208
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 28 Apr 2025
208 points (98.6% liked)
News
38993 readers
1894 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
We know it’s a bad situation when the basic elements of the constitution are considered “extreme and radical”
I think you should re-read. I didn't say due process was "extreme and radical". You're reading what you want to read and trying to polarize and derail this discussion, like the other commenter.
Just to state this will be my last reply to this sort of reply, since there's no discussion to be had with people who had their minds set on blind hate before even entering, which, ironically, is a rather radical stance to have by itself. I know you won't believe it and try to distort it to suit your internal frutration, but I'm on your side. Cheers.
Did you mean something else by “this type of lawlessness”? I went back and reread several times and I cannot see another interpretation.
“Immigrating illegally -> deport without due process” is the extremist angle. That’s lawlessness that no one should in good conscience support.
I don’t see anyone saying that breaking the law should go unpunished, just that deportation is not an appropriate penalty especially when there are existing more appropriate penalties. That does not seem extreme to me.
Let me be clear, I didn't say "this type of lawlessness" anywhere. You're likely refering to:
Which is not at all the same statement, and that misquote implies a very different meaning to what I actually said.
What I implied is that IF it's found that the people in that nightclub were indeed something illegal (and I don't mean according to Trump, but according to the pre-established constitution), then they should face the consequences stated in the constitution for breaking the law just like anybody else - another thing I never mentioned is "deportation", or even that they were immigrants, for that matter. It had nothing to do with the people involved and instead intended as a subtle criticism about how "at this moment we can't be sure of what's legal and what's not" because there's blatant abuse of the justice system, as my further statements in the original post reinforced.
Misquoting me by saying "This type of lawlessness" implies that I already decided they are indeed illegal immigrants, that they do not deserve due process, and that the automatic punishment for that is deportation. Which is the polar opposite of what I believe in and said.
Furthermore, interpreting any neutral statement (which mine wasn't, as I'm against these discriminatory policies, but people will read it as they want to anyway) as being pro-Trump, not caring for context or semantic nuance, is pretty extreme.
I apologize for misunderstanding/misquoting. However, I’m not sure why you were even disagreeing with the original comment.
What lawlessness do you feel someone was saying should go unpunished? The only thing they said was that people should not be deported, and I would even read that to mean “without due process” or perhaps “as punishment”.
Thanks, and apologies as well.
I do not disagree with the original statement, since it essentially reinforces my original point that everyone should get fair treatment.
What I disagree with is with someone taking my words out of context or putting words in my mouth (I.e. saying anyone who breaks the law should be ready to face consequences, regardless of how they feel) and implying they mean something else, such as condoning the seemingly unfair treatment of the people in the article. Which is what the first commenter implied by echoing pretty much my whole point, but in an argumentative and twisted manner:
No disagreements with the above statement at face value, but I don't know why deportation is even part of it since I did not mention it and it has nothing to do with what I said first. That's just jumping to conclusions for the sake of creating drama where there's no need for it.
If I had said only the first part of my original comment I could see how someone might arrive to that conclusion, even if there's an "if" in there, but I did clarify in the next sentence that it's nearly impossible to deem them criminals since there's no fair standard to guide it with the current administration.
Disagreeing is one thing, and I don't mind it as someone who defends everyone's right to freedom of expression, but twisting/adding words words to something I said to imply something else is just dishonest and contrarian by nature. And between two people who overall agree with each other, no less, which suggests the first commenter was just looking for some place to vent regardless of the subject.
Now the kicker. The first commenter then replies again, further clearing up that they actually meant to have an actually radical stance on the matter, stating:
So yes, answering your question of "What lawlessness do you feel someone was saying should go unpunished?", pretty much this. Which would be considered an extreme stance, even if they're entitled to it.