The lady doth protest too much, methinks... Struggles with your mental health in the past? Do you want to talk about it? It's nothing to be ashamed of...

Also, history might not repeat, but it certainly does rhyme. :)

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.

Now you just seem ridiculous and mentally ill.

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.

Plenty of people disagree with me who aren’t mentally unstable.

They’re just not the ones talking about “boots on the throat” and this being the rise of a new Nazi regime.

You don’t get to claim wild things like that and then immediately pretend you never did. Nobody buys your uno reverse attempt.

“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.

> do you think sweeping citizens into biometric/DNA collection as a condition of filing paperwork is normal and lawful, yes or no?

Maybe. If the proposed rule is adopted as-is after the comment period, it will almost certainly face legal challenges.

I don’t know what the result of those challenges would be. I suspect it will very much hinge on the specifics of the rules as actually adopted.

None of this is relevant to HN — or deserving of breathless remarks about boots, Nazis, or similar.

“Maybe” is doing a lot of work here.

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.

The deportations are not outside the law.

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.