanting to play? And nothing to do with the fans? Just maximizing empowerment? And if you let all women in then the empowerment gets diluted so you need to make it cis only to concentrate that empowerment.
But even then that still seems a bit broad honestly. There’s 30 year old women are sharing the same empowerment as the 20s and that completely ruins it. They should have separate leagues. Also there’s not enough empowerment for redheads so we should have a redhead only league.
And if you’re against my redhead league for being overly narrow then may I remind you that the only purpose of leagues is to empower redheads. Every spot taken by a brunette in the open league is literally stealing from a redhead.
>It’s nothing to do with the women themselves wanting to play? And nothing to do with the fans? Wanting to play in a fair manner? Sure. If there's no tournament nor players, then fans of what? >There’s 30 year old women are sharing the same empowerment as the 20s and that completely ruins it. Ruins it for who? This has nothing to do with gender. Plenty of sports have legendary players outshining younger ones.
It ruins it for empowerment maximalists like yourself. All sport must maximize empowerment of whatever group I’m specifically interested in.
You mean Male and Female? yes, like it's always been for hundreds if not thousands of years across the entire world.
The reality that you have to accept is that there is simply no opportunity for empowerment under your current plan. None.
What reality? Simone Biles, Serena Williams? Where do you think they get their sponsor, fame from?
On July 03 2026 00:30 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: There are college Olympians that perform with their peers. Especially track and field. Oregon had one that played football. This conversation is fucking stupid and you all you should feel ashamed. Move the fuck on.
^ E: I don't give a fuck if a mod bans me. This thread is fucking braindead. KwarK should be temp banned for participating because he fucking knows better and is dragging this shit out. Stop. There are far more important shit to discuss. Fucking hell. I already dislike posting but seeing this? Fuck.
The Supreme Court rejected President Trump’s attempt to end birthright citizenship, and the justices reaffirmed the long-held principle that nearly all children who are born on U.S. soil are American citizens.
Mr. Trump’s executive order had aimed to prevent babies born to undocumented immigrants and temporary foreign residents from automatically becoming Americans. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., writing for the majority, explained that Mr. Trump’s executive order violated the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.
“Citizenship, then and now, was the right to have rights — to freely participate in our political community,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote. “The framers of the 14th Amendment extended that promise to ‘every free-born person in this land.’”
He added: “We keep that promise today.”
The 6-3 decision capped a more than decade-long effort by Mr. Trump to use the issue as a political tool. In a social media post, the president called the Supreme Court’s decision “too bad for our Country.” He urged Congress to take up the issue with legislation and wrongly asserted that “no long and unwieldy Constitutional Amendment is necessary.”
With their decision, five justices — a majority — found that birthright citizenship was guaranteed in the Constitution. ... The chief justice was joined in upholding birthright citizenship by the court’s three liberal justices, along with two fellow conservatives, Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Brett M. Kavanaugh. (Justice Kavanaugh wrote that he would strike down the executive order based on federal law, not the Constitution.)
The decision was 6-3 against Trump, but only 5-4 in favor of the Constitution.
This is an interesting one. I absolutely am against birthright citizenships. In China (and I am sure in many other similar countries), there are companies that ONLY provide these so called "birth tourism". at least 500 of these companies apparently and that's a number from 2015. It's suspected the US doesn't even have the number of babies getting their citizenship this way.
On July 02 2026 23:04 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: The Supreme Court just upheld the Constitution against Trump, though it was far from unanimous:
The Supreme Court rejected President Trump’s attempt to end birthright citizenship, and the justices reaffirmed the long-held principle that nearly all children who are born on U.S. soil are American citizens.
Mr. Trump’s executive order had aimed to prevent babies born to undocumented immigrants and temporary foreign residents from automatically becoming Americans. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., writing for the majority, explained that Mr. Trump’s executive order violated the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.
“Citizenship, then and now, was the right to have rights — to freely participate in our political community,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote. “The framers of the 14th Amendment extended that promise to ‘every free-born person in this land.’”
He added: “We keep that promise today.”
The 6-3 decision capped a more than decade-long effort by Mr. Trump to use the issue as a political tool. In a social media post, the president called the Supreme Court’s decision “too bad for our Country.” He urged Congress to take up the issue with legislation and wrongly asserted that “no long and unwieldy Constitutional Amendment is necessary.”
With their decision, five justices — a majority — found that birthright citizenship was guaranteed in the Constitution. ... The chief justice was joined in upholding birthright citizenship by the court’s three liberal justices, along with two fellow conservatives, Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Brett M. Kavanaugh. (Justice Kavanaugh wrote that he would strike down the executive order based on federal law, not the Constitution.)
The decision was 6-3 against Trump, but only 5-4 in favor of the Constitution.
This is an interesting one. I absolutely am against birthright citizenships. In China (and I am sure in many other similar countries), there are companies that ONLY provide these so called "birth tourism". at least 500 of these companies apparently and that's a number from 2015. It's suspected the US doesn't even have the number of babies getting their citizenship this way.
Just out of genuine curiosity, why are you against birthright citizenships? (I assume you mean just in general as a concept, and not specifically for the US, but question applies either way).
I mean, children need to have citizenship somewhere, the world tends to agree that people not having some kind of statehood is a problem. And where the child is born seems to be as intuitive a place as any as a rule for citizenship.
For both China and the US, it seems likely largely an advantage for the country in question.
In the US's case, it's due to their rather unusual tax code, which taxes overseas income of their citizens, so in theory even if this birthright citizen never actually stays in the US, this is still more potential tax revenue (even if it may not be pratical to collect).
In China's case while they may have, perhaps too many people, they do also have an impending demographic imbalance, and people who would be considered for birthright citizenship are, by definition, very young.
On July 02 2026 23:04 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: The Supreme Court just upheld the Constitution against Trump, though it was far from unanimous:
The Supreme Court rejected President Trump’s attempt to end birthright citizenship, and the justices reaffirmed the long-held principle that nearly all children who are born on U.S. soil are American citizens.
Mr. Trump’s executive order had aimed to prevent babies born to undocumented immigrants and temporary foreign residents from automatically becoming Americans. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., writing for the majority, explained that Mr. Trump’s executive order violated the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.
“Citizenship, then and now, was the right to have rights — to freely participate in our political community,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote. “The framers of the 14th Amendment extended that promise to ‘every free-born person in this land.’”
He added: “We keep that promise today.”
The 6-3 decision capped a more than decade-long effort by Mr. Trump to use the issue as a political tool. In a social media post, the president called the Supreme Court’s decision “too bad for our Country.” He urged Congress to take up the issue with legislation and wrongly asserted that “no long and unwieldy Constitutional Amendment is necessary.”
With their decision, five justices — a majority — found that birthright citizenship was guaranteed in the Constitution. ... The chief justice was joined in upholding birthright citizenship by the court’s three liberal justices, along with two fellow conservatives, Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Brett M. Kavanaugh. (Justice Kavanaugh wrote that he would strike down the executive order based on federal law, not the Constitution.)
The decision was 6-3 against Trump, but only 5-4 in favor of the Constitution.
This is an interesting one. I absolutely am against birthright citizenships. In China (and I am sure in many other similar countries), there are companies that ONLY provide these so called "birth tourism". at least 500 of these companies apparently and that's a number from 2015. It's suspected the US doesn't even have the number of babies getting their citizenship this way.
Just out of genuine curiosity, why are you against birthright citizenships? (I assume you mean just in general as a concept, and not specifically for the US, but question applies either way).
I mean, children need to have citizenship somewhere, the world tends to agree that people not having some kind of statehood is a problem. And where the child is born seems to be as intuitive a place as any as a rule for citizenship.
For both China and the US, it seems likely largely an advantage for the country in question.
In the US's case, it's due to their rather unusual tax code, which taxes overseas income of their citizens, so in theory even if this birthright citizen never actually stays in the US, this is still more potential tax revenue (even if it may not be pratical to collect).
In China's case while they may have, perhaps too many people, they do also have an impending demographic imbalance, and people who would be considered for birthright citizenship are, by definition, very young.
I don't think money should be in the conversation at all.
That's an abuse of tourism visa, which is illegal for one. That should be the first red flag. The fact that we have a large-scale business running on birthright citizenship, sort of highlight the constitution is being abused to the point that it no longer is recognizable. They are not screening for what's coming through immigration and preparing for green holder, if they are declared as tourism, that's another.
My thinking is: A child should have citizenship based on where the parents are permanently resided. AFAIK birthright citizenship isn't even that common, so there ought to be plenty of ways to give them proper statehood.
I think I mentioned it before. During covid, there were a lot of Chinese stocking up masks before things got worse in the US. Most famous one being this:
I have seen way more videos with Chinese on wechat bragging about spreading the virus around in the US, Japan deliberately. Like wiping their salvia in supermarket fruits and shopping mall handles.
I would argue this is all a massive problem of not able to screen immigrates well enough. Like in Australia you can stay here permanently through a PR visa, and you don't need any form of citizenship test (which is already pretty weak in identifying how integrated this person is and what's his moral value)
One thing I am extremely against mainstream media, isn't that it is biased or "fake news" etc. But that it has almost no touch point with majority of wechat/chinese social media, they have no idea/don't care just how ultra nationalistic some communities are. I lost all trust in them during covid, because it wasn't just a few videos, it was a heap of them on wechat, and they weren't even censored.
As an migrate myself, I like many others actually are usually pro-hard line anti-immigration policies. One bad apple spoils the bunch, when there's a lot of bad apples, we are all affected. You will see that for Trump, for Pauline one nation etc
On July 02 2026 23:04 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: The Supreme Court just upheld the Constitution against Trump, though it was far from unanimous:
The Supreme Court rejected President Trump’s attempt to end birthright citizenship, and the justices reaffirmed the long-held principle that nearly all children who are born on U.S. soil are American citizens.
Mr. Trump’s executive order had aimed to prevent babies born to undocumented immigrants and temporary foreign residents from automatically becoming Americans. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., writing for the majority, explained that Mr. Trump’s executive order violated the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.
“Citizenship, then and now, was the right to have rights — to freely participate in our political community,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote. “The framers of the 14th Amendment extended that promise to ‘every free-born person in this land.’”
He added: “We keep that promise today.”
The 6-3 decision capped a more than decade-long effort by Mr. Trump to use the issue as a political tool. In a social media post, the president called the Supreme Court’s decision “too bad for our Country.” He urged Congress to take up the issue with legislation and wrongly asserted that “no long and unwieldy Constitutional Amendment is necessary.”
With their decision, five justices — a majority — found that birthright citizenship was guaranteed in the Constitution. ... The chief justice was joined in upholding birthright citizenship by the court’s three liberal justices, along with two fellow conservatives, Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Brett M. Kavanaugh. (Justice Kavanaugh wrote that he would strike down the executive order based on federal law, not the Constitution.)
The decision was 6-3 against Trump, but only 5-4 in favor of the Constitution.
This is an interesting one. I absolutely am against birthright citizenships. In China (and I am sure in many other similar countries), there are companies that ONLY provide these so called "birth tourism". at least 500 of these companies apparently and that's a number from 2015. It's suspected the US doesn't even have the number of babies getting their citizenship this way.
Just out of genuine curiosity, why are you against birthright citizenships? (I assume you mean just in general as a concept, and not specifically for the US, but question applies either way).
I mean, children need to have citizenship somewhere, the world tends to agree that people not having some kind of statehood is a problem. And where the child is born seems to be as intuitive a place as any as a rule for citizenship.
For both China and the US, it seems likely largely an advantage for the country in question.
In the US's case, it's due to their rather unusual tax code, which taxes overseas income of their citizens, so in theory even if this birthright citizen never actually stays in the US, this is still more potential tax revenue (even if it may not be pratical to collect).
In China's case while they may have, perhaps too many people, they do also have an impending demographic imbalance, and people who would be considered for birthright citizenship are, by definition, very young.
I don't think money should be in the conversation at all.
That's an abuse of tourism visa, which is illegal for one. That should be the first red flag. The fact that we have a large-scale business running on birthright citizenship, sort of highlight the constitution is being abused to the point that it no longer is recognizable. They are not screening for what's coming through immigration and preparing for green holder, if they are declared as tourism, that's another.
My thinking is: A child should have citizenship based on where the parents are permanently resided. AFAIK birthright citizenship isn't even that common, so there ought to be plenty of ways to give them proper statehood.
I think I mentioned it before. During covid, there were a lot of Chinese stocking up masks before things got worse in the US. Most famous one being this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVwhfpsX0ak
I have seen way more videos with Chinese on wechat bragging about spreading the virus around in the US, Japan deliberately. Like wiping their salvia in supermarket fruits and shopping mall handles.
I would argue this is all a massive problem of not able to screen immigrates well enough. Like in Australia you can stay here permanently through a PR visa, and you don't need any form of citizenship test (which is already pretty weak in identifying how integrated this person is and what's his moral value)
One thing I am extremely against mainstream media, isn't that it is biased or "fake news" etc. But that it has almost no touch point with majority of wechat/chinese social media, they have no idea/don't care just how ultra nationalistic some communities are. I lost all trust in them during covid, because it wasn't just a few videos, it was a heap of them on wechat, and they weren't even censored.
As an migrate myself, I like many others actually are usually pro-hard line anti-immigration policies. One bad apple spoils the bunch, when there's a lot of bad apples, we are all affected. You will see that for Trump, for Pauline one nation etc
So reading your explanation, it seems your issue is that you are generally against immigration, and not specifically against birthright citizenship. Given that many of these points can't really be applied to a baby:
Abuse of tourism visa for the specific intention of having a birthright baby: that, as you mentioned is already illegal, it's also the parent committing the crime, not the child who holds the citizenship.
Lack of screening: how would you even screen a baby, let alone a not-yet-baby on entry? They are not mentally, or probably physically, capable of taking a citizenship test, there is no moral or behavioural characteristics you could screen for, because babies haven't lived long enough to have observable behavioural/moral characteristics yet (also babies and toddlers are generally like sociopaths, they literally still need to learn/socialise into the tools/understanding to have morality).
Nationalism/lack of integration/bad behaviors: again, I would be impressed if a baby was capable of nationalism, and impressed if you would be able to determine lack of integration/future bad behaviour of a baby.
So it seems to me, your problem is not against birthright citizenship, but against the use of birthright citizenship as a pathway to citizenship/residence for the parents. eg the abuse of birthright citizenship as a defacto path to immigration.
I think your complaint is fair enough, I also think the idea that children having the citizenship of where their parents reside is also fair enough. I just don't think these are arguments per se, against the idea of birthright citizenship, though they are perhaps arguments against the practicality of it (you can argue, that letting the parent(s) stay is unavoidable, as splitting up parent and child is not ideal, and you can't just deport citizens willy nilly).
As for the misbehaviour of immigrants, i haven't personally seen the videos about intentionally spreading Covid, so I will reserve judgement. But for the video you linked: That just looks like typical business minded behaviour to me (the shade to business minded people fully intended).
Prior to Covid, mask wearing in many western countries was just not the norm, they didn't have the wherewithal (at least in the public conscious) to realise that masks were going to be in shortage. Noone in the US was going to fight you to buy the masks back then. This particular individual just had the awareness of what's happening in other parts of the world that the average American does not, and capitalised on it. (I can't imagine she bought that much PPE except with the intention to sell most of it, you can only use so much of it yourself). People did the same to toilet paper later.
Using an information asymmetry (because Asia, where was way ahead of the PPE game), to corner the market on something that you know is going to be in shortage, and everyone else around you doesn't, consequences to society, community, other people be damned, is literally entrepreneurship. The great American way. While I'm not condoning this behaviour, it is no different from what business minded people from all around the world do everywhere all the time.
If I am reading your post correctly, you also mentioned you are an currently immigrant living in Australia. Me too, technically (I was naturalized when I was about 8, as a part of the process of my mother being naturalized, rules may be quite different now). We are not exactly special, 32% of our whole population were born overseas.
If our history has taught us anything, it's that 'the kids always turn out alright'. I think you have an overly cheerful view of what immigration and immigrants were like in the past. That careful screening, moral filtering, choosing only the best? Pretty much always been a myth. Big waves of migration always caused big disruptions, people always complained about how the new foreign people act, there was never good enough, or quick enough integration into society, they have weird mannerisms, or poor social skills, don't speak the language, shifty/oppprtunistic business practices etc etc. Some immigrants, actual do turn out to be criminals, or terrorists, or whatever. Many never fully integrate. In the end, the next generation of those immigrants, turn out to be fine citizens, the kids always integrate, they partake in society, because they literally grew up in it. They speak the language, because they were taught in school in that language, and tv was in that language. They work in local businesses, or start their own, or get jobs as public servants because those are the jobs that are available. They marry the locals, because who the fuck else is available? And yes, a large percentage of them complain about immigrants when they grow up.
Immigration has always been a difficult, fraught, controversial thing, and the is always a lot of friction for the actual immigrants. It's the price that you pay to get more of the next generation of well adjusted, fully integrated citizens.
Look, as a generally pro-immigration person, I too still have reservations on our current rate of intake as well. But they generally boil down to the reason for the intake being the government is trying to use it as a crutch to keep our economic statistics looking good while our actual productive economic output doesn't look like it's improving much, and our really lacklusture ability to build out the infrastructure to support this increasing population, and yes there is theoretically a limit to how much you can take over a certain time you can still reasonably expect to integrate them. But while I don't think birthright citizenship necessarily needs to be a human right of a child or anything, the children are generally the immigrants that a country most benefits from, they don't have the same amount of baggage that adult immigrants inevitably come with.
On July 02 2026 23:04 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: The Supreme Court just upheld the Constitution against Trump, though it was far from unanimous:
The Supreme Court rejected President Trump’s attempt to end birthright citizenship, and the justices reaffirmed the long-held principle that nearly all children who are born on U.S. soil are American citizens.
Mr. Trump’s executive order had aimed to prevent babies born to undocumented immigrants and temporary foreign residents from automatically becoming Americans. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., writing for the majority, explained that Mr. Trump’s executive order violated the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.
“Citizenship, then and now, was the right to have rights — to freely participate in our political community,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote. “The framers of the 14th Amendment extended that promise to ‘every free-born person in this land.’”
He added: “We keep that promise today.”
The 6-3 decision capped a more than decade-long effort by Mr. Trump to use the issue as a political tool. In a social media post, the president called the Supreme Court’s decision “too bad for our Country.” He urged Congress to take up the issue with legislation and wrongly asserted that “no long and unwieldy Constitutional Amendment is necessary.”
With their decision, five justices — a majority — found that birthright citizenship was guaranteed in the Constitution. ... The chief justice was joined in upholding birthright citizenship by the court’s three liberal justices, along with two fellow conservatives, Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Brett M. Kavanaugh. (Justice Kavanaugh wrote that he would strike down the executive order based on federal law, not the Constitution.)
The decision was 6-3 against Trump, but only 5-4 in favor of the Constitution.
This is an interesting one. I absolutely am against birthright citizenships. In China (and I am sure in many other similar countries), there are companies that ONLY provide these so called "birth tourism". at least 500 of these companies apparently and that's a number from 2015. It's suspected the US doesn't even have the number of babies getting their citizenship this way.
Just out of genuine curiosity, why are you against birthright citizenships? (I assume you mean just in general as a concept, and not specifically for the US, but question applies either way).
I mean, children need to have citizenship somewhere, the world tends to agree that people not having some kind of statehood is a problem. And where the child is born seems to be as intuitive a place as any as a rule for citizenship.
For both China and the US, it seems likely largely an advantage for the country in question.
In the US's case, it's due to their rather unusual tax code, which taxes overseas income of their citizens, so in theory even if this birthright citizen never actually stays in the US, this is still more potential tax revenue (even if it may not be pratical to collect).
In China's case while they may have, perhaps too many people, they do also have an impending demographic imbalance, and people who would be considered for birthright citizenship are, by definition, very young.
I don't think money should be in the conversation at all.
That's an abuse of tourism visa, which is illegal for one. That should be the first red flag. The fact that we have a large-scale business running on birthright citizenship, sort of highlight the constitution is being abused to the point that it no longer is recognizable. They are not screening for what's coming through immigration and preparing for green holder, if they are declared as tourism, that's another.
My thinking is: A child should have citizenship based on where the parents are permanently resided. AFAIK birthright citizenship isn't even that common, so there ought to be plenty of ways to give them proper statehood.
I think I mentioned it before. During covid, there were a lot of Chinese stocking up masks before things got worse in the US. Most famous one being this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVwhfpsX0ak
I have seen way more videos with Chinese on wechat bragging about spreading the virus around in the US, Japan deliberately. Like wiping their salvia in supermarket fruits and shopping mall handles.
I would argue this is all a massive problem of not able to screen immigrates well enough. Like in Australia you can stay here permanently through a PR visa, and you don't need any form of citizenship test (which is already pretty weak in identifying how integrated this person is and what's his moral value)
One thing I am extremely against mainstream media, isn't that it is biased or "fake news" etc. But that it has almost no touch point with majority of wechat/chinese social media, they have no idea/don't care just how ultra nationalistic some communities are. I lost all trust in them during covid, because it wasn't just a few videos, it was a heap of them on wechat, and they weren't even censored.
As an migrate myself, I like many others actually are usually pro-hard line anti-immigration policies. One bad apple spoils the bunch, when there's a lot of bad apples, we are all affected. You will see that for Trump, for Pauline one nation etc
So reading your explanation, it seems your issue is that you are generally against immigration, and not specifically against birthright citizenship. Given that many of these points can't really be applied to a baby:
Abuse of tourism visa for the specific intention of having a birthright baby: that, as you mentioned is already illegal, it's also the parent committing the crime, not the child who holds the citizenship.
Lack of screening: how would you even screen a baby, let alone a not-yet-baby on entry? They are not mentally, or probably physically, capable of taking a citizenship test, there is no moral or behavioural characteristics you could screen for, because babies haven't lived long enough to have observable behavioural/moral characteristics yet (also babies and toddlers are generally like sociopaths, they literally still need to learn/socialise into the tools/understanding to have morality).
Nationalism/lack of integration/bad behaviors: again, I would be impressed if a baby was capable of nationalism, and impressed if you would be able to determine lack of integration/future bad behaviour of a baby.
So it seems to me, your problem is not against birthright citizenship, but against the use of birthright citizenship as a pathway to citizenship/residence for the parents. eg the abuse of birthright citizenship as a defacto path to immigration.
I think your complaint is fair enough, I also think the idea that children having the citizenship of where their parents reside is also fair enough. I just don't think these are arguments per se, against the idea of birthright citizenship, though they are perhaps arguments against the practicality of it (you can argue, that letting the parent(s) stay is unavoidable, as splitting up parent and child is not ideal, and you can't just deport citizens willy nilly).
As for the misbehaviour of immigrants, i haven't personally seen the videos about intentionally spreading Covid, so I will reserve judgement. But for the video you linked: That just looks like typical business minded behaviour to me (the shade to business minded people fully intended).
Prior to Covid, mask wearing in many western countries was just not the norm, they didn't have the wherewithal (at least in the public conscious) to realise that masks were going to be in shortage. Noone in the US was going to fight you to buy the masks back then. This particular individual just had the awareness of what's happening in other parts of the world that the average American does not, and capitalised on it. (I can't imagine she bought that much PPE except with the intention to sell most of it, you can only use so much of it yourself). People did the same to toilet paper later.
Using an information asymmetry (because Asia, where was way ahead of the PPE game), to corner the market on something that you know is going to be in shortage, and everyone else around you doesn't, consequences to society, community, other people be damned, is literally entrepreneurship. The great American way. While I'm not condoning this behaviour, it is no different from what business minded people from all around the world do everywhere all the time.
If I am reading your post correctly, you also mentioned you are an currently immigrant living in Australia. Me too, technically (I was naturalized when I was about 8, as a part of the process of my mother being naturalized, rules may be quite different now). We are not exactly special, 32% of our whole population were born overseas.
If our history has taught us anything, it's that 'the kids always turn out alright'. I think you have an overly cheerful view of what immigration and immigrants were like in the past. That careful screening, moral filtering, choosing only the best? Pretty much always been a myth. Big waves of migration always caused big disruptions, people always complained about how the new foreign people act, there was never good enough, or quick enough integration into society, they have weird mannerisms, or poor social skills, don't speak the language, shifty/oppprtunistic business practices etc etc. Some immigrants, actual do turn out to be criminals, or terrorists, or whatever. Many never fully integrate. In the end, the next generation of those immigrants, turn out to be fine citizens, the kids always integrate, they partake in society, because they literally grew up in it. They speak the language, because they were taught in school in that language, and tv was in that language. They work in local businesses, or start their own, or get jobs as public servants because those are the jobs that are available. They marry the locals, because who the fuck else is available? And yes, a large percentage of them complain about immigrants when they grow up.
Immigration has always been a difficult, fraught, controversial thing, and the is always a lot of friction for the actual immigrants. It's the price that you pay to get more of the next generation of well adjusted, fully integrated citizens.
Look, as a generally pro-immigration person, I too still have reservations on our current rate of intake as well. But they generally boil down to the reason for the intake being the government is trying to use it as a crutch to keep our economic statistics looking good while our actual productive economic output doesn't look like it's improving much, and our really lacklusture ability to build out the infrastructure to support this increasing population, and yes there is theoretically a limit to how much you can take over a certain time you can still reasonably expect to integrate them. But while I don't think birthright citizenship necessarily needs to be a human right of a child or anything, the children are generally the immigrants that a country most benefits from, they don't have the same amount of baggage that adult immigrants inevitably come with.
I would say I am both "anti" immigration, and anti birthright citizenship. Mostly because the latter should have been pretty clear cut that it shouldn't be an open door for immigration.
I think you and I are probably similar age. Our generation, including my cousins over in the US and Canada turned out the way you are describing. At least in many ways we are integrated. But we didn't grow up under an anti-Australia/American/Christianity culture, and we certainly didn't grow up with Wechat, Weibo, Xiaohongshu, tiktok etc.
If these babies eventually grew up and move to the US, how confident are you to say majority would turn out with pro-American mindset?
Regarding what happened in COVID: There were some who posted a few pictures of guns on wechat, when there was a panel hosted about hong kong protest in New York. There are Chineses taking photos and videos for those who attended Hong Kong protest in New York and sending them to China. There's chinese deliberately spreading COVID and hoarding supplies, not for money, but for bragging on Weibo as helping to defeat the enemy state.
Immigration comes with the risks, that's totally understandable, but it doesn't mean the environment isn't changing that enables more of these "ultra nationalistic" chinese sleeper agents. I would bet the US, Australia is far more prone to Chinese spies than ever before, with many willing to sell out. Hell there's just been another case in the UK just couple days ago: https://www.nbcnews.com/world/asia/uk-border-official-former-hong-kong-cop-sentenced-spying-china-rcna350721
There must be a very fine balance between too much and too little immigration. And it isn't always a problem that they don't fully integrate. Like Hong Kong has a large % non local population. Almost 5% of the population is domestic helpers, and it's perfectly fine.
Problem is what those communities are and what sort of culture they are bringing and are they really integrating? I certainly don't think Chinese communities here in Australia is any way or form more pro-Australian 10 years ago than what it is now.
And so is it worth having birth right citizenship? I say why bother.
On July 03 2026 00:30 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: There are college Olympians that perform with their peers. Especially track and field. Oregon had one that played football. This conversation is fucking stupid and you all you should feel ashamed. Move the fuck on.
^ E: I don't give a fuck if a mod bans me. This thread is fucking braindead. KwarK should be temp banned for participating because he fucking knows better and is dragging this shit out. Stop. There are far more important shit to discuss. Fucking hell. I already dislike posting but seeing this? Fuck.
User was temp banned for this post.
Well, I for one thank you for your sacrifice since it seems to have actually put an end to this.
This topic is bizarre because if it had it's own thread it would be a ghost town, but if JJR brings it up it will completely derail this thread for 10 or more pages.
I get that it's on topic in this case as it was prompted by the SC decision, but fucking hell, take it to a blog, separate thread, whatever, this is such obvious wedge issue abused by the right wingers and apparently most people just can't help themselves in taking the bait.
Discussing why this is the case instead of 10 people taking as if they are qualified to speak about pro sports, hormones, genetics and other shit here seems like a much more worthwhile discussion for a US Politics thread.
Or, we could, you know, like DPB, I and others tried to on several occasions get back to the topic of US Politics.
On July 03 2026 18:38 ETisME wrote: I would say I am both "anti" immigration, and anti birthright citizenship. Mostly because the latter should have been pretty clear cut that it shouldn't be an open door for immigration. ... There must be a very fine balance between too much and too little immigration. ... And so is it worth having birth right citizenship? I say why bother.
You've made it clear that you think we should be careful and conservative when it comes to immigration guidelines, and not that immigration ought to be completely banned. Do you feel the same way with birthright citizenship, or do you think b.c. shouldn't exist ever / at all? You're obviously not a fan of b.c. - you unequivocally said "I absolutely am against birthright citizenships" - but do you think it should be banned / illegal in the United States? Or just severely frowned upon / require extenuating circumstances to justify it?
On July 03 2026 00:30 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: There are college Olympians that perform with their peers. Especially track and field. Oregon had one that played football. This conversation is fucking stupid and you all you should feel ashamed. Move the fuck on.
^ E: I don't give a fuck if a mod bans me. This thread is fucking braindead. KwarK should be temp banned for participating because he fucking knows better and is dragging this shit out. Stop. There are far more important shit to discuss. Fucking hell. I already dislike posting but seeing this? Fuck.
User was temp banned for this post.
Well, I for one thank you for your sacrifice since it seems to have actually put an end to this.
This topic is bizarre because if it had it's own thread it would be a ghost town, but if JJR brings it up it will completely derail this thread for 10 or more pages.
I get that it's on topic in this case as it was prompted by the SC decision, but fucking hell, take it to a blog, separate thread, whatever, this is such obvious wedge issue abused by the right wingers and apparently most people just can't help themselves in taking the bait.
Discussing why this is the case instead of 10 people taking as if they are qualified to speak about pro sports, hormones, genetics and other shit here seems like a much more worthwhile discussion for a US Politics thread.
Or, we could, you know, like DPB, I and others tried to on several occasions get back to the topic of US Politics.
I actually thought it was interesting precisely because it wasn't JJR and oBlade vs the world. Sure they stirred the pot a bit, but this was mostly a spectrum of progressive opinions with different ideas. A lot more interesting a debate than "Trump is bad, hey oBlade want to come and tell us why this idiotic thing Trump did was actually genius? Hurr durr".
Is it an important issue to discuss? No. Did the discussion go on for more pages than it should have? Yes. But it was interesting, at least, with a bunch of interesting people giving opposite opinions on the matter.
On July 02 2026 23:04 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: The Supreme Court just upheld the Constitution against Trump, though it was far from unanimous:
The Supreme Court rejected President Trump’s attempt to end birthright citizenship, and the justices reaffirmed the long-held principle that nearly all children who are born on U.S. soil are American citizens.
Mr. Trump’s executive order had aimed to prevent babies born to undocumented immigrants and temporary foreign residents from automatically becoming Americans. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., writing for the majority, explained that Mr. Trump’s executive order violated the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.
“Citizenship, then and now, was the right to have rights — to freely participate in our political community,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote. “The framers of the 14th Amendment extended that promise to ‘every free-born person in this land.’”
He added: “We keep that promise today.”
The 6-3 decision capped a more than decade-long effort by Mr. Trump to use the issue as a political tool. In a social media post, the president called the Supreme Court’s decision “too bad for our Country.” He urged Congress to take up the issue with legislation and wrongly asserted that “no long and unwieldy Constitutional Amendment is necessary.”
With their decision, five justices — a majority — found that birthright citizenship was guaranteed in the Constitution. ... The chief justice was joined in upholding birthright citizenship by the court’s three liberal justices, along with two fellow conservatives, Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Brett M. Kavanaugh. (Justice Kavanaugh wrote that he would strike down the executive order based on federal law, not the Constitution.)
The decision was 6-3 against Trump, but only 5-4 in favor of the Constitution.
This is an interesting one. I absolutely am against birthright citizenships. In China (and I am sure in many other similar countries), there are companies that ONLY provide these so called "birth tourism". at least 500 of these companies apparently and that's a number from 2015. It's suspected the US doesn't even have the number of babies getting their citizenship this way.
Just out of genuine curiosity, why are you against birthright citizenships? (I assume you mean just in general as a concept, and not specifically for the US, but question applies either way).
I mean, children need to have citizenship somewhere, the world tends to agree that people not having some kind of statehood is a problem. And where the child is born seems to be as intuitive a place as any as a rule for citizenship.
For both China and the US, it seems likely largely an advantage for the country in question.
In the US's case, it's due to their rather unusual tax code, which taxes overseas income of their citizens, so in theory even if this birthright citizen never actually stays in the US, this is still more potential tax revenue (even if it may not be pratical to collect).
In China's case while they may have, perhaps too many people, they do also have an impending demographic imbalance, and people who would be considered for birthright citizenship are, by definition, very young.
I don't think money should be in the conversation at all.
That's an abuse of tourism visa, which is illegal for one. That should be the first red flag. The fact that we have a large-scale business running on birthright citizenship, sort of highlight the constitution is being abused to the point that it no longer is recognizable. They are not screening for what's coming through immigration and preparing for green holder, if they are declared as tourism, that's another.
My thinking is: A child should have citizenship based on where the parents are permanently resided. AFAIK birthright citizenship isn't even that common, so there ought to be plenty of ways to give them proper statehood.
I think I mentioned it before. During covid, there were a lot of Chinese stocking up masks before things got worse in the US. Most famous one being this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVwhfpsX0ak
I have seen way more videos with Chinese on wechat bragging about spreading the virus around in the US, Japan deliberately. Like wiping their salvia in supermarket fruits and shopping mall handles.
I would argue this is all a massive problem of not able to screen immigrates well enough. Like in Australia you can stay here permanently through a PR visa, and you don't need any form of citizenship test (which is already pretty weak in identifying how integrated this person is and what's his moral value)
One thing I am extremely against mainstream media, isn't that it is biased or "fake news" etc. But that it has almost no touch point with majority of wechat/chinese social media, they have no idea/don't care just how ultra nationalistic some communities are. I lost all trust in them during covid, because it wasn't just a few videos, it was a heap of them on wechat, and they weren't even censored.
As an migrate myself, I like many others actually are usually pro-hard line anti-immigration policies. One bad apple spoils the bunch, when there's a lot of bad apples, we are all affected. You will see that for Trump, for Pauline one nation etc
So reading your explanation, it seems your issue is that you are generally against immigration, and not specifically against birthright citizenship. Given that many of these points can't really be applied to a baby:
Abuse of tourism visa for the specific intention of having a birthright baby: that, as you mentioned is already illegal, it's also the parent committing the crime, not the child who holds the citizenship.
Lack of screening: how would you even screen a baby, let alone a not-yet-baby on entry? They are not mentally, or probably physically, capable of taking a citizenship test, there is no moral or behavioural characteristics you could screen for, because babies haven't lived long enough to have observable behavioural/moral characteristics yet (also babies and toddlers are generally like sociopaths, they literally still need to learn/socialise into the tools/understanding to have morality).
Nationalism/lack of integration/bad behaviors: again, I would be impressed if a baby was capable of nationalism, and impressed if you would be able to determine lack of integration/future bad behaviour of a baby.
So it seems to me, your problem is not against birthright citizenship, but against the use of birthright citizenship as a pathway to citizenship/residence for the parents. eg the abuse of birthright citizenship as a defacto path to immigration.
I think your complaint is fair enough, I also think the idea that children having the citizenship of where their parents reside is also fair enough. I just don't think these are arguments per se, against the idea of birthright citizenship, though they are perhaps arguments against the practicality of it (you can argue, that letting the parent(s) stay is unavoidable, as splitting up parent and child is not ideal, and you can't just deport citizens willy nilly).
As for the misbehaviour of immigrants, i haven't personally seen the videos about intentionally spreading Covid, so I will reserve judgement. But for the video you linked: That just looks like typical business minded behaviour to me (the shade to business minded people fully intended).
Prior to Covid, mask wearing in many western countries was just not the norm, they didn't have the wherewithal (at least in the public conscious) to realise that masks were going to be in shortage. Noone in the US was going to fight you to buy the masks back then. This particular individual just had the awareness of what's happening in other parts of the world that the average American does not, and capitalised on it. (I can't imagine she bought that much PPE except with the intention to sell most of it, you can only use so much of it yourself). People did the same to toilet paper later.
Using an information asymmetry (because Asia, where was way ahead of the PPE game), to corner the market on something that you know is going to be in shortage, and everyone else around you doesn't, consequences to society, community, other people be damned, is literally entrepreneurship. The great American way. While I'm not condoning this behaviour, it is no different from what business minded people from all around the world do everywhere all the time.
If I am reading your post correctly, you also mentioned you are an currently immigrant living in Australia. Me too, technically (I was naturalized when I was about 8, as a part of the process of my mother being naturalized, rules may be quite different now). We are not exactly special, 32% of our whole population were born overseas.
If our history has taught us anything, it's that 'the kids always turn out alright'. I think you have an overly cheerful view of what immigration and immigrants were like in the past. That careful screening, moral filtering, choosing only the best? Pretty much always been a myth. Big waves of migration always caused big disruptions, people always complained about how the new foreign people act, there was never good enough, or quick enough integration into society, they have weird mannerisms, or poor social skills, don't speak the language, shifty/oppprtunistic business practices etc etc. Some immigrants, actual do turn out to be criminals, or terrorists, or whatever. Many never fully integrate. In the end, the next generation of those immigrants, turn out to be fine citizens, the kids always integrate, they partake in society, because they literally grew up in it. They speak the language, because they were taught in school in that language, and tv was in that language. They work in local businesses, or start their own, or get jobs as public servants because those are the jobs that are available. They marry the locals, because who the fuck else is available? And yes, a large percentage of them complain about immigrants when they grow up.
Immigration has always been a difficult, fraught, controversial thing, and the is always a lot of friction for the actual immigrants. It's the price that you pay to get more of the next generation of well adjusted, fully integrated citizens.
Look, as a generally pro-immigration person, I too still have reservations on our current rate of intake as well. But they generally boil down to the reason for the intake being the government is trying to use it as a crutch to keep our economic statistics looking good while our actual productive economic output doesn't look like it's improving much, and our really lacklusture ability to build out the infrastructure to support this increasing population, and yes there is theoretically a limit to how much you can take over a certain time you can still reasonably expect to integrate them. But while I don't think birthright citizenship necessarily needs to be a human right of a child or anything, the children are generally the immigrants that a country most benefits from, they don't have the same amount of baggage that adult immigrants inevitably come with.
On the specific topic of birthright citizenship, I think "anchor babies" are an abuse of the system. I also think they are a very tiny part of birthright citizenship and can be dealt with fairly simply: if the parents don't have residency permits, they are sent back to where they came from. Their child should go along, or I guess the parents have the option of giving the child up for adoption, and then it goes into the system. Not a great outcome but the best we can hope for for a child whose parents would rather have it grow up in the USA without them than in X country with them.
This, btw, is based on the premise that there is such a thing as illegal migration, which is not mine. Just pointing out that birthright citizenship in particular should not be a wedge issue even for those who do think illegal immigration is a big problem.
On July 03 2026 00:30 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: There are college Olympians that perform with their peers. Especially track and field. Oregon had one that played football. This conversation is fucking stupid and you all you should feel ashamed. Move the fuck on.
^ E: I don't give a fuck if a mod bans me. This thread is fucking braindead. KwarK should be temp banned for participating because he fucking knows better and is dragging this shit out. Stop. There are far more important shit to discuss. Fucking hell. I already dislike posting but seeing this? Fuck.
User was temp banned for this post.
Well, I for one thank you for your sacrifice since it seems to have actually put an end to this.
This topic is bizarre because if it had it's own thread it would be a ghost town, but if JJR brings it up it will completely derail this thread for 10 or more pages.
I get that it's on topic in this case as it was prompted by the SC decision, but fucking hell, take it to a blog, separate thread, whatever, this is such obvious wedge issue abused by the right wingers and apparently most people just can't help themselves in taking the bait.
Discussing why this is the case instead of 10 people taking as if they are qualified to speak about pro sports, hormones, genetics and other shit here seems like a much more worthwhile discussion for a US Politics thread.
Or, we could, you know, like DPB, I and others tried to on several occasions get back to the topic of US Politics.
I actually thought it was interesting precisely because it wasn't JJR and oBlade vs the world. Sure they stirred the pot a bit, but this was mostly a spectrum of progressive opinions with different ideas. A lot more interesting a debate than "Trump is bad, hey oBlade want to come and tell us why this idiotic thing Trump did was actually genius? Hurr durr".
Is it an important issue to discuss? No. Did the discussion go on for more pages than it should have? Yes. But it was interesting, at least, with a bunch of interesting people giving opposite opinions on the matter.
That's kind of my point, they thrown the chum in the water and enjoy people arguing with each other because it's something that can divide the left.
We all agree that Trump fucking sucks, but as long as we can all spend a lot of energy and time attacking each other over 0.0001 % of the population who might be participating in sports, doing purity testing and butting our heads into the lives of an incredibly oppressed minority, they win.
Trans folks are, along with immigrants the people who have, domestically suffered the most from Trump's fascist policies, and no one in this thread gives a fuck or mentions it, I'm happy to discuss this instead of things that don't matter and things that none of us are qualified to discuss.
These people are actively losing rights, having laws enacted targeting them, being blamed for mass shootings and demonized on a daily basis in right wing media, but let's all just spend thousands of words legislating which sports they should be allowed to participate and why.
On July 03 2026 00:30 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: There are college Olympians that perform with their peers. Especially track and field. Oregon had one that played football. This conversation is fucking stupid and you all you should feel ashamed. Move the fuck on.
^ E: I don't give a fuck if a mod bans me. This thread is fucking braindead. KwarK should be temp banned for participating because he fucking knows better and is dragging this shit out. Stop. There are far more important shit to discuss. Fucking hell. I already dislike posting but seeing this? Fuck.
User was temp banned for this post.
Well, I for one thank you for your sacrifice since it seems to have actually put an end to this.
This topic is bizarre because if it had it's own thread it would be a ghost town, but if JJR brings it up it will completely derail this thread for 10 or more pages.
I get that it's on topic in this case as it was prompted by the SC decision, but fucking hell, take it to a blog, separate thread, whatever, this is such obvious wedge issue abused by the right wingers and apparently most people just can't help themselves in taking the bait.
Discussing why this is the case instead of 10 people taking as if they are qualified to speak about pro sports, hormones, genetics and other shit here seems like a much more worthwhile discussion for a US Politics thread.
Or, we could, you know, like DPB, I and others tried to on several occasions get back to the topic of US Politics.
I actually thought it was interesting precisely because it wasn't JJR and oBlade vs the world. Sure they stirred the pot a bit, but this was mostly a spectrum of progressive opinions with different ideas. A lot more interesting a debate than "Trump is bad, hey oBlade want to come and tell us why this idiotic thing Trump did was actually genius? Hurr durr".
Is it an important issue to discuss? No. Did the discussion go on for more pages than it should have? Yes. But it was interesting, at least, with a bunch of interesting people giving opposite opinions on the matter.
Indeed, I’d basically agree entirely. Did go a bit long and ended up circular, but I found various positions interesting. And given it’s a discussion board rather than say a political activist organisation, interesting can trump other considerations.
And hey, I can’t be alone in just being burned out reiterating Trump being generally shit for a decade at this point.
On July 03 2026 00:30 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: There are college Olympians that perform with their peers. Especially track and field. Oregon had one that played football. This conversation is fucking stupid and you all you should feel ashamed. Move the fuck on.
^ E: I don't give a fuck if a mod bans me. This thread is fucking braindead. KwarK should be temp banned for participating because he fucking knows better and is dragging this shit out. Stop. There are far more important shit to discuss. Fucking hell. I already dislike posting but seeing this? Fuck.
User was temp banned for this post.
Well, I for one thank you for your sacrifice since it seems to have actually put an end to this.
This topic is bizarre because if it had it's own thread it would be a ghost town, but if JJR brings it up it will completely derail this thread for 10 or more pages.
I get that it's on topic in this case as it was prompted by the SC decision, but fucking hell, take it to a blog, separate thread, whatever, this is such obvious wedge issue abused by the right wingers and apparently most people just can't help themselves in taking the bait.
Discussing why this is the case instead of 10 people taking as if they are qualified to speak about pro sports, hormones, genetics and other shit here seems like a much more worthwhile discussion for a US Politics thread.
Or, we could, you know, like DPB, I and others tried to on several occasions get back to the topic of US Politics.
I actually thought it was interesting precisely because it wasn't JJR and oBlade vs the world. Sure they stirred the pot a bit, but this was mostly a spectrum of progressive opinions with different ideas. A lot more interesting a debate than "Trump is bad, hey oBlade want to come and tell us why this idiotic thing Trump did was actually genius? Hurr durr".
Is it an important issue to discuss? No. Did the discussion go on for more pages than it should have? Yes. But it was interesting, at least, with a bunch of interesting people giving opposite opinions on the matter.
That's kind of my point, they thrown the chum in the water and enjoy people arguing with each other because it's something that can divide the left.
We all agree that Trump fucking sucks, but as long as we can all spend a lot of energy and time attacking each other over 0.0001 % of the population who might be participating in sports, doing purity testing and butting our heads into the lives of an incredibly oppressed minority, they win.
Trans folks are, along with immigrants the people who have, domestically suffered the most from Trump's fascist policies, and no one in this thread gives a fuck or mentions it, I'm happy to discuss this instead of things that don't matter and things that none of us are qualified to discuss.
These people are actively losing rights, having laws enacted targeting them, being blamed for mass shootings and demonized on a daily basis in right wing media, but let's all just spend thousands of words legislating which sports they should be allowed to participate and why.
If people who are generally very pro-trans, and decry various discriminatory practices aren’t discussing this particular issue, who’s going to take up that baton and run with it?
Whether something should be important, or reasonable won’t always correlate with whether it is to many people. And with the general (ridiculous) trans panic, sports seems to be a big vector driving resentment that expands outwards to other domains.
I don’t think it’s as crudely simple as throwing a bone out defusing wider prejudice, that’s obviously not going to happen with many folks. But in the past epoch I haven’t found repeating mantras like ‘trans men/women are women/men’ as the answer to every issue others have has proven particularly effective either.
If it was we wouldn’t be seeing so much of this inhuman backlash to trans people in all sorts of locales.
On July 03 2026 18:38 ETisME wrote: I would say I am both "anti" immigration, and anti birthright citizenship. Mostly because the latter should have been pretty clear cut that it shouldn't be an open door for immigration.
I didn't want to mention this until I had time to properly fact check, but legally speaking, the reason why most US Citizens ARE US Citizens, is due to Birthright Citizenship. Obviously most Americans have not done, and would not pass a US citizenship test (if you put them through one without warning).
Now I understand, your particular gripe is against, specifically, the part of Birthright Citizenship that applies to children born in the US to non-citizen parents. Though it still seems your problem with it is still mostly basically 'it leads to immigration'.
On July 03 2026 18:38 ETisME wrote: I think you and I are probably similar age. Our generation, including my cousins over in the US and Canada turned out the way you are describing. At least in many ways we are integrated. But we didn't grow up under an anti-Australia/American/Christianity culture, and we certainly didn't grow up with Wechat, Weibo, Xiaohongshu, tiktok etc.
If these babies eventually grew up and move to the US, how confident are you to say majority would turn out with pro-American mindset?
I mean, they'd likely to be more Pro-US if they grew up in the US as a US citizen compared to if they got kicked out of the country, to grow up in a country that is, presumedly, less Pro-US. That being my point, people are generally shaped by the society they grow up in, we aren't as special and individual as we like to think. Children, who have up to that point done nothing wrong (or much of anything at all... in life) more so than even other immigrants.
I don't think there is an anti-Australia or anti-Christianity culture now, even on Wechat/TikTok. Australia is barely an afterthought globally, and maybe as a staunch secularist, we have very different definitions of what anti-Christianity is.
Calling for destruction of churches, persecutions of Christians, burning of the bibles is to me, anti-Christianity. Not letting religious beliefs be the basis of laws is just good old fashion secularism. We (Australia) have been pretty secular as long as I've been alive.
Anti-US, maybe, but they, as a nation, have been unilaterally causing a lot of chaos around the world for the longest time. They currently have a president who has tried to wage a trade war simultaneously against most of the world, including most of their allies, and militarily threatened a couple of them. I'm not confident at this stage any particular person in the US with any ounce of media consumption with origins outside the US is necessarily going to come out with a pro-US mindset.
A bit of outside perspective might, in this case, be a good thing. Not to say Wechat/xiaohongshu are going to be very fair sources of this perspective, but their typical local media diet isn't that fair/balanced either.
On July 03 2026 18:38 ETisME wrote: Immigration comes with the risks, that's totally understandable, but it doesn't mean the environment isn't changing that enables more of these "ultra nationalistic" chinese sleeper agents. I would bet the US, Australia is far more prone to Chinese spies than ever before, with many willing to sell out. Hell there's just been another case in the UK just couple days ago: https://www.nbcnews.com/world/asia/uk-border-official-former-hong-kong-cop-sentenced-spying-china-rcna350721
I would bet they are too, but not due to immigration, just due to China's greater wealth and capabilities at espionage. Look, we have no shortage of people willing to sell out prior to China's increased capabilities and no shortage of people now who are willing to sell out for something as trivial as money. I start to appreciate over the years, just how naive we've been on this front.
From Federal ministers being influenced to align with CCP interests, to all these groups pressuring and monitoring academics/students, to our Governor General taking US money as he dismissed our PM. To a fucking federal minister who was, at the time, a paid informant to the US, being instrumental in the internal party ousting of a then sitting prime minister (somehow, this is still not illegal).
I think we have very different outlooks on what the biggest foreign influence threats are, way more than any other factor, we need to have better laws and monitoring against foreign influence, and actually enforce them. While less, or no immigration might technically make espionage more difficult, I think it's it's less than a drop in the bucket compared to how little rigor there is in our foreign influence laws, how little awareness there is of the risk, and how we've look the other way and don't even try to enforce even the existing rules for certain... allies.
On July 03 2026 18:38 ETisME wrote: Problem is what those communities are and what sort of culture they are bringing and are they really integrating? I certainly don't think Chinese communities here in Australia is any way or form more pro-Australian 10 years ago than what it is now.
Again, the children/second generation? I think they are about the same. Societies shape the people just as people shape society. Are they MORE pro-Australia than other immigrant children/second generations of immigrants from 10 years ago? No. Again, about the same. Are they more pro-Australia than their first generation parents/people around the community that were born overseas? Yes, much more, it's not an overt rara nationalism (we aren't the US, we don't make children pledge allegiance to a flag in school), Australia is just literally a part of who they are and how they think, they can't help it.
The "sort of culture they are bringing" are brought by first generation immigrants (yes, this this includes a younger cohort of people that immigrated around tertiary education, that does not make them second generation immigrants, they are also not children, they are first generation immigrants like any other, they grew up outside of this culture). Again, our parents didn't really integrate either (Ok I don't know you, maybe yours did), you might be able to change a single person who grew up in another culture, you will not change a whole demographic (or several demographics) of them. It didn't matter, our parents lives are unfortunately finite, their legacy will ultimately be us, and those younger than us born here. (This is not an indictment of first generation immigrants btw, just that it's no different from previous first generation immigrants, it's ALWAYS hard to integrate for them, has always been)
That's why we have these 'Asian' suburbs where you can almost go your entire everyday life only having to speak in your native tongue, the second generation sure as shit didn't make those, or have need for those, they exist for the elderly, the never-been-integrated and the newly arrive. We, who probably have more in common with the second generation than our parents, did integrate, we went to school here, we grew up here, it would be a miracle if we did not integrate.
The subsequent second generations are the same, we aren't special, the same circumstances produce broadly the same results.
On July 03 2026 00:30 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: There are college Olympians that perform with their peers. Especially track and field. Oregon had one that played football. This conversation is fucking stupid and you all you should feel ashamed. Move the fuck on.
^ E: I don't give a fuck if a mod bans me. This thread is fucking braindead. KwarK should be temp banned for participating because he fucking knows better and is dragging this shit out. Stop. There are far more important shit to discuss. Fucking hell. I already dislike posting but seeing this? Fuck.
User was temp banned for this post.
Well, I for one thank you for your sacrifice since it seems to have actually put an end to this.
This topic is bizarre because if it had it's own thread it would be a ghost town, but if JJR brings it up it will completely derail this thread for 10 or more pages.
I get that it's on topic in this case as it was prompted by the SC decision, but fucking hell, take it to a blog, separate thread, whatever, this is such obvious wedge issue abused by the right wingers and apparently most people just can't help themselves in taking the bait.
Discussing why this is the case instead of 10 people taking as if they are qualified to speak about pro sports, hormones, genetics and other shit here seems like a much more worthwhile discussion for a US Politics thread.
Or, we could, you know, like DPB, I and others tried to on several occasions get back to the topic of US Politics.
I actually thought it was interesting precisely because it wasn't JJR and oBlade vs the world. Sure they stirred the pot a bit, but this was mostly a spectrum of progressive opinions with different ideas. A lot more interesting a debate than "Trump is bad, hey oBlade want to come and tell us why this idiotic thing Trump did was actually genius? Hurr durr".
Is it an important issue to discuss? No. Did the discussion go on for more pages than it should have? Yes. But it was interesting, at least, with a bunch of interesting people giving opposite opinions on the matter.
Indeed, I’d basically agree entirely. Did go a bit long and ended up circular, but I found various positions interesting. And given it’s a discussion board rather than say a political activist organisation, interesting can trump other considerations.
And hey, I can’t be alone in just being burned out reiterating Trump being generally shit for a decade at this point.
On July 03 2026 00:30 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: There are college Olympians that perform with their peers. Especially track and field. Oregon had one that played football. This conversation is fucking stupid and you all you should feel ashamed. Move the fuck on.
^ E: I don't give a fuck if a mod bans me. This thread is fucking braindead. KwarK should be temp banned for participating because he fucking knows better and is dragging this shit out. Stop. There are far more important shit to discuss. Fucking hell. I already dislike posting but seeing this? Fuck.
User was temp banned for this post.
Well, I for one thank you for your sacrifice since it seems to have actually put an end to this.
This topic is bizarre because if it had it's own thread it would be a ghost town, but if JJR brings it up it will completely derail this thread for 10 or more pages.
I get that it's on topic in this case as it was prompted by the SC decision, but fucking hell, take it to a blog, separate thread, whatever, this is such obvious wedge issue abused by the right wingers and apparently most people just can't help themselves in taking the bait.
Discussing why this is the case instead of 10 people taking as if they are qualified to speak about pro sports, hormones, genetics and other shit here seems like a much more worthwhile discussion for a US Politics thread.
Or, we could, you know, like DPB, I and others tried to on several occasions get back to the topic of US Politics.
I actually thought it was interesting precisely because it wasn't JJR and oBlade vs the world. Sure they stirred the pot a bit, but this was mostly a spectrum of progressive opinions with different ideas. A lot more interesting a debate than "Trump is bad, hey oBlade want to come and tell us why this idiotic thing Trump did was actually genius? Hurr durr".
Is it an important issue to discuss? No. Did the discussion go on for more pages than it should have? Yes. But it was interesting, at least, with a bunch of interesting people giving opposite opinions on the matter.
That's kind of my point, they thrown the chum in the water and enjoy people arguing with each other because it's something that can divide the left.
We all agree that Trump fucking sucks, but as long as we can all spend a lot of energy and time attacking each other over 0.0001 % of the population who might be participating in sports, doing purity testing and butting our heads into the lives of an incredibly oppressed minority, they win.
Trans folks are, along with immigrants the people who have, domestically suffered the most from Trump's fascist policies, and no one in this thread gives a fuck or mentions it, I'm happy to discuss this instead of things that don't matter and things that none of us are qualified to discuss.
These people are actively losing rights, having laws enacted targeting them, being blamed for mass shootings and demonized on a daily basis in right wing media, but let's all just spend thousands of words legislating which sports they should be allowed to participate and why.
If people who are generally very pro-trans, and decry various discriminatory practices aren’t discussing this particular issue, who’s going to take up that baton and run with it?
Whether something should be important, or reasonable won’t always correlate with whether it is to many people. And with the general (ridiculous) trans panic, sports seems to be a big vector driving resentment that expands outwards to other domains.
I don’t think it’s as crudely simple as throwing a bone out defusing wider prejudice, that’s obviously not going to happen with many folks. But in the past epoch I haven’t found repeating mantras like ‘trans men/women are women/men’ as the answer to every issue others have has proven particularly effective either.
If it was we wouldn’t be seeing so much of this inhuman backlash to trans people in all sorts of locales.
It wasn't JJR and oBlade because others took up (generally more refined/intellectualized versions of) Conservative positions.
The whitewashing of MLK Jr. is a big part of this, but progress doesn't come from convincing oppositional people with correct, nuanced, and detailed rational/moral argument. It comes from leverage and leverage comes from organizing people that already (at least mostly on a particular issue) agree with you.
That Trump is president should be a pretty clear example of this for people. Though "organize" is probably a bit too generous for Trump, he more "activated" the otherwise disengaged people that already agreed with him about some things.
On July 03 2026 00:30 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: There are college Olympians that perform with their peers. Especially track and field. Oregon had one that played football. This conversation is fucking stupid and you all you should feel ashamed. Move the fuck on.
^ E: I don't give a fuck if a mod bans me. This thread is fucking braindead. KwarK should be temp banned for participating because he fucking knows better and is dragging this shit out. Stop. There are far more important shit to discuss. Fucking hell. I already dislike posting but seeing this? Fuck.
User was temp banned for this post.
Well, I for one thank you for your sacrifice since it seems to have actually put an end to this.
This topic is bizarre because if it had it's own thread it would be a ghost town, but if JJR brings it up it will completely derail this thread for 10 or more pages.
I get that it's on topic in this case as it was prompted by the SC decision, but fucking hell, take it to a blog, separate thread, whatever, this is such obvious wedge issue abused by the right wingers and apparently most people just can't help themselves in taking the bait.
Discussing why this is the case instead of 10 people taking as if they are qualified to speak about pro sports, hormones, genetics and other shit here seems like a much more worthwhile discussion for a US Politics thread.
Or, we could, you know, like DPB, I and others tried to on several occasions get back to the topic of US Politics.
I actually thought it was interesting precisely because it wasn't JJR and oBlade vs the world. Sure they stirred the pot a bit, but this was mostly a spectrum of progressive opinions with different ideas. A lot more interesting a debate than "Trump is bad, hey oBlade want to come and tell us why this idiotic thing Trump did was actually genius? Hurr durr".
Is it an important issue to discuss? No. Did the discussion go on for more pages than it should have? Yes. But it was interesting, at least, with a bunch of interesting people giving opposite opinions on the matter.
Indeed, I’d basically agree entirely. Did go a bit long and ended up circular, but I found various positions interesting. And given it’s a discussion board rather than say a political activist organisation, interesting can trump other considerations.
And hey, I can’t be alone in just being burned out reiterating Trump being generally shit for a decade at this point.
On July 03 2026 20:56 Jankisa wrote:
On July 03 2026 20:43 Acrofales wrote:
On July 03 2026 19:35 Jankisa wrote:
On July 03 2026 10:02 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
On July 03 2026 00:30 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: There are college Olympians that perform with their peers. Especially track and field. Oregon had one that played football. This conversation is fucking stupid and you all you should feel ashamed. Move the fuck on.
^ E: I don't give a fuck if a mod bans me. This thread is fucking braindead. KwarK should be temp banned for participating because he fucking knows better and is dragging this shit out. Stop. There are far more important shit to discuss. Fucking hell. I already dislike posting but seeing this? Fuck.
User was temp banned for this post.
Well, I for one thank you for your sacrifice since it seems to have actually put an end to this.
This topic is bizarre because if it had it's own thread it would be a ghost town, but if JJR brings it up it will completely derail this thread for 10 or more pages.
I get that it's on topic in this case as it was prompted by the SC decision, but fucking hell, take it to a blog, separate thread, whatever, this is such obvious wedge issue abused by the right wingers and apparently most people just can't help themselves in taking the bait.
Discussing why this is the case instead of 10 people taking as if they are qualified to speak about pro sports, hormones, genetics and other shit here seems like a much more worthwhile discussion for a US Politics thread.
Or, we could, you know, like DPB, I and others tried to on several occasions get back to the topic of US Politics.
I actually thought it was interesting precisely because it wasn't JJR and oBlade vs the world. Sure they stirred the pot a bit, but this was mostly a spectrum of progressive opinions with different ideas. A lot more interesting a debate than "Trump is bad, hey oBlade want to come and tell us why this idiotic thing Trump did was actually genius? Hurr durr".
Is it an important issue to discuss? No. Did the discussion go on for more pages than it should have? Yes. But it was interesting, at least, with a bunch of interesting people giving opposite opinions on the matter.
That's kind of my point, they thrown the chum in the water and enjoy people arguing with each other because it's something that can divide the left.
We all agree that Trump fucking sucks, but as long as we can all spend a lot of energy and time attacking each other over 0.0001 % of the population who might be participating in sports, doing purity testing and butting our heads into the lives of an incredibly oppressed minority, they win.
Trans folks are, along with immigrants the people who have, domestically suffered the most from Trump's fascist policies, and no one in this thread gives a fuck or mentions it, I'm happy to discuss this instead of things that don't matter and things that none of us are qualified to discuss.
These people are actively losing rights, having laws enacted targeting them, being blamed for mass shootings and demonized on a daily basis in right wing media, but let's all just spend thousands of words legislating which sports they should be allowed to participate and why.
If people who are generally very pro-trans, and decry various discriminatory practices aren’t discussing this particular issue, who’s going to take up that baton and run with it?
Whether something should be important, or reasonable won’t always correlate with whether it is to many people. And with the general (ridiculous) trans panic, sports seems to be a big vector driving resentment that expands outwards to other domains.
I don’t think it’s as crudely simple as throwing a bone out defusing wider prejudice, that’s obviously not going to happen with many folks. But in the past epoch I haven’t found repeating mantras like ‘trans men/women are women/men’ as the answer to every issue others have has proven particularly effective either.
If it was we wouldn’t be seeing so much of this inhuman backlash to trans people in all sorts of locales.
It wasn't JJR and oBlade because others took up (generally more refined/intellectualized versions of) Conservative positions.
The whitewashing of MLK Jr. is a big part of this, but progress doesn't come from convincing oppositional people with correct, nuanced, and detailed rational/moral argument. It comes from leverage and leverage comes from organizing people that already (at least mostly on a particular issue) agree with you.
That Trump is president should be a pretty clear example of this for people. Though "organize" is probably a bit too generous for Trump, he more "activated" the otherwise disengaged people that already agreed with him about some things.
I agree with your points here. Can you please elaborate on how the whitewashing of MLK Jr. connects to this?
On July 03 2026 00:30 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: There are college Olympians that perform with their peers. Especially track and field. Oregon had one that played football. This conversation is fucking stupid and you all you should feel ashamed. Move the fuck on.
^ E: I don't give a fuck if a mod bans me. This thread is fucking braindead. KwarK should be temp banned for participating because he fucking knows better and is dragging this shit out. Stop. There are far more important shit to discuss. Fucking hell. I already dislike posting but seeing this? Fuck.
User was temp banned for this post.
Well, I for one thank you for your sacrifice since it seems to have actually put an end to this.
This topic is bizarre because if it had it's own thread it would be a ghost town, but if JJR brings it up it will completely derail this thread for 10 or more pages.
I get that it's on topic in this case as it was prompted by the SC decision, but fucking hell, take it to a blog, separate thread, whatever, this is such obvious wedge issue abused by the right wingers and apparently most people just can't help themselves in taking the bait.
Discussing why this is the case instead of 10 people taking as if they are qualified to speak about pro sports, hormones, genetics and other shit here seems like a much more worthwhile discussion for a US Politics thread.
Or, we could, you know, like DPB, I and others tried to on several occasions get back to the topic of US Politics.
I actually thought it was interesting precisely because it wasn't JJR and oBlade vs the world. Sure they stirred the pot a bit, but this was mostly a spectrum of progressive opinions with different ideas. A lot more interesting a debate than "Trump is bad, hey oBlade want to come and tell us why this idiotic thing Trump did was actually genius? Hurr durr".
Is it an important issue to discuss? No. Did the discussion go on for more pages than it should have? Yes. But it was interesting, at least, with a bunch of interesting people giving opposite opinions on the matter.
Indeed, I’d basically agree entirely. Did go a bit long and ended up circular, but I found various positions interesting. And given it’s a discussion board rather than say a political activist organisation, interesting can trump other considerations.
And hey, I can’t be alone in just being burned out reiterating Trump being generally shit for a decade at this point.
On July 03 2026 20:56 Jankisa wrote:
On July 03 2026 20:43 Acrofales wrote:
On July 03 2026 19:35 Jankisa wrote:
On July 03 2026 10:02 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
On July 03 2026 00:30 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: There are college Olympians that perform with their peers. Especially track and field. Oregon had one that played football. This conversation is fucking stupid and you all you should feel ashamed. Move the fuck on.
^ E: I don't give a fuck if a mod bans me. This thread is fucking braindead. KwarK should be temp banned for participating because he fucking knows better and is dragging this shit out. Stop. There are far more important shit to discuss. Fucking hell. I already dislike posting but seeing this? Fuck.
User was temp banned for this post.
Well, I for one thank you for your sacrifice since it seems to have actually put an end to this.
This topic is bizarre because if it had it's own thread it would be a ghost town, but if JJR brings it up it will completely derail this thread for 10 or more pages.
I get that it's on topic in this case as it was prompted by the SC decision, but fucking hell, take it to a blog, separate thread, whatever, this is such obvious wedge issue abused by the right wingers and apparently most people just can't help themselves in taking the bait.
Discussing why this is the case instead of 10 people taking as if they are qualified to speak about pro sports, hormones, genetics and other shit here seems like a much more worthwhile discussion for a US Politics thread.
Or, we could, you know, like DPB, I and others tried to on several occasions get back to the topic of US Politics.
I actually thought it was interesting precisely because it wasn't JJR and oBlade vs the world. Sure they stirred the pot a bit, but this was mostly a spectrum of progressive opinions with different ideas. A lot more interesting a debate than "Trump is bad, hey oBlade want to come and tell us why this idiotic thing Trump did was actually genius? Hurr durr".
Is it an important issue to discuss? No. Did the discussion go on for more pages than it should have? Yes. But it was interesting, at least, with a bunch of interesting people giving opposite opinions on the matter.
That's kind of my point, they thrown the chum in the water and enjoy people arguing with each other because it's something that can divide the left.
We all agree that Trump fucking sucks, but as long as we can all spend a lot of energy and time attacking each other over 0.0001 % of the population who might be participating in sports, doing purity testing and butting our heads into the lives of an incredibly oppressed minority, they win.
Trans folks are, along with immigrants the people who have, domestically suffered the most from Trump's fascist policies, and no one in this thread gives a fuck or mentions it, I'm happy to discuss this instead of things that don't matter and things that none of us are qualified to discuss.
These people are actively losing rights, having laws enacted targeting them, being blamed for mass shootings and demonized on a daily basis in right wing media, but let's all just spend thousands of words legislating which sports they should be allowed to participate and why.
If people who are generally very pro-trans, and decry various discriminatory practices aren’t discussing this particular issue, who’s going to take up that baton and run with it?
Whether something should be important, or reasonable won’t always correlate with whether it is to many people. And with the general (ridiculous) trans panic, sports seems to be a big vector driving resentment that expands outwards to other domains.
I don’t think it’s as crudely simple as throwing a bone out defusing wider prejudice, that’s obviously not going to happen with many folks. But in the past epoch I haven’t found repeating mantras like ‘trans men/women are women/men’ as the answer to every issue others have has proven particularly effective either.
If it was we wouldn’t be seeing so much of this inhuman backlash to trans people in all sorts of locales.
It wasn't JJR and oBlade because others took up (generally more refined/intellectualized versions of) Conservative positions.
The whitewashing of MLK Jr. is a big part of this, but progress doesn't come from convincing oppositional people with correct, nuanced, and detailed rational/moral argument. It comes from leverage and leverage comes from organizing people that already (at least mostly on a particular issue) agree with you.
That Trump is president should be a pretty clear example of this for people. Though "organize" is probably a bit too generous for Trump, he more "activated" the otherwise disengaged people that already agreed with him about some things.
I agree with your points here. Can you please elaborate on how the whitewashing of MLK Jr. connects to this?
Basically the TLDR of MLK Jr. that most people internalized (not sure how kids around the country/world are being taught this nowadays) was that he organized legal/peaceful protests and speeches then white people in the US saw the violent response from the state and heard MLK Jr.'s speeches, had some sort of moral awakening, and then agreed that Black people deserved civil/constitutional rights.
That's just not what happened and there's a plethora of writing attempting to describe the gap from a variety of angles (The Montgomery Bus Boycott and the Women Who Started It comes to mind since it covers what many people remember as just some random woman tired from a days work refusing to give up her seat then MLK Jr. came and saved the day or whatever). I could describe my interpretation beyond my point on leverage, but I think it's important for people to find their own new understanding of what the civil rights movement actually was when they realize what they believe is grossly mis/underinformed.
As it sits, people's misunderstanding of the Civil Rights Movement helps form the base of a fundamentally wrong analysis of how politics works that stands in the way of our ostensibly common goals, whatever they may be (human rights in these cases).
On July 03 2026 22:09 WombaT wrote: If people who are generally very pro-trans, and decry various discriminatory practices aren’t discussing this particular issue, who’s going to take up that baton and run with it?
Whether something should be important, or reasonable won’t always correlate with whether it is to many people. And with the general (ridiculous) trans panic, sports seems to be a big vector driving resentment that expands outwards to other domains.
I don’t think it’s as crudely simple as throwing a bone out defusing wider prejudice, that’s obviously not going to happen with many folks. But in the past epoch I haven’t found repeating mantras like ‘trans men/women are women/men’ as the answer to every issue others have has proven particularly effective either.
If it was we wouldn’t be seeing so much of this inhuman backlash to trans people in all sorts of locales.
I am generally very pro-Trans and very pro-Abortion. I don't think I'm qualified or that I should be prosecuting my beliefs regarding this because it's not my place and any discussion of "well, life begins at inception" and "well, intersex people have advantages" just gives credence to people who are anti those things.
40 years ago it was "can animals be gay, is being gay natural" and millions of bigots used these "discussions" to drag people down into the mud with them in order to prevent progress.
30 years ago it was "can gay people rise children, won't other children be cruel to them".
20 years ago (at least in my country) it was "why is there no straight pride, why do they get to parade around", into "we are religious and marriage is between a man and a woman".
10 years ago we had "won't these trans people harass women and girls in their bathrooms".
We are now at "is it really fair to let them play sports".
Every step of the way the conservatives were using these issues to have people who are generally tolerant and good get lost in these stupid discussions in order to distract them from real issues.
Sicking people at each other and having them waste energy arguing over bullshit is how we lose, "trans men/women are women/men" is the only valid answer to these assholes, same as "gay people are normal and should have all rights anyone else has", it's incredible to me that you don't see that.
And before you or any of the others say "but if ‘trans men/women are women/men’ does that mean that they should be let to play sports" the only valid answer is who gives a fuck leave that to the school/organization. Period.
EPT
