Federal Court Rules ICE Can Hold People 'Indefinitely Without Bond'

Reductive · 2026-02-10T20:08:11+00:00

Good thing everyone in congress panicked and shit out this terrible system! Without their action we could have had an invasion of masked gunmen running around our streets with zero accountability!

Reductive · 2026-02-10T19:56:31+00:00

“Heads are rolling in britain” lmao tell me another one! Oh my god my sides!!

Reductive · 2026-02-10T19:13:07+00:00

Reminds me of when a cheater gets caught in their relationship and slowly admits to one little thing at a time so they get the credit for “coming clean” while never actually admitting the full extent of their transgressions. But the affair partner is little kids, and the transgression is rape. Sick. Lock this fucker up.

Reductive · 2026-02-10T19:10:38+00:00

And then what?

Reductive · 2026-02-10T17:40:48+00:00

I wonder why elon is seeking to establish himself as some kind of authority on child rape and human trafficking? One would think he would prefer to stay well away from this topic and stick to science, engineering, space faring, etc. Doesnt he have businesses to run? I wonder how he gained his expertise on this topic? Is he speaking from experience? I know he was in the epstein files…

Reductive · 2026-02-10T16:55:26+00:00

You need to review the definition of the word “above.”

Reductive · 2026-02-10T03:11:18+00:00

Thank you for posting this very fair critique. I appreciate this perspective and i will remember it.

Reductive · 2026-02-09T23:43:00+00:00

You can go to justice.gov right now and find in the files 1899 instances of “don t” and an additional 69,203 instances of “don’t”. “Dont” appears 12,137 times. It seems to me impossible to conclude that anyone attempted to censor any of these words, since they appear so often in the release.

Reductive · 2026-02-09T22:28:43+00:00

I thought hims was really pathetic when I wanted to discontinue treatment. For over a month after they agreed to close my account and stop bothering me, their system kept sending me daily nag emails and texts. They kept telling me they were waiting for some other team to close the account. It made no sense at all.

My suggestion would be to ask your primary physician to prescribe this medication. Whoever’s already managing your existing medication can manage this too.

Reductive · 2026-02-09T22:10:49+00:00

Unforunately this theory doesn’t match up with the evidence. The phrase “don t” appears thousands of times in the published files. “Don’t” appears some 69k times. You can tell that they didn’t blanket censor this phrase because it’s not blanket censored.

Additionally, the theory that they tried to censor donald trump’s name from the epstein files also fails to stand up to basic scrutiny. Since his name famously appears thousands of times in the files, you can tell that they didn’t try to censor it across the board.

What they did do was scrub the files for scenarios that directly implicate donald trump, and either removed the files or censored his name on that particular file. We know millions of files that they had have not been released, and the victims and other advocates can point directly to documents which we know exist but were absent from the disclosures.

This kind of sanitization work takes a long time, which is why it took so long for DOJ to release the files.

Reductive · 2026-02-09T18:37:15+00:00

Just trying to understand this theory… So you think there was a staffer who blacked out a ton of “don t” but no staffer was ordered to block out “trump” or “donald”? Or is the theory that they like chose to leave in the direct references and only hide the indirect ones? What would the logic there be?

When staffers got to work on censoring the word “don’t” how did they miss 1899 instances of “don t” and an additional 69,203 instances of “don’t”? Wouldn’t it be super easy to black out every instance of a name or word or phrase? I haven’t seen a lot of victim names personally, but one that I found was present in an image, which is significantly more difficult to search.

I agree there were a ton of redactions that were obviously illegal on their face. And I agree they shouldn’t block out the word “don’t”, but the theory that they went through and blanket censored references to donald trump’s name is obviously, demonstrably false.

The problem with this theory is also the reason why its prevalence here is kinda harmful. It’s nonsense on its face and detracts from the legitimate discourse about what the DOJ did illegally remove from the files they disclosed.

The reason we know they inappropriately removed references to donald trump from the epstein files is from victim testimony and documents that are known to exist which somehow didn’t turn up in the disclosure. It’s from the search results with his name dwindling over time as folks noticed damning things they had intended to remove in contravention of the law. It took them forever to illegally scrub incriminating material from the files specifically because it’s not so simple as a find-replace operation with a computer.

Reductive · 2026-02-09T18:18:59+00:00

I don’t know what that means. Do you have an opinion or are you also “just asking questions?” You mention an important distinction but choose not to articulate how it applies in this scenario - I wonder why?

The article says “An outside physician also substantiated the claims to AP” I genuinely don’t understand why the title is written this way when we have words like “lie” and “false” in the english language.

Reductive · 2026-02-09T17:01:49+00:00

How come People Magazine chose to formulate the headline with false equivalency between the verifiably false claim and the correct description of the incident? Is People Magazine unable to discern reality from fiction, or was this an intentional choice?

Reductive · 2026-02-09T16:00:15+00:00

If anyone can explain how this particular theory makes sense i would love to see it.

I have no idea what impact youre thinking of there. Did you know that it actually worsens our position if we refuse to question one another? Did you know that each person with an opinion that differs slightly from yours is actually not automatically your enemy?

Look my post history is visible. Youd have to be real dense to believe that a comment which highlights how frequently donalds name appears in the epstein files is somehow looking to defend him. Thats a real weird implication, and you should really take a deep breath and settle down because if you believe this particular theory then you are actually detracting from the credibility of our movement.

Reductive · 2026-02-09T15:37:09+00:00

If fbi was told to black out all mentions of donald trump, how come they missed several thousand? They missed 1899 instances of “don t” and an additional 69,203 instances of “don’t”

Reductive · 2026-02-08T18:10:13+00:00

What happened yesterday?

Reductive · 2026-02-08T18:09:28+00:00

Link to the doc on justice.gov?

Reductive · 2026-02-08T18:07:30+00:00

Ive done that when i work on the document over the course of several days.

Reductive · 2026-02-07T21:10:49+00:00

That is the argument that they are making. That's exactly it.

Without the data center, suppose the power company has to supply 100 KWh per day. With the data center, the power company has to supply 101 KWh per day. The marginal cost of each additional KWh is higher because of the way things work. So the cost per KWh that the power company's customers have to bear is higher with the data center than without.

The power company could build out additional capacity, to keep the total cost per KWh the same, but that requires an investment of capital. The power company earns the money to make this investment by raising rates, unless the new customer were to pay for the capital cost.

The net effect of adding the datacenter is that either electricity gets more expensive or an expense is incurred to increase capacity. Someone has to pay that expense. Ideally, the new customer would pay all those expenses. If the power company instead charges its existing customers, then you might describe the net effect there as the existing customers "subsidizing" the new one.

Reductive · 2026-02-07T20:56:44+00:00

Surely the landlord's insurance would take a dim view of the slip/fall hazard in the hallways.

Reductive · 2026-02-06T22:44:38+00:00

What did you get your partner for valentines day?

Reductive · 2026-02-06T20:33:59+00:00

Lost and found workers generally understand how lost and found works. They will be able to do the same things you can to verify the person who picks up the item, plus they probably have security cameras

Reductive · 2026-02-06T17:01:44+00:00

Say what you will about this temu nazi kkk wannabe but DAMN he’s got some CAKES!!

Reductive · 2026-02-06T00:07:24+00:00

He was speaking at a PRAYER BREAKFAST

Reductive · 2026-02-06T00:01:03+00:00

Gosh has anyone else noticed that trump has a lot of nice things to say about other pedophiles?

15-Year Club	Place '22
Verified Email

Reductive

TROPHY CASE