EPTUS Politics Feedback Thread - Page 323
| Forum Index > Website Feedback |
|
Broetchenholer
Germany1964 Posts
| ||
KwarK
United States44242 Posts
On July 21 2025 03:23 Broetchenholer wrote: You are not stupid enough to make that argument. MP is not suggesting keeping illegal immigrants as second tier humans to abuse when he says he is against deporting them and that keeping them is a boon for the economy. He is for allowing them to stay because they want to be there and can contribute to society and I am pretty sure he is for naturalizing them in the us. And you would know this cause you have argued with him for a decade. He literally is. The economic argument for them is that they provide a pool of labour that is cheaper than traditional citizen labour because you don't have to provide them with benefits or minimum wage or weekends and if they complain too much you can set ICE on them. People don't specifically say that, they say "consider all the economic benefits" and leave the how unspoken. It's like promoting beef without talking about the killing of cows. It's a perfectly simple moral question and he landed on the wrong side of it. Either we want them here, in which case they should get the full benefits and protections of legal status, or we do not want them here in which case we should want them repatriated humanely. That's the only moral stance. You can't land in the middle with "they can stay as long as we don't have to treat them like people" which is what his establishment and recognition of an illegal immigrant population amounts to. That's some bullshit. You either want them or you don't, you can't want the labour but not the people. As for naturalizing them down the line if they work and contribute to the economy, I dunno man, are we sure we want to go with "work will make them free" as the slogan for his new two tier system? That seems a little too on the nose, even for me. Edit: My stance on this is fairly simple, there shouldn't be an implicit toleration of a large illegal immigrant population who exist without rights or legal recourse because that situation is ethically intolerable. If congress acting to express the will of the people legislate to give them all legal status then great, as far as I'm concerned that's problem solved. We no longer have a large illegal immigrant population. If these people are now raped by an employer then they can go to the police. The exploitation intrinsic in the system of tolerating without legislating has been fixed. If congress do not give them legal status then they should be repatriated humanely. The middle ground in which you de facto tolerate their presence by failing to enforce immigration laws but fail to recognize their presence by giving them rights and protections is total bullshit. Let's say that MP is for allowing them to stay but is unable to get legislation passed to provide them with any kind of legal status. At that point he is perpetuating the second tier captive population for the economic benefits of the first tier. That's the problem with any stance of "let them stay and worry about the legislation later". It's a single issue and must be taken as a single issue. Also it doesn't actually matter one bit whether they want to be exploited. Whether they might prefer to be at the mercy of an employer who can call ICE on them if they complain about unsafe equipment because it's still better than conditions back home. It has been argued for decades that children love the opportunity to work in sweat shops because without sweat shops they'd have no work at all. That multinationals wouldn't create all the sweat shop jobs in their cities if the children weren't permitted to work in them. Our obligation not to exploit vulnerable people is not absolved by the vulnerable people preferring our exploitation to whatever shittier alternative they have. Insisting that they want to stay as an excuse for continuing exploitation is morally abhorrent. | ||
|
Broetchenholer
Germany1964 Posts
That the US would rather act as if these workers did not exist while abusing them for their cheapness and being outside the social net and tax is for him a symptom of the US not allowing enough immigrants legally into the country. He would 100% prefer if they were all paying taxes, having healthcare and living comfortable lives. For some reason you see the broken system of US immigration, see someone that hates it and would love to abolish it in favor of the undocumented already living there and say he has to love seeing them abused because he is not in favor of getting them out of the country. Seriously, i don't mean to insult you here, do you have trouble understanding the motivation of people, because the way you are arguing against what he has written down ignores a ton of context that i think is fairly obvious. | ||
|
KwarK
United States44242 Posts
He wasn't saying pass legislation first and then enforce borders per the new policy which grandfathers in legal recognition of previously illegal immigrants. If he was saying that then I'd be fine with it, that'd be fully compliant with my "enforce the laws" stance. He was saying "don't enforce the laws, enforcing the laws is racist". You can't have a legal population of workers if you don't enforce the laws because enforcing the laws is literally what makes them a legal population of workers. It's inseparable. If you don’t deport people here illegally and if you allow people here illegally to work then what you’re arguing for is, by definition, an illegal immigrant pool of workers. There’s no way around that. Whatever your stance on what the law is, if your stance is against enforcement of that law then your stance is in favour of toleration of people with no legal status. | ||
|
Broetchenholer
Germany1964 Posts
| ||
|
KwarK
United States44242 Posts
It goes back to the old guild vs open market divide. The guild members believed that the existence of the guild and the monopolization of the right to perform a certain type of labour provided a higher standard of living for the members because they could set rates, control the supply of labour, and monopolize the economic activity. They did this through control of trade secrets, enshrining their rights in the law with lobbying, and violence against non guild members competing against them. Whereas the open market believers argued that it stifled free competition and innovation, that if the demand for labour exceeded that supplied by the guild members then naturally anyone who could perform the activity should be allowed to perform it and get paid for doing so. Supply and demand should rule, it should not be artificially constrained. The pro guild ideology bled into the trade unionist ideology and became one of the cornerstones of the socialist left whereas the pro competition ideology is foundational to Libertarianism. That's why Old Labour always opposed the EEC (now EU), they didn't want British steel workers competing with German ones, they wanted to maintain an exclusive right to sell steel in Britain free of competition. And conversely it's why the Conservatives were very pro EEC, they wanted the right to buy a superior German car over a shitty British car, they didn't want to be forced to subsidize the workers of a failed business. The monopolization of labour within an area by citizens, whether it is of the nation or of the EU as a whole in the case of EU nations, is an extension of that old guild mentality. And the EU remains highly protectionist with the common external tariff, tight immigration restrictions, and internal subsidies. Over time the coalitions that make up our larger political divisions have evolved and we now have very strange bedfellows. The economic right have allied with the social conservatives to enshrine and tighten the monopoly of the citizen worker on the sale of labour within the territory of the guild, despite it being antithetical to their core beliefs. Meanwhile the left have ditched their trade unionist roots and are now wondering why the hell all their traditional trade unionist base are voting for social conservatives as if they didn't abandon them first. People were somehow baffled that Corbyn didn't encourage his people to vote Remain as if they forgot that Old Labour never liked the EU in the first place. This isn't a left vs right thing, or at least not in the way you imagine it. Free movement of Labour outside of any artificially imposed state restrictions is very much an old school right wing idea. Neoliberalism defeated the traditional left and social conservatism has adopted the politically homeless trade unionist protectionism. It’s bizarro world in politics right now with self identifying leftists proudly proclaiming the most hardline free market beliefs of the most ardent capitalists. Repatriate humanely is the left wing position, pay them under the table is the right wing position. Self identifying leftists spent too long hanging out with neoliberals and forgot who they were. | ||
|
KwarK
United States44242 Posts
On July 21 2025 04:18 Broetchenholer wrote: Then he fucked up his argumentation. it does not invalidate where he is coming from. In current Trump's america, it is preferable for most undocumented to not have the laws enforced on because there is no path to citizenship. He wants American undocumented immigrants to become documented immigrants with an easy pass to citizenship and a fair share for the work they are doing. And this is very consistent with everything else he writes on this forum. And I feel like you know this and just berated him because you saw an opening for it. Firstly, I didn't berate him for it, I didn't even bring it up with him. I said it previously in response to a different discussion in a completely different topic in which he wasn't involved. He quoted my post from the US Politics Megathread in which I argued for enforcement of immigration laws as proof for a deranged argument he was making in a completely different topic about how I'm a racist because he, not me, compared Gazans to rabbits. That's how we got there. You keep trying to pin it on me but I wasn't involved in any of that nonsense. Secondly, and crucially, it doesn't actually matter what is preferable to undocumented immigrants. The children can yearn for the mines all they want but that doesn't make it ethical for me to employ them as miners. (note, the children yearn for the mines is a meme, I'm not saying that immigrants are children, in this case children is a standin for people vulnerable for economic exploitation, I'm saying that people can voluntarily submit themselves for economic exploitation within a capitalist system). That's some champagne socialist bullshit where liberals stand around and jerk each other off while saying shit like "Mexicans are such hard workers, the first company said it'd take a week to put a new roof on my building but Jorge and his team managed it in just 2 days" and "they're so family oriented, Jorge brought his kids with him too, I love that he was able to have that quality time with his family showing them how to properly tar a roof". The only stance that is compatible with basic human dignity is humane enforcement of the laws. Of course Jorge is a hard worker, he still has to make payments to the cartel for getting him across the border, you'll rarely see a more motivated worker than him. That's not a good thing. I don't want immigrants working 14 hour days on the roof in the hot sun without any safety lines. | ||
tofucake
Hyrule19237 Posts
cool it | ||
|
evilfatsh1t
Australia8916 Posts
if youre a mod you should be holding your posting to a higher standard rather than engaging in the same shit flinging like mp with the added condescension on top, knowing youll get away with it because well, youre a mod. | ||
|
KwarK
United States44242 Posts
I'm continually told that TL has extremely strict moderation which is applied to everyone but me and that I'm somehow abusing my powers to escape that moderation. Where is this strict moderation that would strike down anyone who dared speak against me? Who was the last person banned for standing up to me? | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9959 Posts
I've found the moderation to be very lax in those threads (in a good way tbh) and shitposts that I thought I might get warned for get let go about 100% of the time. If KwarK reported every post he saw as bullshit so other mods had to deal with them I'd have a problem with it, but clearly he doesn't. Whenever I've reported posts (twice in the last decade) they've been dealt with properly. There's no moderation issue here unless you think the moderation should be stricter, in which case you should be reporting stuff, but don't do that. | ||
|
Broetchenholer
Germany1964 Posts
There is a fucking song about it, LET IT GO ELSA! | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9959 Posts
On July 21 2025 15:14 Broetchenholer wrote: It's not about banning people, i don't want you or MP banned. I might want oBlade banned, but that's a different thing. I think we should strive to keep the conversation as civil as possible. I can understand why someone would warn MP for the behavior he has been exhibiting, because holy shit has this been stupid. I just don't think he can stop himself anymore. I believe KwarK might though. I have not seen him be unreasonably foaming at the mouth over something, if anything he is too analytical to let go of something. There is a fucking song about it, LET IT GO ELSA! I think one thing MP and KwarK share is a lack of embarrassment at having a multi page argument about previous posts that obviously no-one else cares about or wants to read. Surely it should get to a stage where they can both just say "fuck it let's not carry on". | ||
|
KwarK
United States44242 Posts
On July 21 2025 15:14 Broetchenholer wrote: I just don't think he can stop himself anymore. I believe KwarK might though. I have not seen him be unreasonably foaming at the mouth over something, if anything he is too analytical to let go of something. There is a fucking song about it, LET IT GO ELSA! This feels like quite a pivot from the previous complaint. The normal accusation levelled at me is that I'm held to a lower standard than other posters and skate by due to some kind of unspecified moderation abuse. If I'm understanding you correctly your complaint is that I'm acting the same way as the other pigs and rolling around in the same mud but you'd like to hold me to a higher standard than them. Not so much mod abuse as mod obligation. We already have one Eri posting exclusively considered and mature takes, do we really need a second? This feels like an attempt to flatter me into better posting and I'm highly suspicious of it. | ||
|
evilfatsh1t
Australia8916 Posts
On July 19 2025 17:33 KwarK wrote: No you. are childrens playground level of pettiness that probably shouldnt be made by a mod. id bet my left nut that there have been people who have been warned or temped for posts like these in the past. heck, id probably also bet that kwark himself dished them out. i mean that post specifically isnt THAT outrageous, but its an example of the nature of pettiness or immaturity kwark himself engages in. tbh i dont care that people shit post. its the internet and shitposting was what made reading forums fun. but over the years, accountability has become something of a characteristic in tl forums and so it becomes pretty fkin hypocritical if it doesnt apply to those that are enforcing it. maybe the enforcement has gotten more lax in recent times, but the average poster has probably seen or received enough warns or bans over the years that they no longer want to test the boundaries of acceptable shitposting and yet we see kwark skirt the rules the most of probably any poster left on these forums because whos going to hold him accountable? | ||
|
Excludos
Norway8278 Posts
On July 21 2025 09:58 tofucake wrote: y'all are dragging the thread into the feedback thread cool it Petitioning for a feedback thread for the feedback thread | ||
|
KwarK
United States44242 Posts
In this instance I think I tailored the response perfectly to where he was at. If not "no you" then what? I'm very happy to engage in discussions of political theory with people who are interested in doing so. But it'd be ridiculous to approach every poster in the same way, posters get the KwarK they deserve. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24253 Posts
On July 21 2025 17:52 KwarK wrote: I don't recall doing that. Certainly not "routinely" lol. + Show Spoiler + In general my posting style is to meet people where they're at. Different posters get a different levels of effort and goodwill. For example with Jimmi it's general amusement at his quirks but I don't actually reply to his posts anymore. When he brings up the miracle on ice or Pierre Trudeau or whatever I think there might be legitimately something going on with him so I'm just letting him be. There's a poster called stilt and every time he sees one of my posts he calls me a negationist and every time he does I say "no I'm not". I don't think he's worked out the joke there yet. In this instance I think I tailored the response perfectly to where he was at. If not "no you" then what? I'm very happy to engage in discussions of political theory with people who are interested in doing so. But it'd be ridiculous to approach every poster in the same way, posters get the KwarK they deserve. I remember you doing that to my posts during your crashout, but that's about it. | ||
|
KwarK
United States44242 Posts
On July 21 2025 18:07 GreenHorizons wrote: I don't recall doing that. Certainly not "routinely" lol. I remember you doing that to my posts during your crashout, but that's about it. I once said that the working class Americans you’re trying to mobilize would sooner beat you with a baton to maintain the current social structures than join your revolution. They just don’t like you and your ideas. You then spent a year telling me over and over that I was planning to beat you with a baton. The first few times I responded with denial and requests for any kind of citation but you wouldn’t provide one. The next few times I just went with negation. Eventually, and keep in mind I had literally no idea why you kept saying that I had a baton and planned to beat you with it, I started simply reversing it and insisting that you had a baton and planned to beat me with it. One of many examples of you simply deciding I said something and then bringing it up over and over. And never providing any opportunity to clarify because you wouldn’t make the effort to tell me which post of mine you’d decided to interpret in the stupidest possible way. Without knowing what you’d failed to read all I could do was say “I didn’t say that” and eventually just start putting words in your mouth. Incidentally putting words in your mouth did actually get you to stop doing it. Something about a golden rule. Edit: you actually quoted an example of yourself doing it there. In 2023 I said America under Trump was better than it was during the time of literal slaveowners, the trail of tears, and the Confederacy. Because it is. I hate Trump with a passion but I’m not looking at his presidency and wishing we could go back to the good old days of slavery. There’s a general historical upward trend and while Trump is an aberration he’s not bringing America back below the very low historical low points. I was very clear on this. Historical trend. Slaveowners. Monsters. Confederacy. Specific examples I called out to illustrate that the trend was away from those things. On August 14 2023 16:44 KwarK wrote: Trump is awful, of course. But is he historically awful? The US has had some real monsters in charge. Plus that time it broke into two countries because half of them wanted to own people. Two years later you, completely out of the blue and with no reference to the 2023 post, asserted that I supported Trump over Hillary in the 2016 election because I thought Trump was part of an upward trend. On April 12 2025 00:50 GreenHorizons wrote: Kwark was trying to convince people Trump winning the election [over Hillary in 2016] would be a sign of how the US is getting better There is absolutely no reading of “Trump’s America was better than the confederacy” that could lead you to believe that I supported Trump’s election victory over Hillary. None. It’s just not there. The preference order is Hillary, Trump, Confederacy. Trump winning the election was a bad thing because Trump was worse than Hillary. The Confederacy did not run in the 2016 ejection so I could not possibly have supported Trump’s campaign over the Confederacy. But for you that was enough. I said something completely different two years earlier and so you decided that I was a Trump supporter and no amount of denials would be enough. You still owe me an apology for that shit. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24253 Posts
On July 21 2025 18:20 KwarK wrote: I once said that the working class Americans you’re trying to mobilize would sooner beat you with a baton to maintain the current social structures than join your revolution. They just don’t like you and your ideas. You then spent a year telling me over and over that I was planning to beat you with a baton. The first few times I responded with denial and requests for any kind of citation but you wouldn’t provide one. The next few times I just went with negation. Eventually, and keep in mind I had literally no idea why you kept saying that I had a baton and planned to beat you with it, I started simply reversing it and insisting that you had a baton and planned to beat me with it. One of many examples of you simply deciding I said something and then bringing it up over and over. And never providing any opportunity to clarify because you wouldn’t make the effort to tell me which post of mine you’d decided to interpret in the stupidest possible way. Without knowing what you’d failed to read all I could do was say “I didn’t say that” and eventually just start putting words in your mouth. Incidentally putting words in your mouth did actually get you to stop doing it. Something about a golden rule. Edit: you actually quoted an example of yourself doing it there. In 2023 I said America under Trump was better than it was during the time of literal slaveowners, the trail of tears, and the Confederacy. Because it is. I hate Trump with a passion but I’m not looking at his presidency and wishing we could go back to the good old days of slavery. There’s a general historical upward trend and while Trump is an aberration he’s not bringing America back below the very low historical low points. I was very clear on this. Historical trend. Slaveowners. Genocide of native Americans. Confederacy. Specific examples I called out to illustrate that the trend was away from those things. Two years later you, completely out of the blue and with no reference to the 2023 post, asserted that I supported Trump over Hillary in the 2016 election because I thought Trump was part of an upward trend. There is absolutely no reading of “Trump’s America was better than the confederacy” that could lead you to believe that I supported Trump’s election victory over Hillary. None. It’s just not there. The preference order is Hillary, Trump, Confederacy. Trump winning the election was a bad thing because Trump was worse than Hillary. The Confederacy did not run in the 2016 ejection so I could not possibly have supported Trump’s campaign over the Confederacy. But for you that was enough. I said something completely different two years earlier and so you decided that I was a Trump supporter and no amount of denials would be enough. Seems like you're just crashing out again. I'll let you keep reading and editing for a bit before I respond. | ||
| ||
