7
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 22 Oct 2025
7 points (100.0% liked)
Off My Chest
1532 readers
1 users here now
RULES:
I am looking for mods!
1. The "good" part of our community means we are pro-empathy and anti-harassment. However, we don't intend to make this a "safe space" where everyone has to be a saint. Sh*t happens, and life is messy. That's why we get things off our chests.
2. Bigotry is not allowed. That includes racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia, and religiophobia. (If you want to vent about religion, that's fine; but religion is not inherently evil.)
3. Frustrated, venting, or angry posts are still welcome.
4. Posts and comments that bait, threaten, or incite harassment are not allowed.
5. If anyone offers mental, medical, or professional advice here, please remember to take it with a grain of salt. Seek out real professionals if needed.
6. Please put NSFW behind NSFW tags.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I demonstrated for one particular position that it boils down to standing only for decorum. I.e. the only thing that makes centrists complain about the Trump administration's ICE deportations is the lack of decorum. I merely implied before, but now I'm spelling out explicitly: if you pay attention to all the things centrists get upset about, it very quickly becomes apparent that all the arguments devolve into an objection about decorum.
You'd need to add that the Leftie is being rude to you for this metaphor to track.
In which case, it's still not equivalent.
Yeah, this is just nonsense.
You've decided that you dislike centrism and thus it can only stand for decorum and then built a weird theory around this bizzare perception.
If you really chalk going through due process, respecting asylum laws and not deporting innocent, possibly American people to El Salvador as "decorum" that says more about you and your lack of understanding than it does about centrism.
This isn't going to be an interesting or enlightening discussion. Whether you feel that means I think you're less than human, well that's up to you.
Maybe it does. Because I don't just oppose American citizens being deported or possibly sent to El Salvadorean torture prisons (which, as an American citizen, I absolutely do oppose), but I equally oppose anyone being deported or possibly sent to El Salvadorean torture prisons, regardless of citizenship status. In short: Americans are simply not more or less deserving of rights than migrants in my view.
I actually do think this is related to decorum. Because my issue isn't who is being deported or the manner of deportations; it's deportations as a systemic practice. Even if we follow all the existing procedures surrounding deportations, even if we change the laws to be more humane, even if we deport people in a way that respects the Constitution, even if we use the softest kiddy gloves and nicest words when people are deported, deporting people is bad and therefore should not be done.
And yeah I simply have absolutely zero respect for or interest in following the law. I literally do not care what asylum laws say, we should just do the right thing above and beyond the law, namely ending deportations and making it easy for migrants to get documents, and ideally changing society so documents are simply not needed. And if I was put into power by some freak accident, I would 1000% be willing to break the law and do illegal stuff as a politician to right the situation as fast as possible. The norms are simply unimportant.
If it means anything, you haven't been rude to me, and you seem to have actual principles based on your recent posts, so the inference in my post doesn't apply. If you consider yourself a centrist, I think you're selling yourself short.
Okay, so surely you can see how people can disagree with this while having more values than decorum? Right?
Honestly, not really, no. Like if one disagrees with this now but not back before Trump (and still maintains that it was justified back then, i.e. I'm not including the case where someone's opinion on pre-Trump deportations has been changed because of Trump-era deportations) then yeah, it's about the "neatness" of the process and not the existence of the deportation process itself.
Again, you're confusing due process and asylum laws with "neatness" or "politeness."
To put it another way, we are probably both against rape and okay with putting rapists in jail. But, if police started jailing anyone they thought looked a little rapey, and those jailed had no due process, I would hope we would both be against that. Not because it wasn't neat or polite but because that is a fundamentally dangerous thing for a state to do.
I think a country should be able to control its borders, thus you need a mechanism to remove people, which is deportation.
However, due process is essential (whole asylum laws are required to meet international law + treaty/moral obligation) and without it, it's super dangerous.
This isn't about neatness or politeness, it's about a fundamental and essential check on state power.
I don't. Countries literally should not exist. I oppose deportations however they are being conducted. That's kinda my point: from my perspective, you're practically with the right wingers on this issue, because some people ultimately get deported.
That's fine, oppose deportations etc but you're completely missing the point, which is that it's not about politeness or decorum, there is something fundamentally different about the lack of due process.
To put it very bluntly, did you fail to understand the difference between jailing rapists after due process versus jailing anyone whom any police officer thinks is a rapist? Or is one just an impolite version of the other?