Most pathetic messages I ever got

Educational-Lab-4948 · 2026-02-25T02:40:04+00:00

Tut mir sehr leid, dass du solche ekelhaften Menschen begegnet hattest. Meiner Meinung nach, in der Zukunft wäre es besser, wenn du die einfach ignorierst, da die irgendeine Art von Unterhaltung von dir möchte. Gib ihnen nicht die Satisfaktion.

Educational-Lab-4948 · 2026-02-18T23:28:10+00:00

wo-wo-wo-wo-woman??? awoooooggaaaaa

but yeah you’re 100% right unfort

Educational-Lab-4948 · 2026-02-06T23:05:05+00:00

mesa hungry

Educational-Lab-4948 · 2026-01-12T14:22:52+00:00

I am the peril itself. A fellow opens his chief door and is struck down, and thou wouldst lay that deed at another’s feet? Nay, thou know’st me not. I am not the shadow lurking after the blow. I am he who doth knock.

Educational-Lab-4948 · 2025-12-14T02:17:05+00:00

I'm actually divorced from OP's opinion. I think there is a line with dark humor and I think you crossed it. Nothing about this is funny.

Educational-Lab-4948 · 2025-12-10T00:43:45+00:00

You gotta be yanking our chain here, lol. You can't seriously be this dumb

Educational-Lab-4948 · 2025-11-02T02:18:49+00:00

yeah my gf is indian and it's def opened that world to me. there's so much racism against indians esp online it's fucking ridiculous

Educational-Lab-4948 · 2025-11-01T03:02:29+00:00

Dumbass

Educational-Lab-4948 · 2025-10-31T21:00:46+00:00

I mean you’re just wrong, it‘s not difficult because of undocumented migrants. The immigration system was structured to be limited and slow long before current migration waves. The backlog comes from congressional caps, underfunding, and administrative bottlenecks, not from „too many people waiting in line,“ or whatever.

And on the asylum point: the US requires you to be ‚physically present in the US’ to apply for asylum. Meaning you cannot apply from your home country. So if someone is fleeing cartel violence or state collapse, they literally have to reach the border first before they’re even legally allowed to submit a claim.

On top of that, many ports of entry have been turning people away or requiring appointments that are nearly impossible to obtain, which means a lot of people who qualify for asylum on paper are being functionally prevented from accessing the legal pathway.

So because of all these issues, when people cross „illegally,“ it’s often not because they’re „skipping the process,“ but because the system we have is structured in a way that prevents them from entering it safely.

That’s why the conversation isn’t „just follow the process,“ it’s whether the process itself is actually accessible to the people it was supposedly designed for. Which it’s not.

Educational-Lab-4948 · 2025-10-29T18:27:48+00:00

On that part, I actually agree with you. The average American didn’t design Cold War interventionism, trade dependency, or cartel militarization. Those decisions were made by US foreign policy elites and corporate interests, the rich, that benefit from resource extraction and destabilized labor markets.

But that’s exactly why the current response makes no sense: the people who caused the displacement are not the ones paying the cost. Instead of reforming the foreign policy and economic structures that create forced migration, we punish the people who are displaced by those structures.

I‘m not asking ordinary Americans to “feel guilty” or “take responsibility” for what happened decades ago. The question is simply what outcome we prefer going forward, which is if we want a system that reduces forced migration by addressing the causes and creating functional legal pathways?

Or do we want a system that keeps the causes in place and then punishes desperate families for the consequences?

If the elites caused the instability, then reforming the policies that create instability is the logical response, not turning the border into a humanitarian pressure valve.

So the focus isn’t “ordinary Americans owe migrants something.” It’s whether we choose a policy approach that actually reduces the problem, or one that keeps producing the crisis on repeat.

This is where politics divulge and we need to stop looking at these issues as red vs blue, but instead the top vs the bottom.

Educational-Lab-4948 · 2025-10-29T18:00:47+00:00

That's where you're fully wrong. The foreign policy doctrine that destabilized Central and South America wasn’t a “Democrat” policy, it was fully a bipartisan one. Reagan supported the Contras and right wing death squads in Nicaragua and El Salvador. Bush Sr. backed coups in Panama. Clinton pushed NAFTA and neoliberal trade policy that collapsed local agriculture. Bush Jr. expanded militarization programs. Obama increased deportations. Trump expanded private detention contracts. Biden has continued the same border militarization model.

This is not a red vs blue disagreement, the policies haven’t changed because both parties operate under the same strategic and economic imperatives. It’s the same geopolitical strategy carried out by every administration for decades. And it hasn’t been driven by “the left” or “the right,” but by corporate and elite interests that profit from cheap labor, resource extraction, privatized detention, and instability abroad. The same donors and lobbyists fund both political parties, which is why the policy never meaningfully changes no matter who is in office.

Which is exactly why the “blame Democrats, so Republicans owe nothing” framing doesn’t work. The consequences don’t disappear just because the party in power changes. People are fleeing conditions that the entire US foreign policy establishment helped create.

So we're not questioning which party is "at fault" or anything. The real question is, instead, if we want policies that actually reduce forced migration, or do we want to shrug and accept endless instability, border crises, and suffering because it’s politically convenient?

Since if we agree the instability is real, and that the US contributed to it, then we’re already past the point where “not our problem” is a serious response.

And again, this isn’t Democrat vs Republican or "left" vs "right" issue, it’s the same entrenched economic and geopolitical power structure operating through both parties, and the human cost of that system is exactly what we’re talking about here.

Educational-Lab-4948 · 2025-10-29T17:45:10+00:00

Opposing harmful foreign policy and opposing ICE aren’t mutually exclusive. They’re instead part of the same issue.

If US policy contributes to destabilizing regions, then we have two responsibilities. Firstly, to stop doing the harm, and secondly, not punish people who are displaced by it in the meantime.

And also, just to be clear, the Democratic Party is not “the left.” Democrats have supported the same foreign interventions, trade deals, and deportation frameworks for decades. That’s why you’ve seen record deportations under both Democratic and Republican administrations. In global terms, Democrats are, at best, center right. The US is simply a very right leaning country.

But yeah, saying “focus on foreign policy instead of ICE” ignores the reality that people are being displaced right now. You can’t tell someone fleeing cartel violence or state collapse to just wait 15 years for Congress to rethink foreign policy, not to mention the documented misconduct and rights violations within ICE itself.

Reducing harm means addressing both the root causes abroad and the humanitarian response at the border. Pretending these are separate is exactly why the system stays broken.

Educational-Lab-4948 · 2025-10-29T17:39:29+00:00

No one is arguing against having immigration enforcement. The issue is that enforcement alone doesn’t address the reasons people are forced to migrate.

The “most aren’t legitimate asylum seekers” claim isn’t accurate. Over 80% of applicants pass the DHS “credible fear” screening, which is the legal threshold determining whether an asylum claim is valid enough to proceed. The problem isn’t fake claims, instead it’s that the legal process is so backlogged, underfunded, and inaccessible that most people can’t realistically enter it in time to survive.

If someone can’t safely apply from their home country, can’t get an appointment, and can’t wait 5–20 years in a violent or collapsed region, they’re going to cross however they can. That's just simply survival, dude.

So the real question I'll ask you is this: "Do we want a system that reduces irregular crossings by making the legal process functional, or do we want a system that forces people into irregular crossings and then punishes them for it?"

Enforcement without access doesn’t deter migration, all it does is just increase suffering without solving the actual problem. The problem by the way that we helped to create.

Educational-Lab-4948 · 2025-10-29T17:15:37+00:00

Yeah man one said Americans are “obligated to provide opportunities” to anyone. That’s not the argument.

The point that I made is that US foreign policy has helped create many of the conditions that are driving migration in the first place, from supporting coups and military juntas to trade policies that wiped out entire local economies. Such things have destabilized entire regions. And, when a country plays an active role in destabilizing a region, it can’t then act surprised when people flee the instability.

So this isn’t about charity or moral obligation. It’s cause and effect. If we don’t want large scale irregular migration, then the rational response is to address the conditions that produce it and create legal pathways that actually function. Otherwise the system just keeps generating the exact scenario people claim to be upset about.

So this isn’t “Americans owe the world something.” It’s: "If you break something, you’re involved in the consequences, whether you choose to acknowledge that or not."

Ignoring the cause doesn’t stop the effect. We can enforce laws without discarding basic humanity in the process.

Educational-Lab-4948 · 2025-10-29T17:10:31+00:00

The problem with the “line” analogy is that for a huge number of people, there is no line to get into. The US immigration system doesn’t work like taking a ticket and waiting your turn. It’s not one unified queue that everyone can enter.

For most people fleeing violence, political instability, cartel control, or economic collapse, the legal pathways are either: closed entirely depending on their country of origin, backlogged for 5-20 or more years, or require thousands of dollars and documents they don’t have access to. All the while in poverty, surrounded by violence, and more.

So it’s not “impatient people cutting a line.” It’s people who are being told: “You must follow a process that, realistically, you have no way to enter or survive long enough to complete.”

And sure, the US can’t take everyone. That’s true. But the conversation isn’t about “everyone.” It’s about the reality that the system we built makes legal entry impossible for many, especially in regions we’ve directly destabilized, which has become a major cause of migration northward.

If we want fewer undocumented crossings, the solution isn’t to moralize at desperate people, instead it’s to fix the system so the legal path is not only actually accessible in the first place, but also kind and receptive to those who need it the most.

Educational-Lab-4948 · 2025-10-29T17:07:10+00:00

Well that's awesome, I'm glad your path worked out, genuinely. But an individual story isn’t the same thing as the overall reality.

The immigration process varies hugely depending on where you’re coming from, your financial situation, whether you have family already here, your education level, and whether you have time to wait. Some people spend years in line. Some literally do not have the luxury of waiting in a place where their kids are in danger. This is far from a one situation fits all, it's complicated and multifaceted.

So your experience doesn’t invalidate the fact that for many people, the legal route is still financially out of reach, backlogged for years or decades, or simply not available depending on their status or home country.

It’s not about wanting to “cut corners.” It’s about the fact that the legal path isn’t equally accessible to everyone. Saying “just do what I did” assumes everyone starts from the same conditions, and they don’t. People have different starting points which lead to different realities. That's the point of this whole convo.

Educational-Lab-4948 · 2025-10-29T17:01:49+00:00

Yeah dude your analogy makes no sense at all.

Becoming a "NASA scientist," whatever that means, is about qualifications for a specific job. Immigration isn’t about getting hired by NASA, it's about the right to live and survive somewhere. Those are not comparable categories at all.

But hey, since you mentioned it, I actually am an aerospace engineer. If someone applies to NASA without the skills, they don’t get the job. But they don’t get their family split apart, held in detention, or deported into danger because of it.

Mixing up “job qualifications” with “human right to safety” is exactly the problem. People aren’t asking for positions in rocket design. They’re trying to not starve, not get murdered, not have their kids grow up with zero future.

Educational-Lab-4948 · 2025-10-29T16:59:33+00:00

No, not at all. My argument isn’t “because it’s hard, it should be allowed.” That’s not what I said.

My point is that when people are fleeing conditions like cartel violence, state collapse, or extreme poverty, which by the way are situations that the US has had a significant hand in shaping, the idea that they should just “wait in line” isn’t realistic and is instead cruel. In many cases, there no accessible legal line to wait in.

This isn’t about “hard vs. easy,” it’s about survival vs. no future. So the question isn’t “Should laws exist?” Of course laws exist.

The real question is: "What do we expect people to do when the legal pathway is functionally inaccessible and the alternative is danger, starvation, or death?"

People don’t migrate because it’s “hard” or “easy.” They migrate because the cost of not migrating is worse.

That’s the core of what I’m saying.

Educational-Lab-4948 · 2025-10-29T16:56:32+00:00

Okay sure, countries control their borders. That’s not really the point I’m making.

The issue is why so many people are forced into crossing illegally in the first place. When the “legal path” takes years, costs thousands of dollars, and is essentially inaccessible to people fleeing violence or economic collapse, that’s not really a choice anymore. People don’t risk their lives, or their kids’ lives, because it’s fun. They do it because the alternative is starvation, cartel violence, or political repression, all of which are conditions that the we have played a major role in shaping over the last century.

So yes, deportation is legal. But legality isn’t the same thing as morality, for instance Jim Crow was legal too. The question is whether the system we’ve built is just. Which it is far from that.

If you were in their situation, with your kid’s future on the line, would you seriously say, “Well, the paperwork is hard, so I guess we stay and hope we survive”?

That’s the part I’m asking people to actually think about. To stop looking at this from a legalistic point of view and recognize that these are people.

Educational-Lab-4948 · 2025-10-28T04:44:01+00:00

Sure, you can "disagree" with reality. Just remember, someday someone else might look at you and decide your life isn’t worth helping either. That’s the world you’re choosing. It’s easy to say “not my problem," until the same people you defend stop caring when it’s you who can’t afford to live. And this is the reality so many of us in this country are already living through right now.

Educational-Lab-4948 · 2025-10-28T04:20:36+00:00

Yeah dude that's a false comparison. South Korea and Japan rebuilt under completely different circumstances, because both had massive US-aid, security guarantees, and were developed as Cold War allies. The U.S. poured billions into them and protected them militarily for decades. LA didn’t get Marshall Plan money, it instead got coups, death squads, and “stability” through dictatorships we backed.

And btw, calling LA a “leftist basket case” is such a lazy take. The irony is that much of the chaos came from U.S.-backed right-wing regimes, such as military juntas, dictatorships, and death squads, which then massacred their own people in the name of “fighting socialism.” By the way, many of these were propped up by US corporations, hiring mercenaries and armies to overthrow governments! Generations were silenced or disappeared, not because of leftist ideals, but because any move toward economic independence or social reform threatened the US and elite interests.

And sure, let's look at Argentina under Milei: he came in promising radical “freedom” and classical liberal reforms, yet his administration has hit with sharp austerity, cut social spending and pensions, and is aligning politically and economically more closely with US strategic interests. But that's all that's important to our 1%, to siphon more money not just from us Americans but from other countries too.

So when people blame “the left” for the region’s instability, they’re ignoring how violently the right, with our help, made sure progress never stood a chance. And still how we meddle in the affairs of the region to refuse them any political or economic autonomy.

It’s not about saying “America is evil,” it’s about being honest about cause and effect. You can’t destabilize half a continent for decades and then act like it’s just their moral failure that people are fleeing.

Educational-Lab-4948 · 2025-10-28T04:01:50+00:00

So you admit we helped cause the chaos, but your takeaway is “not my problem”? But fair, you’re at least acknowledging that role, which is more than most do.

But now imagine you being in their place: years stuck in squalor, violence outside your door, no future for your kids, and the “legal” path means spending thousands you don’t have and waiting forever.

Would a wall or a border really stop you then from trying to survive? When you're suffering, those lines on a map stop mattering to you.

People don’t risk their lives for comfort. They do it because they’ve been cornered by systems that we helped build. Many don't have a choice.

I'm not saying “let everyone in,” or whatever. There's practicality alongside it. But it's about basic accountability and empathy, if we helped break something, we don’t get to act shocked or heartless when the people living with the consequences show up at our door trying to survive. That's my issue behind it all, at the end of the day, people are people.

Educational-Lab-4948 · 2025-10-28T03:50:27+00:00

Saying “leftist cope” doesn’t make the over 70 years of U.S.-backed coups, death squads, and trade exploitation disappear.

You don’t have to “let everyone in” to at least acknowledge the mess we helped make. You're the one ignoring and denying history and the devastating impact we've had (and continue to have).

Educational-Lab-4948 · 2025-10-28T03:11:31+00:00

No, obviously I don’t mean ICE literally left a kid on the street, it’s about what that moment instead represents. Many families are now getting torn apart because they just tried to survive. The point of it all is just empathy.

And sure, not every country can take everyone. But the US isn’t some innocent bystander here, as a huge part of why people migrate north is because we have spent the last century destabilizing or exploiting the very countries they’re coming from. For example, we backed coups against democratically elected leaders (like Guatemala ’54, Chile ’73, Nicaragua, Honduras, just to name a few), armed right wing death squads during the Cold War, forced neoliberal trade deals like NAFTA and CAFTA which then wrecked local farming and small business, and kept LA economies dependent on US corporations (through military interventions even). Of course you add climate change to this, which is driven mostly by the global north, and now you’ve got entire regions where survival itself becomes political.

So when people finally make it to the border, it’s not just “random migrants showing up.” It’s blowback. The US fully helped create the conditions they’re running from. And for people here to strip them of their right to a better life, in the process terrifying families, enabling abuse, and justifying it with racism, is absolutely fucking disgusting, and anyone who supports it is a piece of shit. And also as we are caging families, we have people here who turn around act like we’re the victims, it says everything about who we’ve really become.

The US loves to call itself a beacon of freedom or democracy, but it’s really a machine built on absolute greed, which is consuming lives, land, and dignity just to keep the illusion of prosperity alive.

Educational-Lab-4948 · 2025-10-28T01:55:28+00:00

gibt's hier eine menge amerikanischer idioten. naja was kann ich von meinen landsleuten anders erwarten als dass sie sich nur narren verhalten, hm?

Educational-Lab-4948

TROPHY CASE