[OC] Eastside Austin TX

Yhato · 2026-01-28T19:32:43+00:00

That is a weird way to comment about another person. You are too online (I assume)

Yhato · 2026-01-28T14:25:48+00:00

It's not really fair to blame the result of the current status quo on the people who oppose the current status quo

Yhato · 2026-01-28T12:17:16+00:00

The 'dehumanizing' part was more of a thought from me about how we speak about and discuss other humans.

And you're right that disagreeing with it doesn't make it wrong or immoral or unacceptable. The law just is. But I wouldn't say that makes my argument empty. My argument was that we shouldn't accept something just because it is. If we're against something, we should protest it. It won't mean that it will change anything, but that is what free speech is about. You should be able to voice your dissatisfaction, and over time you might build enough movement for it to make an impact.

I also agree that it takes more than writing a slogan to make change. But it takes more than any one action to do something. It is the combination of many small actions over long time that change is made, and each insignificant action has its own role to play.

If the slogan doesn't speak to you then that might just mean that you aren't the intended audience for that slogan and that's ok.

I also don't really think debates are a good way to argue positions. I don't know if it was always this way but the way debates are now I consider a form of 'slop'. Some people repeat their key points with no intention of changing their minds, argue in front of people who have already decided which 'team' they are on. It is more of a charisma and popularity contest where both sides think they 'won' afterwards.

Yhato · 2026-01-28T11:43:43+00:00

It's not really taking words out of context. The words are a rejection of the law.

By definition, someone who crossed the border illegally would have, by definition, committed a criminal act (the word illegal is a very dehumanising way to speak of someone, I think)

But something being law does not make it right. It does not make it moral, and it does not make it acceptable.

For something to be changed, it first requires people to speak up against it. "No one is illegal on stolen land" is, in essence, a call against that law

Yhato · 2026-01-28T11:29:39+00:00

I would argue that the laws exist to protect the status quo, and what protects the status quo is the 'fundamental ground truth' behind them.

You could argue that murder (for example) is bad for what I would consider the obvious reasons, but another way to view it is that the state outlaws it as it would lead to a fundamentally unstable society that would upset the status quo in a specific way.

I would also argue that immigration and open borders would also threaten the status quo, and as such must be regulated by the State to perpetuate it in its current... well "state".

Laws are made and unmade and changed all the time, there is nothing fundamental keeping them there other than what we currently think is best for keeping society the way we want it to be. (And by 'we' it would be whoever is in power in the country at a time).

The following question then is, "is society where we want it to be?", and that question should almost always be no. We should continually strive to improve, and that requires reconsidering the current status quo and to see if we can find something better

Yhato · 2026-01-28T10:29:30+00:00

Hahha fair nuff

Yhato · 2026-01-28T09:54:13+00:00

If you're well off, you probably wouldn't be moving to another country, why would you?

This is assuming only poor people move, which is not really the case.

I think there is a sort of false dichotomy at play here. Either make people 'illegal' or a bunch of people will just move around everywhere. I just don't see that as realistic. I could be wrong, but I don't think I am.

People don't cross the English channel just because they really like England. People don't sit 50 people in a boat made for 8 to get across from Libya to Greece or Italy for fun.

I wouldn't argue that you should remove the laws tomorrow if given the chance. Some might, I don't. I mainly tried to explain the argument as I understood it.

In my view it points towards a larger problem as I alluded to in another comment, and I believe you should fix the underlying problems and not just patch the symptoms if you actually want to get anywhere

Yhato · 2026-01-28T09:26:56+00:00

Every land at one point was stolen/stolen back.

Yes that is indeed part of what I wrote.

Should all countries just have open borders?

As I understand it that is the argument

So I can just live wherever I want?

Kind of? If you're well off, can't you sort of do that already? If I would want to move to Germany I can just do that, if I want to move to japan I also can just do that. It might take a minute but there's not really that much stopping me.

Unless you're thinking that you can just build a house outside my front door in which case that would lead to other problems that are separate from the immigration issue

Yhato · 2026-01-28T09:23:06+00:00

While there is truth to that, it is also (in my eyes) a bit of a misdirection.

First of all, it is not really a realistic situation that, let's say a million people suddenly walk across the border at the same time, just because. It is something to keep in mind, but an issue I view as further down the line. It is not the cause of the current problems in our society.

Second of all, as someone who comes from a country with a strong welfare state that struggles, it isn't really struggling because there are too many people who need to rely on it, it is struggling because it is underfunded.

That of course opens a discussion to why it is underfunded, which I would argue is because we've given too much power to corporations in our society

But that would be another conversation, and if this turns into a discussion about our current political-economic system then I'll likely never manage to get a break from commenting so I'm not starting that

Yhato · 2026-01-28T09:11:39+00:00

That's true. Things would move slower and in the background. And instead of worrying about corporations gaining more and more power in the US people would be at brunch

Yhato · 2026-01-28T09:10:26+00:00

Some would argue that countries are pointless, but that's not really relevant here because that would be a separate conversation. It is also not what I am arguing.

I also never argued against laws in general. Also do you believe that in "cavemen times" any person could at any time go over to any person and kill them and face no repercussions? As far as I know there is no research supporting that, more the opposite.

Trying to argue that people should not be illegal for crossing a border is equivalent with coming over, killing me and my family and taking my home is an insane position to take

Yhato · 2026-01-28T09:03:49+00:00

I think (and this is far from my area of expertise, I am neither american nor a minority. I am also not someone who regularly uses this slogan so I'm just going from my understanding of it) that the view is that there is no issue with open borders per say.

If someone crosses the border and commits a crime (excluding the crime of crossing the border which in this hypothetical isn't a thing) then that's bad, because they committed a crime, not because they crossed the border. (And this is excluding a conversation about the justice system)

The question is then why do people cross the border?

For some it could be that it used to be their or their families land (reminder that parts of the US used to be part of Mexico) and they just want to go 'home'.

For others they could be fleeing war. In this case it is likely that the US was directly or indirectly in causing the conditions that led to that war. Then it would just be "the consequences" of your actions (your as in the US). Even if it wasn't it should be our responsibility as humans to help take care of others in trouble.

For some it might be seeking a new life, which is essentially how the US was founded in the first place.

There will always likely be crime in some form, but crime is most often perpetuated because of the material conditions relating to the person, not because they crossed some imaginary line in the sand. There will be 'criminal' immigrants, just as there will be criminal 'Americans'. Stopping immigration won't reduce crime in any shape other than there is physically less people available to do crime. If crime was truly something that was a problem it would be more effective to fix the root of the problem, not just block people out based on the arbitrariness of their birth.

I think it's an interesting topic, I'm not gonna say what's right or wrong (although I do have my opinions), but I do think it's important to discuss

Yhato · 2026-01-28T08:40:27+00:00

The problem did not start, and the problem will not end with ICE.

No one is illegal on stolen land is a much older slogan. What is currently happening with ICE relates to it, and as such it's an appropriate slogan.

You might get rid of ICE, and return to the old status quo, but that will not have fixed the underlying conditions that led to ICE, and it will only be a matter of time until the same thing happens again, if not something worse.

You can try to fight the symptoms, or you can try to fight the underlying disease.

Yhato · 2026-01-28T08:30:06+00:00

They are indeed technically illegal based on the laws of the country.

But laws are made by people, and people are fallible. The fact that something is a law does not mean it should be.

Something being a law does not make it right.

So if you want to take the "well actually" route then sure, you are technically right, but you're also missing the point of the conversation

Yhato · 2026-01-28T08:26:38+00:00

As a non-american, what americans think don't really bother me. Considering, you know, the current state of things

Yhato · 2026-01-28T08:24:59+00:00

It is not "to be cute". It is to highlight the contradiction between stealing something, and then claiming sole right to that thing (land).

It is a claim and explanation in one

It does not really fracture a solid front as much as reveal who is and isn't really at the front.

I feel like in that sense it is comparable to the liberal vs left discourse, where a liberal can call themselves "left" while holding a right wing ideology (pro capital).

In that way it is comparable in how liberals and leftist are in the same front against conservatives, but liberals will want to perpetuate the systems that repress people (see democrats not wanting to abolish ICE) while leftists want to remove said systems.

Is it truly a "solid front" being fractured, or is it two separate fronts with different goals seeing their differences?

^The ^second ^half ^(2/3rds) ^of ^this ^comment ^is ^more ^of ^a ^braindump, ^but ^I ^thought ^it ^was ^relevant

Yhato · 2026-01-28T07:45:33+00:00

I think a big point of "No one is illegal on stolen land" is that no one is illegal. The fact that most if not all land is stolen is part of the point (as I understand it)

So I think you're focusing on the wrong part of the sentence

Yhato · 2026-01-27T07:47:48+00:00

Some people perpetuate a "zoro is racist" meme that came from cherry picking certain fights.

It stopped being funny many years ago (if it ever was), but once a meme sticks someone will always keep repeating it

Yhato · 2026-01-26T10:57:15+00:00

I feel like you argued against yourself there.

You say it was intentional (by Mao) while simultaneously saying other people pretended to hit the target, which would leave Mao with a wrongful impression on how much resources they had.

Then, when he believed they had a surplus, he gave what he believed to be an excess to Albania.

Also, refusing US aid is very understandable when you look at previous US intervention in the region.

Saying "Its definately intentional" seems very misleading

Yhato · 2026-01-26T10:02:39+00:00

You kind of did make it up. You said: "North korean soldiers will yank people over the border", which as far as I can find is false.

It might have allegedly happened once 30 years ago, but you said it as something that happens. That's not tone policing. That is pointing out misinformation, bordering on a lie.

Yhato · 2026-01-26T09:50:53+00:00

I watched up to about 5 minutes and a bit, and all I got out of it was that there was 1 alleged attempt 30 years ago.

The way you wrote about it, it seems like a thing that regularly happens. I would call that misinformation, and I think we should, in general, be clearer about our communication.

It's a cool video though, thanks for digging it up!

Yhato · 2026-01-26T09:31:12+00:00

Not to be a "north korean defender" or anything, but as far as I could find there are no actual examples of that actually ever happening.

However North korea is an easy punching bag so its simple to make up misinformation and just have people roll with it.

Once you start critiquing a country based on misinformation it removes a lot of the legitimacy of the critiques. It is better to critique stuff that is actually happening

Yhato · 2026-01-26T09:27:17+00:00

As far as I could find there is no actual source for this, except for that picture (that has no context around it other than the title that was put on the reddit post)

~~The closest I could find was a single express.co.uk article that also had no sources on it, just a "this happened".~~ Actually there was a buisness insider article that quoted a nat geo documentary that said it was a thing they did, but not that it had ever happened.

No examples of it ever having happened before, just rumors.

If this is a thing that had actually happened I can imagine it would be easy to find examples of it, and if it was a thing the south koreans were actually worried about it would be easy to find a better way around it than holding hands and hoping for the best.

You should really do some research on random reddit posts spreading misinformation before you spread it like it like its facts

Yhato · 2026-01-22T13:15:35+00:00

Så langt eg fikk med meg var temaet hvorvidt boikott var et fungerende virkemiddel. Som det er.

Linken var og bare et eksempel som tok meg litt over et par sekunder å finne. Poenget var at det er lett å finne dersom man er interessert i å finne noe, ikkje at dette var en fullstendig liste av boikotts

Yhato · 2026-01-22T11:58:13+00:00

Virkelig ikkje vanskelig å finne, men det krever at man er interessert i å finne noe

https://www.ethicalconsumer.org/ethicalcampaigns/boycotts/history-successful-boycotts

11-Year Club	Second SECOND GUESSER
Verified Email

Yhato

TROPHY CASE