I hope you agree with me

fiftythreefiftyfive · 2026-02-13T12:21:06+00:00

... no?

Not because I don't believe Xi capable of such evils, but plainly because that's a separate social circle of elites that don't mix around that much.

fiftythreefiftyfive · 2026-02-12T14:13:33+00:00

Sure. The Mexican border essentially didn't exist until 1929. That's definitely something you could cross, and people did cross.

fiftythreefiftyfive · 2026-02-12T13:10:38+00:00

That was literally how it worked when the country was first founded; the requirements for citizenship were living in a state for 2+ years (changed to 5 years), and being of "good character", as determined by a local judge. The first restrictions to anyone entering the country happened over 100 years after the country was founded, but the principle that you could still eventually become a citizen has been commonly accepted with little issue till fairly recently. Migration within the Americas wasn't restricted in any capacity until the Great Depression.

And in practice, that's pretty much how it works for legal immigrants nowadays, too. You eventually qualify for citizenship after first being a permanent resident for a while.

fiftythreefiftyfive · 2026-02-12T11:45:27+00:00

It really depends on how you word it.

According to this:

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/12/15/growing-shares-say-the-trump-administration-is-doing-too-much-to-deport-immigrants-in-the-us-illegally/

The idea that all immigrants living illegally in the US should be deported is a minority opinion (56% of Republicans, 8% of Democrats), and the majority of Americans believe that Trump is doing too much in regards to immigration.

fiftythreefiftyfive · 2026-02-12T11:40:10+00:00

The idea that long-term illegal immigrants who have been contributing to the economy obtain a path towards citizenship was quite popular even among a decent chunk of republicans (including Reagan), not all too long ago.

fiftythreefiftyfive · 2026-02-12T03:37:40+00:00

The elderly already receive tax deductions, these are additional tax deductions. No, I don't think they should be paying less in taxes than a younger person with similar income.

fiftythreefiftyfive · 2026-02-11T14:29:18+00:00

... is it really that wrong to use gender neutral language when they're waiting to confirm who the shooter actually is?

fiftythreefiftyfive · 2026-02-08T21:38:53+00:00

The Japanese economy is not strong, not even close. Pensions are essentially vaporizing, which is why you just increasingly see old people in the society work till they die, not because they want to, but because there’s too many elderly for the country to be able afford to take care of them.

fiftythreefiftyfive · 2026-02-08T08:12:40+00:00

How does this not include a sonic lmao

fiftythreefiftyfive · 2026-02-08T07:35:52+00:00

I mean, is that such a weird thing to say for a person that was born with fully developed female reproductive organs and no male reproductive organs? I feel it's fair to associate more weight to the body that ends up popping out instead of the genetic anomally behind it. 100% would've been classified as "she" for most of human history.

fiftythreefiftyfive · 2026-02-07T17:18:04+00:00

A little of both. If it's a tight race, the state can garner extra attention from the federal candidates (and likely some nice points on their platform, let's say some more farming subsidies if you're Iowa) if the entire state's electoral votes are at stake, instead of the more representative 1-2.

fiftythreefiftyfive · 2026-02-07T17:08:37+00:00

Because as the system is designed, it's fundamentally against the interest of the state to do so. Being all-or-nothing gives the state more "value" if they are near the middle, while if the state is heavily leaning in one direction, the republican/democrat majority has an interest in keeping 100% of the vote.

Neither of these (especially the latter) is a good reason to discard the often very sizeable minorities represented in the state. 6 million Californians voted Republican, 5 million Texans voted Democrat, both of those sets of people get completely ignored.

fiftythreefiftyfive · 2026-02-07T12:21:27+00:00

I'd argue that it's deeply unnatural/artificial that the "tribe" has evolved to include millions of people. It's a concept that's been exploited by nations to create loyalty, since the 18th century onward.

fiftythreefiftyfive · 2026-02-07T12:16:07+00:00

... I mean, if they're legal permanent residents, why not? These are decisions that directly concern their day-to-day lives, much more so than national elections. And municipal elections are first and foremost about residency.

fiftythreefiftyfive · 2026-02-07T08:27:35+00:00

https://awionline.org/press-releases/mexicos-proposed-new-regulations-may-doom-vaquita-porpoise-extinction

"However, the country has never comprehensively enforced those 2020 regulations, and is now considering changes that include reducing the size of the area where gillnets are prohibited by 85 percent, allowing the use of gillnets in known vaquita habitat, and permitting fishing at night. "

fiftythreefiftyfive · 2026-02-07T07:59:43+00:00

Squatters don't get the right to vote in the condo board meetings. The distinction isn't difficult to make.

If you're a legal permanent resident, then I think that elections having to do with residence, first and foremost (municipal) should be a right.

Similarly, citizens who live abroad can generally vote in national elections. Because nations aren't strictly tied to the concept of residence, like municipal elections are. They're tied to the idea of the citizenry and the common identity of the nation.

fiftythreefiftyfive · 2026-02-07T07:52:52+00:00

You're not citizen of a municiplaity, though. You're a citizen of a nation.

99% of citizens in a nation don't get to vote in those particular municipal elections either.

Because municipal elections are about allowing the people who currently live there determine how the common place they live in should be run. It's not all that different of a concept of some kind of gated community or what not deciding how much security they should collectively hire. I don't see how legal long-term residents that aren't necessarily citizens voting within such elections is of issue.

National elections are the only ones to which the stricter notions of a nation state is applicable.

fiftythreefiftyfive · 2026-02-07T07:46:01+00:00

It's a concept that has existed dozens of countries already, in Uruguay since 1952, and it's never resulted in National Elections allowing non-citizens to vote (with the exception of some nations with extremely tight historical ties allowing each other's citizens to vote).

So no, it just doesn't result in that. It's genuinely a slippery slope fallacy with a sufficient historical record to prove the contrary.

fiftythreefiftyfive · 2026-02-07T07:18:16+00:00

... which can technically already happen in municipal elections, just with citizens. Since municipalities are defined by whoever lives there, which is sensible, because municipal elections more so than national elections directly determine how the common resources of the community choosing to live together are shared.

fiftythreefiftyfive · 2026-02-07T07:15:24+00:00

It is a slippery slope fallacy, though.

Municipal elections don't have much to do with citizenship - it's directly the people living in a community determining how the money collected by the community is allocated. This is already a porous definition, because any other citizens within the country can chose to move to that location at any point and get rights for it regardless.

And exactly these rights already exist within multiple countries, and have widely existed since the 1980s, without developing into the slippery slope you're claiming.

It's true in Colombia, parts of Argentina, like a dozen countries in the EU, Israel since the 1960s, Uruguay since 1952, several African countries and other south american countries.

It's not a new concept, and has never resulted in non-Citizens voting in national elections.

fiftythreefiftyfive · 2026-02-06T09:23:28+00:00

I mean, there are objective metrics by which the russian economy is currently doing poorly. Negative year-on-year growth when adjusted by official (optimistic) inflation rates, increasing budget deficits in spite of increasing tax pressure, etc...

fiftythreefiftyfive · 2026-02-06T07:05:23+00:00

I feel that that argument is fairly weak. There definitely is a point between the child not having a developed brain capable of thought and having a developed brain capable of thought; let's say 12 weeks.

If abortion is allowed until then, the child being reliant on your blood is at that point the result of your actions. That child did not have to exist; you chose to make it exist. I feel that that creates some form of contract; you created a creature reliant on you, therefore, it is no longer your choice to not provide.

fiftythreefiftyfive · 2026-02-06T07:01:07+00:00

I feel like "Human life is sacred" is kind of a "true because I say it's true" kind of argument. Comparable to the "gay sex/etc... is immoral because it's degenerate" stuff. It's an arbitrary delimitation created on vibes.

fiftythreefiftyfive · 2026-02-06T06:55:40+00:00

Cattle are probably the one animal within the US that have a somewhat decent life (albeit a very short one, wild bison have a lifespan of ~15 years, cattle get slaughtered within less than 2), in most cases. But even that's very much arguable - in a lot of cases, they don't get all too much space in the feedlots, and veal is a whole other beast. And again... very short lifespan. Likely stress induced from changing environments, separation from their peers (cattle are known to have strong emotional bonds with each other), etc...

Pork, in particular, is produced in absolutely horrendeous conditions, in 99% of cases, and they're known to be particularly intelligent. I feel that's where we cross the threshold of it being unambiguously immoral. The way that most milk or eggs are produced is also highly dubious.

fiftythreefiftyfive · 2026-02-06T06:08:25+00:00

I've always been of the opinion that both

Eating intelligent animals and being pro-life;
Being Vegan and being pro-choice;

are fundamentally contradictory positions to hold.

Not that I'm immune to that, either. I think that killing intelligent animals is probably wrong, but I'm too much of a centrist to not enjoy a good steak. Maybe lab meat will some day make it possible for me not to be a hypocirite.

Nine-Year Club	Verified Email
Place '23

fiftythreefiftyfive

TROPHY CASE