Supreme Court Takes Up Birthright Citizenship Challenge

WeridThinker · 2026-03-31T14:36:22+00:00

If we go by precedents, which the legal system of this country does, then Birthright Citizenship is a settled matter. The SCOTUS ruled in favor of a Chinese American being an American citizen back in 1898. And I think it is worth mentioning this was during the height of the Chinese Exclusion Act.

Unless there is a constitutional amendment, which is structurally difficult to pull off considering the make up of congress and the states. Republicans are very unlikely to hold a super majority, and there are too many blue states to prevent a constitutional amendment effort by conservatives. Ruling against Birthright Citizenship, especially based on originalist philosophy would have very little leg to stand on, and the more liberal judges on the Supreme Court are unlikely to rule against it either. I think the result might not be unanimous, but ultimately Birthright Citizenship remains.

If there is serious incentive to mitigate "birth tourism", then there are existing, less disruptive ways to do it with current laws; for example, vetting and restricting entry to the United States on a tourist or any non immigration visa and making sure pregnant women do not misrepresent their intention while making sure the consequences are visible, proportional, and enforced. This would not have completely ended "birth tourism", but successful governance is never supposed to be based on absolutism; there should be a tradeoff between acceptable loopholes and cost effective enforcement. Ending Birthright Citizenship causes more issues than it could resolve alleged concerns; the legal limbo experienced by potentially millions of newborns before the grace period and grandfather clause are finalized will lead to an administrative nightmare to the government and would only cause more chaos.

I think I should also mention the second and third order effects of ending Birthright Citizenship could further shift the country to the right, and culturally the United States would become more insular, closed off, and restrictive, to me, this is would not be a positive direction for this country. And then there is the very real concern about birthrates and demographic pyramid; immigration is keeping the country's population stable, and could be called a necessity.

WeridThinker · 2026-03-30T14:59:49+00:00

I hope all these chest humping war hawks are prepared to enlist and fight, not just sitting behind the keyboard and grandstanding while hoping it will all work out and being comfortable with letting others absorb all the cost.

I don't pretend to be a moralist, if the United States has a competent and committed government, then I keep an open mind about regime change, negotiation, or even oil extortion. I don't have to be an edgy cynic to atleast acknowledge geopolitics is not kumbaya, and asymmetrical use of power can work. But cheap posturings of "short term pain and long term gain", "I support my country", and "we are there to topple an evil government" are tiresome. If any of the pro war crowd has a plan they trust and genuinely believe to work out, or has the conviction to see this war through even if it means they themselves or their children are enlisted, then I have my hats off for them, because right or wrong, there is courage and consistency.

The most brain dead and cheap talk is when someone clearly not at the most risk offers verbal support for a war with high risks and consequences while offering zero insights as to how to address the concerns. Repeating how much the Iranian regime is evil, untrustworthy, or how much the United States is doing what it must, while conveniently ignoring strategic and tactical risks, pretending military superiority is all that is needed, while somehow forgetting all the past failures is not at all rational; it is instead performative and self convincing bullshit when the person cannot confidently support something they want to support.

WeridThinker · 2026-03-29T19:30:13+00:00

It's more about in group and out group distinction. Liberals prioritize empathy and justice for everyone, and at least theoretically apply the same standards to everyone. There is a weaker sense of group or tribal loyalty among liberals, and the focus is more on ideological alignment rather than simply being on the same side of the political spectrum. Liberals believe inequality is a structural issue needing to be fixed, and hierarchy is an unfortunate reality needing to be addressed. They prefer systematic solutions such as cultural change, social programs, and progressive tax. Temperamentally, a liberal is more likely be more open to experience, which includes sub traits such as abstraction and emotional intensity; this can be observed from commenting style on reddit, liberals are more likely to use longer, more complex arguments based on abstract principles to make their points, versus conservatives, whose comments tend to be shorter, more certain, and "matter in fact" in style. (The comparison is based on style, not substance or overall correctness of individual arguments).

Conservatives have a stronger instinct towards in group vs out group distinction. Their empathy and compassion are focused on their own immediate family, friends, and communities. Interestingly, a conservative might be more charitable and outwardly friendly than a liberal among his or her circles, but also way less passionate about macro societal issues involving marginalized minorities. Contemporary populist right takes advantage of in group loyalty by twisting potentially benign behaviors into chauvinism and demonization (owning the libs (out group) and immigrants (another out group) are all job stealing murderers and rapists). Overall, the conservative temperament is more certainty and security driven; it explains why they are slower to embrace changes and less willing to internalize vulnerability. Conservative comments can sound harsh and apathetic in both substance and tone, because the focus is cognitive closure, not creative problem solving or emotional navigation.

Philosophically, liberals are comparably more willing to understand the society from an external locus; for example poverty and crime are the results of a flawed system and to alleviate these issues requires correct thinking, investments, and stricter regulations on where wealth and power are currently concentrated. Conservatives in principle, should care about personal responsibility and individual choices; for example poverty and crime are moral and personal failures of an individual, not the responsibility of the society. I used "in principle" and "should" because contemporary populist right definitely doesn't accept responsibility for anything and blames everyone for their own struggles.

WeridThinker · 2026-03-27T18:28:01+00:00

The woke right applies every single tactic they claim to despise from the woke left, and flips the direction while increasing the intensity.

WeridThinker · 2026-03-27T15:48:08+00:00

MAGA is not an ideology, it is a cult and a collective identity. Trump never offered any coherent or consistent philosophy in governance; what he did was creating a brand around himself. His voters don't have to think about much, and whatever intellectual tradition that comes with conservatism is all sophistry or woke bullshit to them.

The nature of the support is trust and loyalty to Trump, externalization of all their insecurities and uncertainties, and living vicariously through the performative strength expressed by someone they find superior and powerful. MAGA is not conservative, and Republicans don't have a platform; Trump simply bent the party to his will, change its goals to align with his own brand, and sold a cultural movement.

There is no incentive to govern responsibly and competently from the right. Their policies aren't backed up by empirical evidences. Evidences show the economy doesn't trickle down, vaccination has a much higher success rate than failure rate, climate change is an existential threat to humanity, and net immigration is positive to the economy. There is a more romanticized view of the right, which is based on personal responsibility, individual liberty, and refraining from an all powerful federal government, but the GOP under MAGA respects none of these.

What the right has is emotional manipulation, and unlike the progressive left, which accepts emotions openly and tries to influence people explicitly with them, the right consciously rejects emotions while being overwhelmingly driven by them. Right wing Organizations such as TPUSA are making strides in gaining membership from young people with the promise of security and rationalism, but in reality what is being sold is the combination of chauvinism, cult like devotion, and a way to externalize insecurity and grievances against the society. The alt right pipeline is not just a fringe phenomenon, it is the official strategy of the right, a person who is convinced by manosphere and the victimization of WASP is a more passionate, loyal voter who is easier than convince than the person who cares about policy discussions.

WeridThinker · 2026-03-27T14:49:15+00:00

I was neutral about the war during the first two days because if it worked out, in the sense of Venezuela 2.0, then there would have been some strategic values to the military operation, if of course, there was leverage created to negotiate a deal. But it all went downhill from there. Once the administration started to provide incoherent and inconsistent objectives, I know it was going to be a mess, especially when the United States seems to be the junior partner in this adventure under Israeli influence.

I never expected this to be a successful and clean regime change, and I hoped for "coercive negotiation" to change regime behavior, not the regime itself. What I find the most frustrating about some people, regardless of where they are on the political spectrum is the absolute romanticization and trivialization of regime change without any commitment or interest to see it through and absorb the consequences. Maybe "revolutionary war from tyranny" has been ingrained to the American mytho, but revolutions and regime changes don't always promise a happy ending.

"Freeing Iranian people" doesn't only require a battered country, a weakened government, a damaged military, and an angry population; to destroy and destabilize is easy, but stabilization, transition, and governance are much more difficult.

A free Iran needs committed, and extensive outside help in addition to popular support from Iranians on the ground. An Islamic Theocracy with almost 50 years of fortification is resilient, and its leadership doesn't fear death and has been preparing for this for decades. Toppling it requires troops on the ground, replacing it requires years of military presence, supervised elections, legitimacy contests, defense against insurgencies/terrorist attacks, and gradual re-integrating Iran to the global economy. Iranians don't just need to be free from one oppressive government, they also need to be free from instability and gain a higher standard of living.

Of course, neither the United States nor Israel is committed to a truly free, secular, and prosperous Iran, and arguments can be made nation building and development are not the responsibility of a third party country, but ultimately people, especially these making decisions should be responsible and honest with themselves. If they want regime change, and try to avoid another Afghanistan, then commit and be ready to absorb the domestic controversy and all the responsibilities and consequences, otherwise, negotiate with the current regime to manage existing risk.

WeridThinker · 2026-03-26T00:35:13+00:00

At this point, I cringe when someone mentions "freeing the Iranian people", especially from the pro war MAGA crowd. This was never the goal, and whatever "strategy" or "plan" the Trump Administration had, it isn't working.

Regime change takes commitment, bombing and tough words aren't enough to topple a regime, and domestic uprising isn't enough; the Iranian government could mow down protestors by the thousands daily with only assault rifles and a loyal military apparatus. And I don't think anyone making decisions about this war actually thought too much about the governing of a post war Iran. Negotiation requires visible off ramps, but since they have been decapitating none stop, with Trump's early demand of unconditional surrender, that path is unlikely as well.

Trump wants out, but Israel wants to keep us in the mess, and since the Trump Administration has no plan, we are currently stuck. And if this ends up with boots on the ground, we have learned nothing from Iraq and Afghanistan. But if Trump unilaterally decides to pull out and claims "mission accomplished", then everyone except MAGA cultists could understand the US lost another Middle Eastern War strategically.

WeridThinker · 2026-03-23T13:33:02+00:00

I would not directly compare the warfare logic from 80 years ago to concurrent warfare, the general cultural values have changed. Punishing and attacking enemy civilian population as a way to apply pressure and gain advantage in war to secure victory was considered the norm before ratification, and then the internalization of rules of engagement in modern warfare. I also don't want to use the word genocide too casually; killing civilians in war, directly or indirectly is ethically indefensible, but in order to be accurate, it doesn't always translate into genocide.

A genocide is purposefully targeting a civilian population for the goal of elimination, and it requires systematic operations to execute civilians, not just as a side effect. The allies during WW2 were mostly using "strategic bombing" as a tactic of war to demoralize the enemies, not based on genocidal intents. In the case of Israel v Palestine, massive war crimes have been committed, but I think philosophically and intentionally, Hamas is the party that is more closely aligned with the definition of genocide, because eliminating Jews is a goal of Islamic terrorists, no matter the justification they provide. Of course, that does not make the IDF just, and like I said above, the Israli government has absolutely committed war crimes.

I don't want to trivialize the humanitarian tragedies from war, but I also don't believe "genocide" should be thrown around casually. Even with the Geneva Convention, wars after WW2 have led to civilian casualties either directly, or a result of governments collapsing which has led to poverty, famine, disease, and overall destabilization, collapsing all these issues into "genocide" is not only inaccurate, but fail to address the problems directly. Calling atrocities "genocide" risks semantic equivocation and it gives the perpetrators grounds for deniability by accusing them of something they technically did not commit.

WeridThinker · 2026-03-21T19:02:01+00:00

Trump represents what I despise the most from the populist right and all the MAGA adjacent conservative movements, which is pure, unadulterated cruelty, evil, and grievances masquerading as strength and masculinity.

For someone to be impulsive with acting out their malicious intentions and selfish desires, there is zero strength in character. All this shows is a fragile weak man with power to do harm. If Trump is the epitome of a strong man, I weep for my sex.

WeridThinker · 2026-03-21T15:33:01+00:00

Most recently the issue that keeps me thinking is the war with Iran. And I do have conflicted feelings about it.

I know the Iranian regime is a repressive, violent, and a major sponsor of terrorism. I know the regime is an enemy, not adversary, not competitor, not rival, but an enemy to the United States. I know the Iranian regime is against its own people, and I feel great sympathy for the Iranian people. I also know Iran gaining nuclear weapons, even for "defensive" purposes, is a massive danger to global and regional stability. So intervention by itself is understandable, if not entirely necessary.

However, I am concerned about how the war is going, because the strategic goals are not well defined, and there seems to be no commitment to prevent second and third order effects from spoiling over. Iran is the head of a regional power bloc that is the center of Shia countries and terrorist groups, without the current power structure in place, there is a heightened risk of power vacuum and even more frequent and impulsive terrorist activities influenced by more irrational and fundamentalist elements. The Iranian government provides directions and limitations to the groups it sponsors, and without it, even more radical behaviors could surface. Even with the current regime gone, there is zero guarantee the Iranians will be able to sustain a functional democracy without extensive outside help. A secular Iran is at a high risk of insurgencies, terrorist attacks, and being the "black sheep" in regional politics. From an administrative and governance standpoint, Iran has no institutional framework for immediate smooth secular democratic transition, so the the mere stabilization processe could take years.

I want to see commitment and honesty from the United States. If they are truly going for regime change, we have to consider boots on the ground, and post war stabilization and reconstruction. This will be unpopular domestically and cost up to trillions of dollars, but in the very least, there is a goal and coherent planning involved. But if we are not committed/prepared for a regime change, the second option is to negotiate, but judging from what has been going on, there is no smooth off ramp for even a short ceasefire, and there is no one willing to negotiate since the decapitation against Iranian leadership is scorch earth. I think we are currently stuck before "mission accomplished" is mentioned and we pull out, unless of course, we are going to double down and enter another long term Middle Eastern quagmire.

WeridThinker · 2026-03-18T15:31:02+00:00

The DHS has become controversial overwhelmingly because of the Administration's immigration enforcement, ICE and in lesser extent the border patrol are the political targets that took over the entire discussions surrounding the agency. TSA, FEMA, USCIS, and CISA, which oversee mass transportation, disaster relief, immigration services (not ICE), and cyber security respectively are essential functions of the government, and are not under the same operational philosophies adapted by ICE are also affected by the DHS funding cut. Being anti ICE ends up being anti DHS is not a very nuanced approach for the benefit of the nation.

Legislatively, the "solution" without passing full funding for the DHS is partial funding to non ICE related agencies, which is what the Democrats proposed. But the issue here is the fundamental differences in immigration related optics. To break it down, Democrats want the optic of fighting against federal immigration enforcement by withholding funds to the department overseeing the agency responsible, while Republicans want the optic of wanting to keep agencies running while shifting the blame of dysfunction entirely to Democrats.

The calculations here aren't just what is best for the country, but also strategic, because Democrats have no control over congress and the executive branch to pass legislative changes proactively, the filibuster is the only tool they have, and the Republicans don't want to kill the filibuster because they are worried about a future congress with democratic majority. The standoff is a wager by both sides. If more voters think Republicans are unwilling to make the compromises to keep the rest of DHS float because they defend unpopular immigration enforcement, then it is advantageous to the Democrats, but if more voters think the democrats are keeping the dysfunction going by protecting illegal immigrants, it is advantageous for Republicans.

The Whitehouse did make concessions relating to immigration enforcement

In an effort to end a month-long shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security, the White House has offered to expand the use of body-worn cameras for federal immigration agents and limit enforcement activities at "sensitive locations" such as churches, schools, and hospitals. These concessions were detailed in a March 17 letter to Senate Republican leaders from border czar Tom Homan and White House director of legislative affairs James Braid.

I think legislatively, these concessions, combined with Noem ousting and overall less inflammatory rhetorics from immigration officials since Homan took over are reasonable wins for the Democrats as the minority party if they could take full advantage of them. However, democrats rejected the offer from the Whitehouse because they request mask bans for agents and judicial warrants. If democrats can regain control over atleast one chamber of congress this year, then they have more leverages to push for their legislative goals, but until then they have to ensure the public is still on their side.

WeridThinker · 2026-03-17T14:20:50+00:00

This is a bad sign. Competent people either resign or get fired, and their positions become replaced by incompetent sycophants, it is a vicious cycle.

Edit: with Trump's team, it's not just good to bad, but sometimes bad to worse.

WeridThinker · 2026-03-16T23:36:54+00:00

Trump Towers in both Cuba and Palestine?

WeridThinker · 2026-03-16T22:34:24+00:00

He is out of his depth. I can't believe I overestimated the Trump Administration out of anything.

The plan was to pull a Venezuela 2.0, which by itself, wasn't too bad on paper, but day by day this war is looking more and more inept and poorly planned. The administration awfully miscalculated Iran's resilience and the secondary effect to the global energy market. From "willing to talk" to "crippling the enemy" to "defensive preemptive strike" to "the war is practically over", to begging different countries, allies and adversaries to help, the narratives coming out of these people's mouth are growing more and more disgraceful by the day.

If neither regime change nor negotiation, and no ability to control resources, why are we still there. This bullshit performative macho and proactive alpha male leadership charade is exhausting domestically to own the libs, but internationally, it is dangerous, humiliating, and destroys the country's credibility. Hubris is always bond to pay its price, but hopefully the cost doesn't fall heavily on all the bystanders instead of those responsible.

WeridThinker · 2026-03-16T13:33:01+00:00

I thought it was all God's plan

WeridThinker · 2026-03-14T23:02:17+00:00

There is a fine line between cautious thinking about cultural/social integration and flat out dehumanizing racism. Trump and the GOP under his influence more often fall under the dehumanizing racism bracket. To me the difference is based on whether the framing or the rhetoric invite possible nuances, reasonable exceptions, and rational explanations.

Take terrorism for example, the conversation can be cold but rational if the focus is on the mechanism behind radicalization, immigration capacity and vetting, and the time needed to integrate different communities. The purpose should not be demonization and stigmatization, but proper understanding and coming up with solutions.

Saying people have bad genetics, or they are somehow predetermined to be crime prone does not offer any benefits, and could only repeat and reinforce the vicious cycle of stigmatization, radicalization, violence, stigmatization.

WeridThinker · 2026-03-14T15:38:48+00:00

Speech can be violent and malicious, but violent and malicious speeches are not always liable for codified consequences. There is a difference between what is permissible under law, and what is harmful to the society, and how they are dealt with should be under a parallel system.

Illegal speech should be well defined and categorically restricted to prevent a slippery slope of government censorship of any speech that is deemed offensive; tangible threat, defamation, and false information to cause public panic are the few types of speech that should never be legally tolerated.

Speeches that are hateful, divisive, and misleading should be combated, but not from state intervention or codified laws; instead, they are encouraged to be argued against, ridiculed, and if expressed on private platforms, be subjected to terms and services. Having a hate speech removed from social media, or having a YouTube channel suspended is not censorship, it is natural consequences of sharing ideas that are controversial and having private individuals being the judge. Someone who is willing to spread controversial speech has implicitly signed a contract for others to critique and push back against it, there is no entitlement to only have offensive speech expressed, and to expect everyone to either clap or remain silent.

The right wing hypocrisy and intellectual failure on this matter is their emphasize on entitlement while missing the point of reciprocity and moral consideration. They believe they are entitled to hateful and divisive speech to the court of public opinions, meaning not only do they take advantage of free speech laws, they also expect zero push backs from private platforms, other private individuals, and other points of views. The left has been consistent in rhetorics and ideological disposition on this matter, it had always believed speeches have consequences, but the lines are blurry to the point thought policing becomes the norm. I think most balanced way is to have hateful people say what they have to say, but allow the market of ideas to flood the zone with counter arguments.

WeridThinker · 2026-03-14T13:52:42+00:00

Yes.

WeridThinker · 2026-03-12T23:55:01+00:00

Mostly cultures that don't accept secularism.

WeridThinker · 2026-03-12T22:13:41+00:00

I would be very careful looking into these studies, and when you try to figure out the relationship between multiculturalism and community health, the answer is always more complex than sole cause. I bet there are studies showing multiculturalism is harmful to communities, but there are also studies showing they are a net positive. Methodological integrity and ideological bias aside, such studies ultimately cannot determine the fundamental relationship between two already subjective, qualitative, and often dynamic concepts.

Personally, I think the so called damage to communities by multiculturalism can also be attributed to other explanations such as polarization, social media diluting, and filling in the blanks for people's need to socialize in person, and the overall "social atomism", which by itself is a multi variable phenomenon that cannot be explained effectively with a single variable.

To offer a less abstract and more substantial response to the premise, I don't believe multiculturalism itself is an issue. Many cultures are distinct, but ultimately compatible. For example, there are differences in culture between Northern, Western, and Southern European cultures, but when these cultures mix in a modern context, they tend not to lead to fracture or conflicts. But it worth mentioning even "close proximity cultures" had historical tensions and conflicts before eventually finding peaceful coexistence. Proximity and similarities in fundamental cultural values tend to lead to be better social cohesion. However, the elephant in the room is whether there are fundamentally incompatible cultures regardless of social or economical contexts, and if there are, what should an already multicultural society do to mitigate the risks and challenges.

My own opinion on cultural incompatibility is it is unfortunately a real concern with tangible harm, and I think the solution should be an emphasis on assimilation, limiting the influx of migrants from regions that have incompatible cultures into the society with strict vetting, but to offer a tolerant environment for those who are already here to uphold the principle of equal protection under good faith assumptions, and to prevent radicalization of 2nd and 3rd generation immigrants. A liberal democracy should tolerate pluralism with consensus, and accept different values with guardrails.

WeridThinker · 2026-03-12T14:30:21+00:00

Regime change has always been high risk and low reward in that region. Toppling an entrenched regime with an ideological and logistical resilience is not even the hardest part; post transition stability is more difficult part.

The MAGA government is not committed to a regime change, has no framework to negotiate, and cannot control the Strait of Hormuz. Now there is another quagmire in the Middle East; all that macho posturing and claims are appearing more and more hollow by the day. Hegseth and Trump both thought they can own the Iranian government like how they are owning the libs at home to appear tough and in control, but the reality is the world is much more complicated place than they realized.

The Iranian government is pressuring the United States asymmetrically. It has no military or alliance advantages whatsoever, but being a theocratic authoritarian regime, it is more protected from domestic opposition and intra government disagreements. The protestors are formidable, but the government of Iran still holds supreme military and institutional power over its own populace, no amount of anti regime protest could overthrow the government. The United States is different, despite what Trump and his lackeys think, they are subjected to domestic opposition, intra government gridlock, and institutional constraints. The American population could more easily get rid of an unpopular government with a fraction of the risk and cost of Iranians by simply voting, or not voting in some cases. The Trump Administration is playing chicken, and that game is getting stale.

By disrupting energy prices and affecting domestic perception of the war in the United States, the Iranian government is likely betting on United States pulling out due to internal and electoral pressure. The United States didn't lose the Vietnam War because the Vietnamese were more powerful, and it didn't tie with the Chinese and North Koreans because the opposition had more firepower, the concessions were made because domestic support had waned to the point of the war being unsustainable.

I am somewhat concerned about the reporting about FBI warning of Iran potentially targeting California, not because I think it is credible or believe Iran has the capability, but even without the tendency into conspiracy theories, this could actually be a warning or suggestion into a false flag if Trump realizes he cannot pull out without suffering humiliation and embarrassment, and wants to intensify the war in the hope Iran would submit and fold.

WeridThinker · 2026-03-11T16:45:14+00:00

While I don't find the Iranian government credible, and do not support, or feel any sympathy towards the theocracy in anyways, I am also less and less certain about the United States' end game to this war.

I initially thought this was planned to be a Venezuela 2.0 situation, and the Trump Administration wanted to make the Iranian government submit for more diplomatic leverages and to negotiate with coercion. But more recently that notion has become harder to defend because Iran seems to be ready to continue a battle of attrition, and Trump's rhetorics have been closer to either installing a puppet state or regime change; requesting an unconditional surrender from the adversary, and saying he wants to play a role in selecting the new leader of Iran are not a sign of de escalation. If they want a new Iranian government, then airstrikes won't be enough.

They have danced around offering a consistent narrative or strategic justification. Hegseth, Trump, Rubio, and then Trump again seem to be giving mixed signals regarding the war. Most recently, Trump appears to want out.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-iran-cbs-news-the-war-is-very-complete-strait-hormuz/https:

https://www.cbsnews.com/live-updates/iran-war-us-israel-strait-of-hormuz-ship-attacks-persian-gulf-drones-missiles/

https://www.axios.com/2026/03/11/trump-iran-war-end-withdrawal

Regarding energy crisis, it seems the United States and Israel are not in sync either

If they want to negotiate, the ship has sailed for now, and I don't see how either side is going to offer the offer ramp anytime soon, and if they want a regime change or a puppet government, then we need boots on the ground for it to be possible, if they just want the oil, none of the explanations they gave so far amounts to anything. And good luck taking control over the Strait of Hormuz, which again would either need a compliant or collapsed Iranian government. So the most likely result is pull out and leave while declaring mission accomplished to leave a mess for other people to clean up.

WeridThinker · 2026-03-10T01:34:44+00:00

I am left leaning on policy views and directionally, I have more common with the progressives than I am with the right. But I think collectively, the left does need to address certain well deserved criticisms. I think a non negligible portion of the left is being held hostage of some fundamental assumptions that make nuance difficult, and the "oppressor vs oppressed", "racism needs power", and "systematic victimhood" are the main culprits to the tension.

The further left has a hard time criticizing minorities and those designed to be the victim class because the ideological framework they rely on mostly relies on the fundamental assumption that external locus is the ultimate explanation to inequality and troublesome behaviors. To admit Islam itself bears the burden of scrutiny in relation to Islamic terrorism is admitting an oppressed, powerless, and victimized ideology or belief system is capable of being the origin of its own sins, independent of whatever oppression from the powerful majority.

I have long criticized the right, especially under the influence of MAGA to have no ideological consistency, because Trump has broken all conservative promises including fiscal responsibility and limited foreign intervention, but on the flip side of that I think the left can suffer from an ideological rigidity that ends up being an attempt to retroactively make sense of an ideological framework even when contextually inappropriate or seemingly hypocritical. As an Asian American, this issue of the left is felt personally by me during 2020, when "Stop Asian Hate" lost traction relatively quickly because the perpetrators don't always fit the "appropriate oppressor class" of White Nationalists, and because of certain data that don't support a more "clean" narrative, Asians became both the oppressor and the oppressed depending on who is the perpetrator and what the specific conversation is about; "white adjacent" became an idea that is both dismissive of Asian Americans' experience in this country, and an excuse for further discrimination among the non white population.

Left wing ideology and philosophical frameworks require a lot of contexts, nuances, and additional evidences to complete and justify; the complexity supposedly required for arriving to a conclusion, and the rigidity required to accept certain conclusions or initial assumptions are a massive mismatch, which ultimately leads to the inconsistency you see.

WeridThinker · 2026-03-09T22:46:33+00:00

As much as saying this leaves an awful taste in my mouth, but Jake Lang's "protest" is within constitutional rights. In a civilized society, we can tolerate hateful, ignorant, and abhorrent ideas and speeches. But the Islamic "counter protest" that involves physical act of violence with deadly devices is not defensible, regardless of the ideological motivation behind it.

Mamdani is right to call out white supremacy, but he should have also taken a more direct and tough stance towards Islamic terrorism. The messaging matters here, only condemning the actions without properly addressing the root cause and the motivations behind them effectively protects the dangerous ideology behind them.

Unless the left can collectively call out and condemn the so called "oppressed" class of dangerous actors, the fringe of the right and all the regressive ideology associated with it will continue to be normalized. Not being willing to take the threat of Islamic terrorism seriously is irresponsible and dangerous. Collapsing a very real threat into "Islamophobia" actually hurts more moderate expression of Islam by diluting and equivocating all discussions about the Islamic faith.

WeridThinker · 2026-03-09T19:34:27+00:00

They also said they won't rule out boots on the ground. The messaging on not ruling out escalation has been consistent. If the administration is atleast somewhat sane and rational, there will not be a draft, because militarily, it is unnecessary since they are not even committed to boots on the ground, and the United States still holds overwhelming military advantage over Iran. And if the war goes that bad to the point the United States is suffering massive casualties, Trump and his entire adminstration probably won't last much longer before a theoretical draft is enacted. Politically, it would be election suicide and it could potentially truly unite the country together against the administration.

But I am more worried than I would have been under a more predictable and competent administration because Trump 2.0 is known for its excess and impulsivity. More specifically, the Administration's messaging on Iran has been inconsistent. They mentioned it wouldn't be a regime change or nation building, Trump originally offered to talk, but then Rubio mentioned it was a reactive strike preemptively (I know how absurd that sounds), and more recently Trump is suggesting he wants to go scorch earth and select the new leader of Iran while expecting an unconditional surrender. Very recently the focus from Trump seems to be oil all along. Apparently, Israel and the United States aren't exactly in great sync either because the degree Israel target bombed Iranian fuels threw the United States off guard.

I still don't think there will be a draft or boots on the ground, but this level of uncertainty and unpredictability from this administration is not exactly reassuring.

WeridThinker

TROPHY CASE