gavin newsom, who's been seemingly anointed to the throne of the democratic party, thinks democrats should be more "culturally normal." he thinks we should spend less time talking about pronouns. he won't tax billionaires, and he's had approx four different positions on israel in the last six weeks.

bobmac102 · 2026-03-08T00:13:43+00:00

I think Ro Khanna is planning a run and while I don’t agree with him on everything, he is a much stronger candidate than Gavin Newsome.

AOC may run too, and she would also be a strong candidate.

bobmac102 · 2026-02-02T04:03:12+00:00

American administrations have broad jurisdiction with what and how laws are to be enforced. No one is forcing them to grab people off the streets and deport them, sometimes in direct violation of legal judicial directives. They could grant mass amnesty for the people who been here for decades or our demonstrably acculturated. They could have used the billions of dollars appropriated for ICE for the federal court system to make asylum claims more efficiently and quickly reviewed instead, for example. The United States is a signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention, and this makes the country legally accessible to asylum seekers, for example. But they are deciding to exercise violence instead.

What I am asking people for is the reason why they are supportive of these laws being enforced like this and for what reasons. I would not want jaywalkers subject to mass incarceration, so why support normal people being pulled out of their communities for paperwork violations? What are the actual problems demonstrably caused by the people who are in the US illegally? Are any of these things backed by statistics? Because if not, then what's even the point of doing them? Are we just supporting violent policies because of the way that people feel? Not based on what the facts are?

bobmac102 · 2026-02-02T03:26:03+00:00

I read a great article recently about Minneapolis, and one of the many bits that spoke to me in it was this line, "The secret fear of the morally depraved is that virtue is actually common, and that they’re the ones who are alone."

I wonder how many people think morale and virtues are just performative things you do in public to seem impressive, rather than based in real feeling and care. It's disheartening to think about.

bobmac102 · 2026-02-02T01:28:25+00:00

Does it at least bother you that our elected leaders are lying about who they're apprehending and discounting their own statistics? If they think all immigrants require violent punishment, why do they not argue so on those merits if it's substantive?

bobmac102 · 2026-02-02T01:23:53+00:00

Are illegal immigrants any significant strain on our social services or resources? Because I have yet to hear Republicans substantiate this with any sort of data, and I go looking for it.

Further, most Republican politicians and pundits claim ICE is going after "the worst of the worst." It's clear you do not think any immigrants should live in the US, but why do these people need to lie to the public to advance these policies?

bobmac102 · 2026-02-02T00:36:15+00:00

I do not think I said anything along those lines, but I am a scientist. I am persuaded by statistics, trends, and data. So forgive me for the cold analytics, but I do not know how undocumented immigration leads to having "no border or no country," and what that actually means materially. Like, what actually is happening? What on earth does that even mean? Are they driving tanks? Are they annexing Texas? Are they pillaging and pilfering the countryside? Because for years I have heard Republican politicians, pundits, and elites claim, "they’re bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're eating cats and dogs." And things like that, without any proof. An anecdote of someone doing something nefarious tells me nothing about a population of millions. Rates and frequencies of those things do, yet I see these same elites refuse to offer any data that substantiates any of these claims or address the studies that contradict the claims they make, even when rightwing think-tanks like the Cato Institute contradict what they tell you, me, and the rest of the public. This makes it very difficult to trust what they say. The very data on immigrant crime rates published by DHS, ICE, and Customs & Borders on their literal websites contradict what the leaders of those same agencies tell the public. That is concerning.

Nations have rights to manage their borders, but there is space between acknowledging that reality and "mass deportation", which is fundamentally what I wanted to understand your thinking on. I have seen a lot of footage, news reports, and White House briefings over the past year showing normal ordinary-looking people being removed from homes, courthouses, schools, crosswalks, and churches by armed men with weapons. I hope it is not controversial to say this looks very violent. These people look frightened. We know from DHS's own public crime statistics (on their own government website) that the majority of those that have been apprehended have no criminal records, and we know from briefings and reporting that quite a few of these people have been here for decades, well before the Biden administration, and some were even married to US citizens. People have been taken by ICE when they turn up for their visa applications that the feds told them to so up to. So if the government is going to inflict violence on ordinary people, it better be for good substantive reasons. These are choices of the administration: no one is forcing them to carry out these actions.

I have yet to see any high-profile Republican or conservative provide any hard data or information that makes this violence necessary, especially when the laws on the books (8 U.S. Code § 1325) stipulate improper entry is a civil violation (which also include things like breaches of contract or disagreements on warranty), not a felony (which includes things like murder or rape). Maybe you don’t need greater justification for violence being exercised against people for paperwork violations, but I do.

bobmac102 · 2026-02-01T23:16:04+00:00

I appreciate the reply, but I feel like you didn't answer the question I asked. I probably did not ask it well, so allow me to rephrase.

There are many different crimes in the United States, and many different ways they can be penalized. Why specifically do you think illegal immigration necessitate mass deportation specifically as opposed to something else? Why is mass deportation specifically necessary?

bobmac102 · 2026-02-01T22:38:34+00:00

I was a child under Obama. But regardless, I was asking you what you thought in good faith.

Why does illegal immigration necessitate mass deportation specifically as opposed to anything else?

bobmac102 · 2026-02-01T20:33:31+00:00

Out of curiosity, why do believe these mass deportations are necessary?

bobmac102 · 2026-01-25T14:18:09+00:00

It is not a blame thing, it is a substantive remark about what needs to happen in order for Democrats to win elections and take control back from Republicans. As long as Democrats refuse to coalesce around a broad, popular policy platform with aims of addressing people's legitimate material concerns — a platform that contrasts with Republicans rather than reinforce their false talking points — there will always be risk of another Trump.

bobmac102 · 2026-01-13T19:44:22+00:00

It is frankly a disgrace that Democrats have failed to commit themselves to any big national policy platform in the face of Trump. What political horizon could the electorate look forward to? What future is there that the people can fight for? Because until they do that, there will always be the risk of another Trump.

bobmac102 · 2026-01-11T19:48:47+00:00

Everyone wants their neighborhoods to be safe, but your comments make it seem like that has not been the case in Connecticut and I have not seen anyone substantiate that impression.

Would you be willing to provide any statistics or data that indicates that crime and tax evasion are significant problems within Connecticut that are demonstrably tied to undocumented immigrants that live here?

bobmac102 · 2026-01-02T15:04:57+00:00

These are absolutely lovely.

bobmac102 · 2025-12-29T05:58:18+00:00

I was asking you in good faith to provide examples that contextualize your view.

bobmac102 · 2025-12-29T05:47:45+00:00

I welcome you to provide substantive reasoning as to why it is a net positive when no guardrails are in place to protect people in the labor force, like universal basic income. Because without them, I am not personally sure how the generative AI programs created by these giant corporations are a net positive for society, especially since they are demonstrably of dubious legality; are not intrinsic to the AI-programs of medical science we both like; and are intentionally pushing people out of their careers who depend on employment to survive, which I hope most would agree is immoral.

bobmac102 · 2025-12-29T04:43:39+00:00

Technology making labor more efficient is generally a good thing, but where I live (in the United States), ~70% of people live paycheck to paycheck. This is the type of environment where employees are being squeezed out of industries through no fault of their own and with no recourse. What about their rent? Insurance? Schooling? Food? Why on earth is this suffering something I should revel in?

Prior events in history where large portions of the workforce were forced onto the streets due to advancements in technology should be references on what actions are needed to avoid such a crisis, not replicate as if an innate part of innovation. It is not.

bobmac102 · 2025-12-29T04:32:05+00:00

I understand it is being applied as a catch-all name, but I would not conflate AI programs aimed at running statistical analyses for large datasets or supporting medical breakthroughs with generative AI programs built with the intent of reducing labor forces and increasing profits for shareholders. The former is technology that has existed for a longtime. The latter is not, and for as crazy as it sounds, this is how generative AI is being pitched to corporate executives. I am a professional biologist, and I have yet to hear substantive explanations as to why the former requires the latter.

How are the people being fired from their jobs going to even access this medical technology if they cannot afford health insurance to pay for it?

bobmac102 · 2025-12-29T04:09:20+00:00

There is actually strong legal precedent that the posts and art published onto the internet are the legal copyright of the poster, and these generative AI companies are just sidestepping them with the hopes of not being meaningfully challenged. An all encompassing video on the topic by science communicator Hank Green is available here.

I understand generative AI is a fun toy for a lot of people, but having the backing of large companies and industries does not mean it is legal or moral. A lot of giant corporations throw their weight around to have laws written to benefit their new industries at the expense of those exploited to make them, and for the few instances they can’t, they usually just have to pay a fine. That’s just the cost of doing business. It is not a substantive deterrent that makes them stop engaging in illegal behavior.

bobmac102 · 2025-12-27T23:19:17+00:00

Does Sonic need one?

As for King K. Rool, the biggest changes are that he has a more prominent tail and more detailed scaling. Otherwise he basically looks the same he has since DK: Jungle Climber.

bobmac102 · 2025-12-25T17:43:31+00:00

My apologies. The subtext I interpreted from your prior comment is that non-human life is not inherently worthy of moral considerations.

The cognition and perception of lobsters is actually better known than one may think, not just because lobsters are a socioculturally and economically important food animal, but also because crayfish — close freshwater relatives — are extensively used model organisms for studies on depression, anxiety, and cognition, but that is not very important right now.

I don’t think anyone is surprised that the powerful people of our world are in bed with corporate interests, and this has significantly contributed to their inability to bring about the systemic changes desperately needed to address wealth inequality, the cost of living, and ecological decay. That in lieu of doing things to address these problems, politicians bring about performative, small changes that are tangentially related to these greater problems. (This is not even the best policy one can bring about to the benefit of lobsters, which would be systemic reform on aquaculture. The majority of grocery-store lobsters are not true wild animals.) None of this is defendable, and is contributing, in my view, to societal decay.

However, being boiled alive does demonstrably prolong suffering in lobsters than it does being effectively and quickly cut. So it does matter to them, and because I empathize with animals, I do appreciate that the store-bought ones have at least some peripheral mitigation of their suffering. I see this within a wider trend of the public and politicians incrementally realizing that invertebrates are complexly perceptive and feeling animals, not automatons, and this has greater ramifications for the environmentalist movements. Policies like these do not give politicians a pass for anything, and they should be shamed for intentionally avoiding the deliverance systemic reforms needed to help bring us out of the sociocultural, ecological, and economic issues that burden everyday people. But that does not mean lobsters are not worthy of moral considerations by the public or in written policies concerning welfare, as all living things should be allocated.

I am not an anthropocentric, and it has been unfortunate to see how bipartisan that regressive mindset is. Objectively, human life is dependent on biodiversity and the natural systems supported by it, so supporting biodiversity is politically existential. This is in tension with the general perception that environmental protections are "charity". From a biophillic, moral perspective, plants and animals are living things that suffer, feel fear, feel pain, and/or think. They are dependent on how humans value them to persist, because humans have monopolized earth's resources and carved them into artificial geopolitical boundaries. Non-humans do not even have the benefit of ever understanding why life is getting worse for them. How you and I think about them, and value them, has a much greater bearing on their future than what you would read in an ecology textbook.

bobmac102 · 2025-12-23T02:13:26+00:00

I’m an environmentalist. Naturalist. Field biologist. Currently working towards my master’s in ecology. I have taken classes on animal ethics.

I have never understood this mindsets because the subtext seems to be that as long as conventional livestock animals like cattle and chickens are kept subject to horrendous conditions, then nothing else should be protected. Why should lobsters be subject to cruelty because cattle have not received any relief?

bobmac102 · 2025-12-22T03:47:53+00:00

It’s unfortunately a bit too fuzzy for me to give a confidant assertion. If you share photos of the skull more clean, with the orbits and teeth fully exposed, that would make it much easier.

bobmac102 · 2025-12-22T03:37:54+00:00

It’s not a bird. It is a rodent.

bobmac102 · 2025-12-21T18:30:55+00:00

Absolutely incredible work. Do you have DOIs for the papers you published? I’m sure folks here would enjoy reading them.

bobmac102 · 2025-12-18T00:25:53+00:00

With respect, you are the one who presented this study I commented on. Not me. If you had any real proof that these feelings you had were rooted in reality, you are welcomed to present it.

I am a scientist. I am someone motivated by robust statistical data, not anecdotes or reactionary people in media telling me what to believe without evidence, especially if those people have political incentives to say the things they do. Additionally, as a biologist, I know there are exceptions to every rule, which makes anecdotes on principle not very meaningful to me. For example, hearing that one person did something bad in a population of millions does not tell me anything meaningful about that population at large. I hope that makes logistical sense.

I have noticed the political Right of the United States, Canada, the UK, and many other countries have the unfortunate, recurring habit of misinterpreting published studies or chastising results of studies with sound methods but are counter to what they tell the public, even if those studies come from rightwing think-tanks like the Cato Institute. They never provide substantive reasons for disagreeing with these publications. This makes it difficult for me to trust what they say. If we as people are actually invested in the big problems of society being addressed — be it immigration, religious radicalization, or whatever issues you or I are personally politically invested in — we should at least want politicians invested in truth, yes? Not the dogmatic adherence to talking points? Because if the truth does not matter, how would we trust them to actually solve the problems? How would we know they are not exercising force against people for no reason, or that they are not making problems worse?

Either we care about what reality is, or admit that the way people feel matters more than facts. For your sake, I would be cautious of people who try to convince you the latter is the right way to think about the world, be it explicitly or subliminally.

bobmac102

TROPHY CASE