Dude, you're practically frothing at the mouth rambling about mental health in nearly every post and talking about some imagined left destabilization of the world. Are you okay? You can ask for help. You don't have to struggle with this obsession by yourself. There are professionals for this sort of thing.
> … no amount of facts or evidence would convince you otherwise until their boot is on your own neck
> The rise of Nazi Germany took roughly 14-16 years, so I'd say we're about right on schedule based on the current timeline.
I appreciate you trying to save face, but this is what you were posting just a few messages up.
Pretending to be reasonable works better when we can’t read the detached-from-reality things you were literally just posting.
If we were really on the cusp of a new post-Weimar NSDAP Germany, almost any form of resistance would be ethically justified. Is that what you’re claiming?
It's only natural for you to try to deflect away from discussing your own clear struggles with neurosis and insecurities about your own mental health, but I really do feel like you'd benefit from leaning into this moment and maybe discovering why you're unable to hold a discussion without resorting to overly transparent attempts at painting anyone that disagrees with you as mentally unwell rather than engaging with anything of substance. It speaks to a deeply rooted issue in your psyche where you must project your own fears and worries about your mental health on to others rather than face your own ignorance and a lack of basic maturity that is unbecoming of someone of your age.
I'm guessing you struggle to keep longterm relationships because you blame all of your issues on other people rather than being able to self-reflect on your own flaws and, because of your own supreme confidence in your own flawed judgement, it drives everyone away that might care about you. Is it hard to be that miserable and unlikeable? I'm sure it is, but the good news is that you can work on yourself and you can improve your relations with your fellow humans. It is possible to change and grow.
Let me repeat. If we were really on the cusp of a new post-Weimar NSDAP Germany, almost any form of resistance would be ethically justified. Is that what you’re claiming?
It’s revealing that you need that little morality-play false dilemma to avoid the actual topic.
You’ve used “mentally ill” the way other people use citations: as a substitute for substance. It doesn’t make you the adult in the room, it just makes you look like someone who can’t defend a position without trying to pathologize disagreement.
Here’s one fact you can’t hand-wave away: DHS/USCIS is proposing to expand biometrics collection (including DNA) to people merely “associated with” an immigration benefit request (explicitly including petitioners/sponsors/signatories, i.e., often U.S. citizens) regardless of age.
So, you can either argue why sweeping citizens into government biometric/DNA collection for paperwork is normal and lawful, or you can keep doing the “everyone who disagrees with me is unstable” routine. One of those is an argument; the other is a tell.
“Boot on the neck” is a metaphor for state power being applied to people who can’t meaningfully resist it, not a claim that we’re already living in 1933 Berlin. And “history rhymes” isn’t “Trump is literally Hitler”, it’s the (obvious) point that democratic backsliding happens incrementally, and the people enabling it always insist the alarm is “hysteria” right up until it isn’t.
Also: notice how you still didn’t touch the substance. One concrete example: DHS/USCIS is proposing expanded biometrics collection (including DNA) for people merely “associated with” an immigration benefit request—explicitly including petitioners/sponsors/signatories (often U.S. citizens), regardless of age.
So, answer the actual question you keep dodging: do you think sweeping citizens into biometric/DNA collection as a condition of filing paperwork is normal and lawful, yes or no? If yes, cite the authority and defend the scope. If no, congratulations: you’ve been arguing with my tone because you can’t defend the policy.
Your “uno reverse” line is basically an admission that the only thing you’ve got is vibes and insult-work.
A few comments ago you were certain: “They’re not [outside the law]. The deportations will continue regardless of the tantrums of the hysterical and mentally ill.”
Now that we’re discussing the actual proposal, you’ve retreated to “maybe… probably litigated… depends.” That’s fine (updating your confidence is what adults do) but it also makes the earlier psych-eval routine look like what it was: posture covering for lack of specifics.
And the “not relevant to HN” line is especially rich after pages of (a) armchair diagnoses and (b) violence-bait hypotheticals. If it’s “not deserving of breathless remarks,” you could have tried addressing the policy instead of policing tone.
One concrete fact remains: DHS/USCIS is proposing expanded biometrics collection (including DNA) for people merely “associated with” an immigration benefit request, explicitly including petitioners/sponsors/signatories (often U.S. citizens), regardless of age.
And this isn’t happening in some vacuum of “everything is fine” vibes:
Hundreds of U.S. citizens have been detained by immigration agents, including cases where people report being held more than a day.
ICE conducts arrests with agents masking/obscuring their identities.
DHS labeled people “domestic terrorists” in the Chicago sweeps, and then DOJ dropped the case and it was dismissed with prejudice.
This same administration just carried out a military operation that captured Venezuela’s sitting president (Maduro), and publicly refused to rule out using military force to take Greenland.
ICE agents shooting and killing a mother on the street and labelling her as a "domestic terrorist" (similar to the pattern in Chicago that was dismissed with prejudice).
If you think that scope and pattern are normal and lawful, defend them; quote the authority and explain why it’s appropriate. If you can’t, then what you’re calling “breathless” is just me noticing you don’t actually have an argument, only a vibe and a whistle.
This particular issue is a proposed rule moving through the standard administrative process. I’m not claiming every proposed rule is beyond challenge or immune from litigation. Proposed rules are debated, challenged, revised, and sometimes struck down — that’s the system working. What I reject outright is the idea that the existence of a proposal justifies breathless talk of “boots on the neck,” “Nazism,” or violent “resistance.” That rhetoric is unhinged, and it gets people hurt.
This is what voters chose, lawful policy will proceed, and those who choose to accelerate or encourage attacks on law enforcement, or to cheerlead those who do, will carry responsibility for the predictable consequences that follow.
... and so, while I have no obligation — and no interest — in responding to every item in your gish-galloped grievance listicle, I will address one claim:
> ICE agents shooting and killing a mother on the street and labelling her as a "domestic terrorist" (similar to the pattern in Chicago that was dismissed with prejudice).
“Mother on the street” is doing an extraordinary amount of rhetorical work. This person repeatedly obstructed federal law enforcement as part of an organized group. She ignored a lawful order to exit her vehicle, then accelerated toward and struck a federal officer with her car. She was shot in self-defense during that act.
This was not peaceful protest. It was sustained violation of federal law, escalation toward violence, and a deliberate choice to endanger officers. That chain of bad decisions ended predictably.
Many call this a tragedy. It is tragic, but only because it was so trivially avoidable. There were innumerable off-ramps available, including compliance with the final lawful order to exit her vehicle. Instead, she chose confrontation. Her wife shouted "drive baby, drive!", and she did: straight into an armed federal agent.
This scenario has never happened to me or anyone I know, for the simple reason that most people do not repeatedly obstruct law enforcement, ignore lawful orders, or attempt to use a vehicle against armed officers. Consequences follow actions.
People like yourself, who launder incidents like this through misleading language — while simultaneously invoking “boots on the neck,” “Nazism,” or calls for “resistance” — are not engaging in reasoned analysis. You're encouraging, justifying, and incentivizing reckless, self-destructive lawlessness.
This woman would still be alive if she hadn’t been whipped into a frenzy by the outrage pipeline of news and social media, misled into believing that law and consequences no longer apply once you’re sufficiently imbued with self-righteous indignation.
Peaceful protest is an American right — but that is not what this was. More people will be hurt if they continue to violate federal law, threaten federal law enforcement officers, and place both officers and themselves in harm’s way.
Lawlessness and violence will not deter lawful enforcement.
You edited this comment into a suit and tie, but I saw the earlier versions. Since you want to lecture about “unhinged rhetoric,” let’s use your words, not mine:
“idiot woman”
“better than fine” (about a woman being killed)
"we voted for this"
“not a tragedy”
“she f-ed around and found out”
plus the usual “mentally ill” drive-by accusations
I’ve got screenshots, so don’t bother pretending that tone-policing is your principle rather than your tactic.
You’ve pivoted from “this isn’t illegal” to “your rhetoric is unhinged and causes violence.” That’s not an argument about lawfulness; it’s an attempt to make dissent morally punishable.
A liberal system doesn’t work by outsourcing “truth” to whoever has a badge and the first press release. It works by evidence, due process, and oversight (especially when force is used). So when you write up a killing as a fully-adjudicated morality play (“self-defense,” “lawful order,” “predictably”) before the investigation is even meaningfully complete, you’re not defending the rule of law, you’re defending the rule of narrative.
Same with the “domestic terrorist” inflation: labeling people that before adjudication, and then hand-waving when the case collapses, isn’t “the system working.” It’s the state’s most severe rhetoric being used as a substitute for proof.
And none of this is “not relevant to HN.” Expanding biometric/DNA collection to people merely “associated with” an immigration benefit request (including petitioners/sponsors/signatories, often U.S. citizens) is a concrete expansion of state power. So are U.S. citizens being detained by immigration agents, and agents obscuring identity during arrests. Those are governance-and-technology questions, not “breathlessness.”
If you want to defend the scope and authority, do it: cite the statutory basis and explain why compelled biometrics/DNA for citizens in a civil process is appropriate. If you’d rather keep litigating tone and assigning responsibility for hypothetical violence to your political opponents (while excusing actual state violence with “FAFO”), then you’re not arguing policy; you’re trying to delegitimize criticism.
“Law and order” isn’t obedience to enforcement; it’s power restrained by law, and you keep arguing for the power while scolding anyone who asks about the restraint.
Congratulations, you saw my earlier versions. They were much less kind. Post the screenshots if you like.
> you’re trying to delegitimize criticism.
Violence isn't criticism. And yes, if you try to run over law enforcement, that's violence from which one will absolutely "FAFO".
If you choose to support the kind of lawless violence that led to that women's death, any culpability for the obvious and natural consequences doesn't fall on our heads.
Just so HN can see what was later edited out, here’s the earlier “mask off” version of your most recent comment:
> Congratulations, you saw my earlier versions. They were much less kind, because you're frankly rather a dishonest and unlikable human being of a particular sort that I think our country and society would be better without, and my lesser nature originally won out. Post the screenshots if you like, I can't imagine why you think I'd care.
> Violence isn't criticism. And yes, if you try to run over law enforcement, that's violence by which one will absolutely ‘FAFO’.
> Dress up your extremism however you like. We're not engaging in debate on the battlefield of your choosing, we're enacting and enforcing the law on our terms. If you don't like it, vote.
> If you choose to instead support the kind of hysteria and lawless violence that led to that women's death, the obvious and natural consequences are on your head.
For the record: saying things like “society would be better without people like you” and “we’re not engaging in debate… enforcing the law on our terms” is not a defense of the rule of law, it’s contempt for pluralism dressed up as seriousness.
The American project (very explicitly influenced by Enlightenment liberalism) doesn’t rest on “our terms,” loyalty tests, or treating dissent as culpable. It rests on the opposite: argument, equal rights, due process, and state power constrained by transparent rules and oversight. When someone’s instinct is to skip debate and sanctify enforcement, that isn’t “law and order.” It’s the anti-Enlightenment impulse the Constitution was designed to restrain.
If you want to defend policy, do that: cite the authority and justify the scope. If you want to argue that disagreement itself is illegitimate and that enforcement answers to “our terms,” then you’re not defending America, you’re arguing against the principles it was founded to protect.
Imagine believing this is a gotcha; not that anyone else has followed this thread this far, but if they have, I'd point them to your original posts about "boots on the neck" and this being the rise of a new nazism.
And no, we're no longer engaging in debate with those who do not engage earnestly or honestly, but who instead foment violence and call it protest. On that note, have a nice day and next few years.
