Pie in the Sky

Long-haired preachers come out every night,
Try to tell you what's wrong and what's right;
But when asked how 'bout something to eat
They will answer with voices so sweet:

(CHORUS:)
You will eat, bye and bye,
In that glorious land above the sky;
Work and pray, live on hay,
You'll get pie in the sky when you die.

And the starvation army they play,
And they sing and they clap and they pray,
Till they get all your coin on the drum,
Then they tell you when you're on the bum:

(CHORUS)
Holy Rollers and Jumpers come out,
And they holler, they jump and they shout
"Give your money to Jesus," they say,
"He will cure all diseases today."

(CHORUS)

If you fight hard for children and wife,
Try to get something good in this life,
You're a sinner and bad man, they tell,
When you die you will sure go to hell.

(CHORUS)
Workingmen of all countries, unite,
Side by side we for freedom will fight:
When the world and its wealth we have gained
To the grafters we'll sing this refrain:

(LAST CHORUS:)
You will eat, bye and bye,
When you've learned how to cook and to fry;
Chop some wood, 'twill do you good,
And you'll eat in the sweet bye and bye. 

“Only applies to” so you admit that it is, in fact, happening. So when you say, “Points out what you were saying isn’t true,” and “both of those are false,” you’re just brazenly lying and contradicting yourself.

You’re not going to convince me that trusting border cops to indefinitely detain whoever they feel like, so long as they accuse them of being a terrorist first, is in any way a good idea or not xenophobic. I don’t give a shit about the distinction between “legal” and “illegal” ports of entry either.

I think arguing that the Dems are fighting against the literal fascist party is a sign of them fighting not taking part in xenophobia.

It’s absolutely not. The Democrats were always going to fight the Republicans regardless of policy, because they want to be the ones in charge.

If I’m like a warlord conquering shit for my own gain, and one of the places I conquer happens to be full of assholes, that does not prove that I have some kind of ideological commitment against being an asshole. In the same way, the Democrats’ road to power happens to involve winning elections against Republicans, but they don’t get credit for pursuing their own self-interest.

As for the points you mentioned, it’s true that they have relaxed immigration policy in some areas, but my criticism still stands - Biden wants to give the president power to unilaterally shut down the border, people are held indefinitely in camps, and he also put limits on the number of asylum seekers. Your assertions to the contrary are simply false. Since your claim was that they don’t engage in, or even fail to fight xenophobia “in any way” it’s not enough to just show a couple points in that direction, it has to be a consistent policy.

Absolutely incredible the lengths you’re willing to go to to throw minorities under the bus and downplay what’s happening the very moment it becomes inconvenient to you. What you described is absolutely not what’s happening. The system doesn’t fundamentally change overnight the moment a democrat gets in office, immigrants are still being detained en masse, indefinitely, in terrible conditions, with no due process or right to council. If it’s just about “processing paperwork” then why did Biden shut down asylum and try to pass a bill giving the president the power to unilaterally shut down the border?

Again, this isn’t about the Republicans. You’re doing whataboutism again. You chose to make that irrelevant when you made the claim, not that democrats were merely “less xenophobic than Republicans” but “not xenophobic at all.” I don’t want to hear another word from you trying to change the subject to something irrelevant like that to weasel your way out of this.

Nobody had any problems correctly calling them concentration camps when Trump was president. Now, you’re literally over here going to bat for ICE. Now, all of a sudden, you trust ICE to decide if someone’s a security risk. People can be held in these camps indefinitely for no crime other than crossing the border. This is the same system, by the way, with kangaroo courts where young children are made to defend themselves in court, with no right to an attorney, against the threat of deportation.

Especially compared to the fact Trump

This is whataboutism. The question wasn’t “who’s worse on immigration” the question was “do the democrats engage in/fail to fight xenophobia.” If you want to tell me that you’re holding your nose and voting for a lesser evil that still engages in and promotes xenophobic policies, that’s one thing, but you’re claiming that the democrats don’t engage in xenophobia at all. You’re moving the goalposts from “not xenophobic” to “less xenophobic than Trump.”

agree we need to immediately address the humanitarian crisis at the border, but literally the only ones who are refusing to do so are the Republicans Trump Cultists, and they control half of congress right now.

Really, and what does “addressing the humanitarian crisis” look like, exactly? Does it look like this?

The Biden-backed compromise bill was crafted to reduce border crossings, raise the standard for migrants to qualify for asylum and empower officials to rapidly send away those who fail to meet that standard. It would give the president power to shut down the border if migration levels exceed certain thresholds. On the brink of its release earlier this year, Lankford told NBC News it was “by far the most conservative border security bill in four decades.”

Or does it look like shutting down asylum?

In 2018, the Trump administration tried to enact similar border restrictions but courts blocked them. The Biden administration now expects to defend the executive action against legal challenges…

Many immigrant advocates are furious at the president’s harsher immigration policies and argue the changes will cause chaos.

“It is a betrayal of what we were told in his campaign four years ago,” said Lindsay Toczylowski, the executive director for the California-based Immigrant Defenders Law Center. “We were told that President Biden would be restoring humanity at our border. … But what we are seeing is that history is repeating itself.”

Lee Gelernt, the deputy director of the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project who argued the challenge to asylum restrictions during the Trump administration, said the advocacy group planned to sue.

“A ban on asylum is illegal just as it was when Trump unsuccessfully tried it,” Gelernt said in a statement.

Your support for the marginalized is entirely mercenary. When you can use their plight to help your team win an election, you have nothing but sympathy for them against those cruel, evil, xenophobic Republicans. But when your team is the one doing it, when the truth becomes inconvenient for you, suddenly you don’t give a single shit about them and happily cheerlead immigration cops, concentration camps, and giving unpresidented powers to the president to shut down the border for no reason. It’s absolute, tribalistic loyalty, and any principles or empathy you might pretend to have are always secondary to saying whatever helps your team.

It’s hard not to feel abject rage at a comment like this.

Tell me more about how the undocumented migrants being rounded up and forced into concentration camps are “incredibly privileged” and how the democrats supporting it are “fighting against xenophobia.” Bull-fucking-shit. “Incredibly privileged,” you’re appropriating language meant to critique the powerful and using it to defend them and punch down and ignore the struggles that marginalized people face. Disgusting.

Wrong.

Wrong.

Again, you don’t get to just say, “No it isn’t” over and over again without actually explaining why it’s not analogous. That’s how basic reason works.

Also, you can put multiple things in one comment so you don’t spam the thread.

i’m not making an argument. i’m contradicting yours.

Yes, you’re literally just disagreeing with anything I (or anyone else on my side) says, with zero supporting evidence or reason. It’s not an argument, just contradiction. It’s obvious that’s what you’re doing, but still hilarious that you would come out and admit it.

wrong. i said it is not causal.

Can you please explain what the difference is between an action being causal of another action vs an action… causing another action to happen?

wrong

Wrong.

Since you seem incredibly confused about both how to argue and basic facts about reality, let me walk you through this.

You claimed that purchasing meat has no effect on whether more meat gets produced, because “they make their own decisions.” This argument rests on the completely insane premise that paying people to do things does not influence their behavior or make you complicit when they decide to do what you paid them to do. If this were true, it would lead to the absurd conclusion that hiring a hitman to kill someone would not make you complicit in the act, because, by your logic “they make their own decisions” regardless of who’s paying them to do what.

If you want to dispute that, you have to actually find a fault in that chain of reasoning, not just say, “Nuh uh” over and over again.

An argument’s a collective series of statements to establish a definite proposition. Contradiction’s just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says.

Why did you make four separate one line responses to my comment, all at the same time? You realize you can put multiple things in one comment lol.

Also not only is that exactly what happened, but you’re literally doing it again. This is just the Monty Python argument clinic sketch.

Impossible! I’ve been repeatedly informed that Joe Biden is the only one who could possibly stop Trump. Are you telling me that the party has a better chance without him?! The Russian bots were right all along??

The median age of the senate is 65. The article is just cherry picking.

Why not? You’re saying that market signals don’t matter, it’s individual choice all the way down. You’re paying people to produce meat and put it on the shelves, but according to you, that doesn’t have any effect on the amount of meat produced and put on shelves. How is that not analogous to paying someone to kill someone and then pretending that that doesn’t make you complicit?

You don’t seem to understand how analogies work. You don’t get to just say “Nuh uh” when I follow your principles to their natural conclusions. That’s just a basic form of logical argumentation.

Someone should tell Kamala because that’s how she described herself.

No, it’s literally what you said. Is what I described not a counterfactual?

“Your honor, it’s true I purchased a hitman’s services, but I didn’t cause his actions. He made his own decision, it just happened to be the one I paid him to do.”

“Your honor, it’s true that the deceased died of blood loss after I stabbed them, however, the idea that they would’ve survived had I not stabbed them is a counterfactual and therefore cannot be proven at all.”

Literally a 5 year old could grasp this.

When you buy something, it tells the person who sold it to you to stock more of it, which tells the people making it to make more of it. Since meat production involves killing animals, it means that when you buy meat, it causes more animals to be killed. If you go vegan and stop buying meat, it causes there to be less demand, which reduces the number of animals killed compared to if you didn’t.

I simply cannot believe that “AnarchistsForKamala@lemmy.world” would have a brain-meltingly bad take like this. Shocking.

Where do you think the meat on your plate comes from? What do you think causes meat production to increase?