quote:

News of mass immigration arrests has swept across the US over the past couple of weeks. Reports from Massachusetts to Idaho have described agents from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ice) spreading through communities and rounding people up. Quick Google searches for Ice operations, raids and arrests return a deluge of government press releases. Headlines include “ICE arrests 85 during 4-day Colorado operation”, “New Orleans focuses targeted operations on 123 criminal noncitizens” and, in Wisconsin, “ICE arrests 83 criminal aliens”.

But a closer look at these Ice reports tells a different story.

That four-day operation in Colorado? It happened in November 2010. The 123 people targeted in New Orleans? That was February of last year. Wisconsin? September 2018. There are thousands of examples of this throughout all 50 states—Ice press releases that have reached the first page of Google search results, making it seem like enforcement actions just happened, when in actuality they occurred months or years ago. Some, such as the arrest of “44 absconders” in Nebraska, go back as far as 2008.

Link

Shockingly, we are being misled about what the fascist regime is doing, and not doing.

I think the better term is Nationalist.

Fascism is not racist. Fascism in compasses Nationalism, but rejected racism.

That is if the Administration is truly racist. The current Administration’s policies on migrants I cannot call racists.

If someone wants to make the argument, I’ll listen.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
I think the better term is Nationalist.

Fascism is not racist. Fascism in compasses Nationalism, but rejected racism.

That is if the Administration is truly racist. The current Administration’s policies on migrants I cannot call racists.

If someone wants to make the argument, I’ll listen.

The Nazi fascists with their "Master Race" fantasies were certainly racist without impeding their fascism, in fact "racial purity" is a common feature of modern fascism, right up to the "Trumpism" flavor.

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
I think the better term is Nationalist.

Fascism is not racist. Fascism in compasses Nationalism, but rejected racism.

That is if the Administration is truly racist. The current Administration’s policies on migrants I cannot call racists.

If someone wants to make the argument, I’ll listen.

The Nazi fascists with their "Master Race" fantasies were certainly racist without impeding their fascism, in fact "racial purity" is a common feature of modern fascism, right up to the "Trumpism" flavor.

no, chowderhead, it's about ILLEGALS -- dang near everyone in the us is pro immigration -

okay, you, as an MP, find someone has snuck onto the base, and is living the the barracks .. do you
a: cuff and stuff them?
b: start calling them bunkie?

It actually did undermine their Fascism.

Fasicstwas born out of idealism. One’s mind determines reality. One could choose in Fascism to be part of the state, the Nation.

Nazism, with its race component violated Fascism. Again, if anyone here wants to understand fascism read this book:

https://www.thriftbooks.com/w/...7025&edition=5982858

Fascism is just a word for some people to call other people they don’t agree with

soon you will discover that shamely it is not in blaming others that your issues will be fixed ...

quote:

Originally posted by M.Shy:
Fascism is just a word for some people to call other people they don’t agree with

Remember when it was "racist"..... that was stupid too....

I am skeptical of virtually everything I see in the news and doubly skeptical if it is on the internet. There are no truly unbiased news sources. Everyone has an axe to grind. The author of the above article is anti-Trump. This does not mean the report is entirely false, but it does mean timelines and context are likely to be massaged a little to help the narrative. Just as the administration massages the facts to fit their narrative.
The posters on this site are an example microcosmically. Jeffive will always recount Democrat talking points, Lane will always be pro-Trump, Saeed will always be rabidly anti-American. What each poster writes may be the truth as they believe it, but it may not be the truth per se. Some posters make an effort to think critically, but only within the construct of their world view. I, painfully aware of my own intellectual shortcomings, just try to sort it all out. Skepticism is SOP. Bill

I’m paranoid but am I paranoid enough?

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

News of mass immigration arrests has swept across the US over the past couple of weeks. Reports from Massachusetts to Idaho have described agents from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ice) spreading through communities and rounding people up. Quick Google searches for Ice operations, raids and arrests return a deluge of government press releases. Headlines include “ICE arrests 85 during 4-day Colorado operation”, “New Orleans focuses targeted operations on 123 criminal noncitizens” and, in Wisconsin, “ICE arrests 83 criminal aliens”.

But a closer look at these Ice reports tells a different story.

That four-day operation in Colorado? It happened in November 2010. The 123 people targeted in New Orleans? That was February of last year. Wisconsin? September 2018. There are thousands of examples of this throughout all 50 states—Ice press releases that have reached the first page of Google search results, making it seem like enforcement actions just happened, when in actuality they occurred months or years ago. Some, such as the arrest of “44 absconders” in Nebraska, go back as far as 2008.

Link

Shockingly, we are being misled about what the fascist regime is doing, and not doing.

As I have previously stated, the administration has always been short on the particulars relating to the logistics of the "round-up" and how it was or is going to happen. Undocumented workers don't walk around with a sign on their shirt.

If the administration is serious about it, they need to start raiding construction sites, slaughter-houses, agricultural businesses, etc. Of course, the problem with that is that once they take all the workers away from those locations, the business suffers and the business owners will be unhappy.

And, the republicans can't be having that....

quote:

Originally posted by tomahawker:
I’m paranoid but am I paranoid enough?

If, in your reality, they are out to get you, then you're not paranoid enough.

After all, somewhere out there is a straitjacket your size.

quote:

Originally posted by Bill Leeper:
I am skeptical of virtually everything I see in the news and doubly skeptical if it is on the internet. There are no truly unbiased news sources. Everyone has an axe to grind. The author of the above article is anti-Trump. This does not mean the report is entirely false, but it does mean timelines and context are likely to be massaged a little to help the narrative. Just as the administration massages the facts to fit their narrative.
The posters on this site are an example microcosmically. Jeffive will always recount Democrat talking points, Lane will always be pro-Trump, Saeed will always be rabidly anti-American. What each poster writes may be the truth as they believe it, but it may not be the truth per se. Some posters make an effort to think critically, but only within the construct of their world view. I, painfully aware of my own intellectual shortcomings, just try to sort it all out. Skepticism is SOP. Bill

I read your post several times.

My conclusion is that it must be tough living in a worldview filled with constant false equivalences, and thinking blanket skepticism, per se, is going to fix that.

Def:
informally, skepticism as an expression of questioning or doubt can be applied to any topic, …

So, the question is whether quasi-healthy skepticism offsets the slack ability to make distinctions in sorting out truth, resulting in false equivalences?

It's a tough call. When absolutely nothing can be trusted as being true, how long until reality ceases to exist? We are approaching the threshold of being able to find out.
Seriously, we all have to pick and choose to a certain extent and apply our own burden of proof to any information. It is indeed a difficult situation, but what is the answer? Plainly, many people simply choose their world view and believe anything which supports that view. At the same time, they reject anything which runs counter to their preferred reality.
Skepticism can be suspended when the evidence seems irrefutable, but most of the time, skepticism is probably the best approach. Bill

OK Bill, I see that you accepted my invitation to explain yourself. Yes, it was an invitation, but only if you read it right. It was also an attitude test.

You read it right and did an excellent response. I figured you could do it. Better than most.

But I still have some issues to discuss with you. I see a few self-contradictions. Hopefully they can be resolved. I'm going to try to explain. Be forgiving - ok.

quote:

When absolutely nothing can be trusted as being true, how long until reality ceases to exist?

That's two, maybe three parts.

"absolutely nothing" is redundant, for starters. And applying that to "trusted" and "true" is drama. It's not just my opinion to say that there's (absolutely) always "true" and associated trust and reality. Regarding "reality", it is always there. It's up to us to figure out what it is.

Lots of people think reality is in their head. No, that's not reality, it's perception of reality, influenced by many factors (bias), such as experiences, environment, and especially beliefs, etc. Lots of people think their self-ID is tied to reality. No it is not. It's filtered perception of reality.

Keep in mind that in some ways we're saying the same things, differently.

quote:

Seriously, we all have to pick and choose to a certain extent and apply our own burden of proof to any information.

Yes, the burden of proof varies. I like the scientific methods, and the agnostic methods.

quote:

Plainly, many people simply choose their world view and believe anything which supports that view. At the same time, they reject anything which runs counter to their preferred reality.

We see that in action on a national scale right now, acutely. It is shown over and over herein too.

quote:

Skepticism can be suspended when the evidence seems irrefutable, but most of the time, skepticism is probably the best approach.

That, IMO, is the contradiction. You seem to be saying that skepticism can and maybe should be suspended when something is taken or declared true and/or trusted. The phrase you used "when the evidence seems irrefutable" is self-contradictory also IMO. To me evidence or facts are (actually) refutable or not. We have seen herein that practically all evidence and/or facts are refutable arguable or just denied or ignored. It's how and why they are refuted/argued that is at issue. Actual facts and evidence can't effectively be refuted with beliefs.

I like to think of it like this: Skepticism, suspended, even at the same time something is deemed true and/or trusted by the best means, should still be active. The tools of skepticism are divided by critical thinking. Its perception supported by facts and evidence balancing the scales with either belief or critical thinking. Some choose to balance with belief, some with critical thinking. And, IMO, the critical thinker is better equipped to know the weight of his worldview on the scales.

Talking about belief, after all I said, I don't believe for a micro-second that reality will or can cease to exist. We may get confused, but reality is what it is - always. There is no such thing as alt-reality. It's an invented figment. It's antithesis non-reality, almost like alternate facts, except conclusive vs basis.

https://youtu.be/VSrEEDQgFc8?si=EGAWxWjg9SWMEydW
Kellyanne Conway: Press Secretary Sean Spicer Gave 'Alternative Facts'

https://youtu.be/rpo2jAHGUdU?si=Szzm4xLv52_zaprU

'Alternative facts' spark interest in '1984'

The short version:
https://youtube.com/shorts/wkv...?si=v5uWijyeMVuIrWoe

The long version:
https://youtu.be/Tv-ADQckwZs?si=TF-tCeJksmpsiHay
Why And How Narcissists Are Stuck In Alternate Reality

When I say skepticism can be suspended when the evidence seems irrefutable, I should say, when the evidence is irrefutable. For instance, in my presence, you set a brick on water. The brick sinks. When you then say, "that brick doesn't float", I need not be skeptical of your statement. If I then see you set what appears to be a brick on the water, and it floats away, when you say, "now the brick floats" I have a right to be skeptical. This especially after Jeffeosso avers that the "brick" is a cleverly disguised piece of wood. If Jeff then claims that the sinking brick, which he has seen only on an internet video, is fake, I, the observer, am now thrust into that paradigm wherein nothing can be believed; this unless I was present at the sinking of the first brick and know it to be true.
I am not a philosopher; I am an uneducated gunsmith. I trust what I can measure but am skeptical of all else.
I don't think "absolutely nothing" is necessarily redundant. It refers to that quantity which is infinitely less than just nothing. Just nothing may just be an very small something. Regards, Bill

Bill
It's easier to spot when they order a foam brick off Amazon and have it in their "affiliates" link in the video

Or the water is a tank frozen solid with an inch of water on top.. you could make a gold brick appear to float that way

Trumpism ain't magic but it is magical thinking.

Britannica:
"Magical thinking, the belief that one's ideas, thoughts, actions, words, or use of symbols can influence the course of events in the material world."

So, you see, Belief in Fiction can transform reality, not just in perception but in fact.

For better or worse, for good or evil.

Two examples:

The Founder's belief transformed an idea, initially fiction, into a nation.

Then Trump said, "Let Us re-make a Nation in MY Image, after My likeness, to rule over everything in the Nation, and over all the earth itself and every creature that crawls upon it".

Do you think that's Fiction or reality?

EVERYTHING Trump claims is a LIE!