Because your post was about the people in the south who didn’t want this, and you held up the ignorant and misinformed as an example?

class consciousness, not culture war.

Because you were talking about culture war and I was responding to you?

Fucking hell, let me copy it for you again:

Those examples are from 105 and 60 years ago.
There are ways to make the point you’re going for, but invoking legislation that old doesn’t do it.

Do you see how maybe that was more of a comment about a weak example rather than disagreement?

You were “chirping” squawking blathering talking about how we need class consciousness rather than culture war. Maybe if you actually read what I wrote from a non-confrontational view you could understand that I was saying “victims of a culture war can’t ignore it”.

Feel free to ask me any questions as well, since I’m gathering you still didn’t read anything I wrote.

I actually thought you were interested in having a discussion for a minute and not just indignantly misinterpreting everything to take offense at.

I’ll say it one more time: ignoring a culture war being fought against you doesn’t make it go away, even if it’s just a proxy for a class war. Southerners are fully capable of making informed decisions, and at some point you just stop having sympathy for the ones who could choose to be better but don’t. It sucks that some people can’t choose and get hurt along the way too. Maybe the misinformed will eventually hurt themselves hard enough to stop fighting a culture war against the disenfranchised at someone else’s behest, but I don’t have a lot of sympathy for those that choose to hurt others.
An oppressed minority still means that there’s an oppressive majority who voted to hurt themselves.

Can you point out where I said it doesn’t? Are you even actually reading?

You act as though I railed against the notion of voter suppression when one sentence said one part of what you said wasn’t compelling for the point you were making.

I didn’t ignore your point, I fucking agreed with it a few sentences later. I called you an ass because you angrily said you didn’t read the reply after one sentence and accused me of being disingenuous.

Who said the lingering effects of slavery didn’t have an impact? You said the voting rights act and universal suffrage being recent meant that a lot of people in the south were disenfranchised before them, hence they couldn’t vote for the way things are. Most people in the south did not have their voting rights impacted by policy before those to effect because they weren’t alive.
That’s why I didn’t say systemic racism doesn’t exist, or that economic or political disenfranchisement doesn’t exist, I said that those aren’t compelling evidence to make the valid point you’re going for. I then proceeded to talk about other stuff related to your post, which you would know if you bothered to read instead of assuming that anyone that didn’t entirely agree with you must be disingenuous.

Yeah, you’re not a good faith conversational actor. Go back and reread what I initially wrote. So far you’re responding more to being called an ass for being rude than to “ignoring a culture war means dead trans kids”.

I did actually read your comment, I just didn’t entirely agree with you you condescending ass.

MLKs daughter never voted without the civil rights act. You forgot to add 18 to the age someone would need to be to have voted before the act passed.
Most of the southern electorate is neither 78 or older, or even 60.
The point was that it’s not a convincing argument, not that someone isn’t alive who was impacted.

I’m not sure what class disenfranchisement has to do with the part you’re angry about. Maybe if you actually read what I said you’d have seen where I mentioned it for the rest of the comment.

If you’re not even going to read what people say, you have no grounds to complain that people aren’t “being a genuine participant”.

Those examples are from 105 and 60 years ago.
There are ways to make the point you’re going for, but invoking legislation that old doesn’t do it.

Am I sympathetic to people who are ignorant and so voted against their own interests? Sure, a bit. A lot of southerners would take issue with trying to defend them with cries of "don’t blame them, they’re too stupid to agree with me!” though.
Am I sympathetic to people who have been systematically disenfranchised and economically abandoned? Of course, I’m not a monster.

The fact remains that a lot of people in red states earnestly believe in what they vote for. You can talk about class consciousness all you want, but the people fighting the culture doing so because of manipulation by the rich or powerful in a class war does fuck all to help the people loosing said culture war. I’m sure the suicidal trans kid takes great comfort that the people voting to make them illegal are just misled.

They’ve had every opportunity to inform themselves. Maybe eventually they’ll hurt themselves enough to stop fighting the culture war you don’t want others to fight.

I feel less sympathetic for many conservative states than this image would encourage, but even though gerrymandering doesn’t impact presidential elections directly it does impact state legislatures who then control the rules around presidential elections.
Every vote is counted, which is why there’s focus on voter suppression. If your legislature decides to make it harder to vote in liberal or more densely populated areas, voter turnout will naturally skew conservative. Same for shifting requirements to focus on criteria less often met by demographics that don’t support you, or changing the criteria for purging the voter registry and making it harder to register.

One of the other interesting things in the US is that different states can have different laws for meat standards, as long as they meet or exceed USDA minimums. They can’t, however, advertising that fact because it’s a violation of interstate trade.
So in the US, a legal hotdog ranges from a blend of the trimmings above and what can be removed from the bone with a power washer, up to “hot dogs must be made only of the product of primal cuts with no trimmings or waste meat”.

Eh, “refuse” makes sausage sound worse than it is. In the modern world anyplace with a food inspection system will typically see sausage made from cuts of meat that are perfectly edible but don’t meet the grading standards likely to sell on the shelf , or the excess pieces of muscle left over after breaking primal cuts down into smaller pieces. No one wants to buy USDA certified Meh grade steak, or a palm sized wedge of uneven thickness. So they get sent off to make hamburger, sausage, and various canned or commercial meat products that don’t need to be pretty.

Processed meat also includes much more benign seeming foods, like sandwich meat, ground meats, and bacon. We’ve known for a while that eating meat, and more so red meat, is a risk for colon problems. Red meats are more likely to be processed and therefore cheap and salty.

The new thing the study adds is that there isn’t a lower bound. For a lot of things there’s a quantity that isn’t associated with any issues, and it’s only when you go above that limit that the risk goes up.

Totally agree on hotdogs, but if someone ate a slice of standard toast for breakfast every day I wouldn’t say they ate a lot of toast.
Point being, I don’t think the frequency can be considered independent of the thing.

They maybe could have phrased it better as “consumption of as little as 2 ounces of processed meat, about one hotdog, a day…”.
A hotdog is a relatable unit of measure for an amount of food, but a hotdog a day isn’t normal. A hotdog one day, a deli sandwich the next, and so one though isn’t preposterous.

True. Italian as well. Proportionally not nearly as big though, so they don’t come to mind as readily.

If we’re being super technical, it’s not actually illegal to be in the US without proper authorization in most cases. Most entries don’t involve bypassing border controls, which is a crime. So in normal circumstances if you overstay your visa you get a notice that you need to leave.

The claim is that because they’re just being removed and not charged with a crime, putting them someplace like that is just holding them for deportation and not actually punishment. Since they’re not being imprisoned they don’t get due process.

This is hogwash, both morally and by the actual law, both the letter and intent. Even circumstances that actually do kinda work like that don’t work like that.
As an example, a drivers license is legally not a right, but a privilege. Failure to comply with certain stipulations results in an immediate suspension. But oh wait, even then you still can have a hearing to dispute things in the most incredibly cut and dry legal circumstance. You’re supposed to get a proper hearing before anything happens so that you can dispute a removal order and such.

Definitely not our first. The Japanese concentration camps spring to mind as a notable example.

People seem to forget those.

Why would they not pay tax? They’re living here, working here, buying things here. Those are where we collect taxes.

When your rational for “your parents came here illegally, so now you have to live in a country you’ve never known and don’t speak the language” is “someone might not be paying taxes”… You’re being cruel to no purpose.

What constitutes “cruel and unusual punishment” is also defined by the laws of countries. That doesn’t mean that we don’t determine that some punishment is a human rights violation. Likewise, deciding to punish someone for the behavior of their parents is violation of human rights.

First, you actually can get citizenship from where you were born as well as by blood. It’s pretty common. They have dual citizenship. Done.

Your example is not as persuasive as you think. If I’m a nation, of course I need to care for the babies that live within my borders. Are you a monster?
I’m gonna have to tax and get help from the the parents, but that’s pretty normal for a nation to do.

Countries exist for the people that live there. If you live here the country is for you.

“Laws are how they are”, so why shouldn’t your government get to torture you? Just stating where you draw the line doesn’t make the line valid.

It’s commonly held to be a human right to not be stateless. Why is it a human right to have a country, but not a human right to have your home be that country?

Why are people in general not deserving of citizenship in the place they call home?

That’s a fair point of discussion. I stand by what I said as a valid response to the claim that government bestows a right, but no, it’s not as universally agreed upon in as I implied.

I’d argue that regardless of if a right is a fiat of nature or claimed by the people, that the right is still outside the government. People have the right to this and that, and the government can choose to infringe, respect or protect them, but they didn’t create the right.