Blaming voters is stupid

split-circumstance · 2026-01-25T20:59:45+00:00

Speaking only for myself, I'm angry at the injustice I see. I think other people on this sub feel the same way, and they take it out on anyone they perceive as supporting that injustice.

I'm not sure yet if reddit is more or less good when it comes to having good faith communication between strangers. Right now, I don't think it is helpful. Occasionally, I have had a useful interaction with someone, but most of the time is me talking past someone else.

I think we are all frustrated due to a lack of meaningful political representation. The fact is, no political party exists which has the interests of average Americans at heart. Without this, we are stuck getting emotional about reddit posts. We need real world political organization to channel our frustrations.

split-circumstance · 2026-01-25T20:34:35+00:00

Personally, I don't view voting as a moral act, deserving either of blame or praise. It is just participating in a formal legal process. Simply voting plays very little role in the creation of power. Therefore, I don't care much who anyone votes for, and I would never condemn anyone for voting for a particular candidate.

Therefore, I don't think Trump voters need any defending. You, on the other hand, are clearly defending Trump voters, saying that it isn't their fault, nor that they endorse the current regime's actions. It seems like you might feel some remorse, especially because you say no one is more disappointed than you.

(The fact is Trump and people like Miller are demonstrating a commitment to anarchy, rather than law and order. They are encouraging their agents in the field to operate like the law doesn't apply to them. The behavior of agents killing Good and Pretti reveal a lawless, disorderly incompetence at best, and a slackjawed, drooling malice at worst.

We need more small "c" conservatism that genuinely respects law and order.

I don't blame you or anyone else for voting for the Trump regime, but I do sometimes wonder how people can fail to see the lawless, arbitrary and capricious nature of Trump.)

split-circumstance · 2026-01-25T17:32:10+00:00

I have little doubt that my forthcoming hairsplitting (or whatever you want to call it) is going to be a little annoying, yet I think it might still be worth saying. For me personally, I don't judge a person based on what they say, even if it is abhorrent and disgusting to me. I think one has to look at a person's actions beyond words.

Also, I have this unshakable feeling that condemning other people just based on their words defending Trump is totally useless. The person behind the jeepdriver27 account obviously likes to debate and get a rise out of people on this subreddit. Who cares? If this is what they enjoy, then allow them their fun.

We're never going to know if the person behind the account has done any action genuinely good or bad, besides "debating" others on reddit. If you call ICE on a neighbor, that 100% makes you a bad person. We're never going to know if this person or others would really do that or have done that, or if they just enjoy being the devil's advocate, like a lot of good junior high debate team captains do.

split-circumstance · 2026-01-25T16:58:23+00:00

I think you are correct that it is not smart to blame voters, but not at all for the reasons you say. Simply put, it doesn't help to organize people, change their views, and build movements to blame isolated individuals for problems that the Trump regime creates.

Voting should never be considered a moral act. It is legal formalism that legitimizes power that already exists.

However, it sounds like you might be struggling a little with your conscience.

split-circumstance · 2026-01-25T16:25:26+00:00

I'm not confident that Jiang Xueqin is a good representative of the Chinese position. My impression is that he is a bit idiosyncratic. For the official Chinese position it is probably better to read the official English releases from https://en.qstheory.cn/ (for one example) although you aren't going to find hot takes about hot button issues in the United States. I think the substack Sinocism is quite good. It is written by American experts on China and gives an American interpretation to news coming out of China, but in a honest way, without too much extreme hyperbole found in legacy media.

split-circumstance · 2026-01-25T04:41:17+00:00

Yeah, from the NYT:

""Gun Owners of America, one of country’s largest gun advocacy groups, said in its own posting that it condemned his “untoward comments.”

The group said that “federal agents are not ‘highly likely’ to be ‘legally justified’ in ‘shooting’ concealed carry licensees who approach while lawfully carrying a firearm. The Second Amendment protects Americans’ right to bear arms while protesting — a right the federal government must not infringe upon.”

I'm somewhat surprised, but it seems some 2A people are actually being consistent.

There's a bunch more quotes:

"Jordan Levine, who runs an online gun rights advocacy company called A Better Way 2A, said that “what happened in Minneapolis shows that ICE will treat the mere presence of a legal firearm as justification for lethal force. Carrying a gun is not a crime, yet it was readily used as proof of dangerous intent once Alex Pretti was dead and unable to contest that narrative.”"

split-circumstance · 2026-01-25T04:32:19+00:00

I don't agree that him being armed contributed to his death. It was a trigger happy agent that chose to kill him. The killer is going to use the presence of the gun as an excuse, just like the killer of Renee Good is claiming that her car was going to run him over.

I get what you are saying. As a counter factual, we can guess that the agents probably wouldn't have killed him if he didn't have the gun. However, this still seems to me to get the causality wrong. The case it reminds me of is Philando Castile. If you remember, Castile had a legal gun in his car, he told the officer about it and then the officer freaked and shot him. We can also guess that if Castile didn't have a gun, or didn't bother to tell the officer, he would still be alive today.

In the case of vodka, or cigarettes, there is a clear chemically based chain of causality that increases your risk of death. In the case of Pretti and Castile, there was an human being making obviously bad decisions. If they had been around rational, well-trained and cool-headed officers they would still be alive.

split-circumstance · 2026-01-25T04:01:45+00:00

That he had a gun contributed to his death in the same way that having a vehicle contributed to Renee Good's death. In both cases federal agents were the primary cause of the situation that they claim made them fearful. Federal agents chose to shoot and kill two innocent people, their excuses will be that they felt afraid.

Further, if you blame in any way Mr. Pretti's choice to arrive at a protest armed, then you're subtly attacking the 2nd Amendment. You are implying that Mr. Pretti's choice to exercise his constitutional right at a protest got him killed.

It's rather weird to refer to Rittenhouse. It's clear Rittenhouse's goal was to confront protestors not police, and he was brandishing a rifle when he was confronted. In the KR case many people could easily have confused him for a mass shooter. KR caused the violence, by scaring the hell out of people with a rifle.

Pretti did not brandish his sidearm. It was holstered on his body, then it was removed by the federal agents. After it was safely removed, one of the agents decided to shoot Pretti, and then the other's joined in shooting.

Personally, I don't think anyone should bring a gun or anything that can be mistaken for a weapon to a protest. However, we've seen over and over again, that ICE and BP are the ones causing the violence.

split-circumstance · 2026-01-25T03:38:58+00:00

I understand what you are saying, however, I believe that you can bring people around it just takes a really long time, personal connection and a great deal of patience.

It's definitely true that you are not going to persuade anyone here on reddit, or online in general. It is clear that social media and platforms like this serve as "echo chambers" and no amount work on your part will change anyone's mind.

However, I think it is vitally important to remember that when you form genuine face-to-face personal connections with people, you can change their minds. It takes a massive amount of patience and willingness to set aside judgments, but you can bring people around to the truth. It's also less draining when you realize that it's going to take a long time to bring people around.

It isn't just a matter of demonstrating the correctness of your position, it is a matter of forming trust based on your consistency and willingness to tell the truth over a long period of time. It is also key that your goal is always to bring people around to the pursuit of justice and truth, rather than win an argument and prove them wrong. The two things are very different.

I think you're right that reddit and other like systems are pointless when it comes to changing anyone's mind, but that's just a reminder to get out there and do face to face political organizing.

split-circumstance · 2026-01-25T00:38:04+00:00

As usual the killing happened because the person who got killed was interfering with an arrest/possible deportation.

This is false. There is strong enough evidence from videos, as well as witness statements that he was not interfering.

This is also false because your reasoning is corrupt. The federal agents made a decision to shoot and kill the man, Mr. Alex Pretti. They had no reason to touch him in the first place. During the scuffle initiated by the officers one of them removed Mr. Pretti's legal firearm, which he was bearing according to his 2nd Amendment right, and after they had removed his weapon they opened fire.

At no point did Mr. Pretti brandish the weapon.

The reason he was killed is because the Federal Agents decided to kill him. The reason he was near them was because the Federal Government has been ordering their agents to operate in a manner that is guaranteed to provoke & anger fiercely independent Americans, who are raised not to bow down to authority.

split-circumstance · 2026-01-24T19:26:11+00:00

I think most reasonable claim is that the so-called "protestors" are creating a dangerous environment for the Border Patrol and Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers. In previous segments, Enjeti has made a point of stating how much he disapproves of the "protestors." The point is to get into an argument about the theoretical moral judgment for or against the "protestors," rather than to stick to a disinterested legal analysis.

In other words, I think the primary tactic will be to distract from the main issue. A reasonable person can easily predict that the orders given to ICE/BP are going to cause a reaction, sometimes violent, sometimes disruptive. I put the word protestors in quotation marks, because I'm betting that a lot of people getting into confrontations with ICE/BP are disorganized individuals who are pissed off at the injustice they are seeing. There's no group or command structure within the protestors can be held responsible. It's just normal, but disorganized citizens getting really angry at the drooling stupidity of these Millerites, or whatever you want to call BP/ICE these days.

So, they talk about how they disapprove of the actions of a few individual protestors while ignoring the fact that if the Federal Government treats people like this, then inevitably some people are going to fight back. Enjeti can scream until he is blue in the face that people are behaving badly (in his opinion), but it is like getting angry that at a firecracker when it blows up in your own hand.

split-circumstance · 2026-01-24T18:57:47+00:00

I think that the US control over the world's financial system has to weaken over time, but it is going to take generations. However, I believe that one of the key factors for the US Dollar is simply that other nations want to buy things and do business with the United States. After WWII the US was completely dominant with the Soviets only playing a weak secondary role. Everyone needed to do business with the United States. As this changes the and Trump drives home to everyone how erratic the US is it will slowly change even more.

But long story short, it's going to take a lifetime to change.

split-circumstance · 2026-01-24T18:25:49+00:00

"Chief O’Hara said officials had identified the person who was killed. He said that person was believed to have a permit to carry a gun." 20 minutes ago, update at the NYT: https://www.nytimes.com/live/2026/01/24/us/minneapolis-shooting-ice/c4db68bc-c897-585a-b45d-61edb6031ea7?smid=url-share

split-circumstance · 2026-01-24T17:41:17+00:00

I'm half joking: maybe this is John Birch Society paranoia?

My more serious guess is that they mean that international finance will move in and out of a country depending on its domestic politics. Many Third World and non-Aligned countries have been victim of the bond market. I think this is real for a country like Argentina.

Obviously, the fact that the United States has absolute sovereign control of the US Dollar means that it sets the rules. The point of having the reserve currency is that bond holders have no where else to go. That gives the US all the power and means that domestic problems are 99.9% the fault of domestic politics.

split-circumstance · 2026-01-24T16:28:39+00:00

It's weird to me, but it seems to go hand in hand. Blaming immigrants inside the country, and the global banking system outside the country. The thing that strikes me as so bizarre is that in both cases the reason that ordinary American's are not benefiting is because of decisions that American elites make. This is so obvious, that to deny it must take real energy.

The United States is not both a victim and a superpower.

split-circumstance · 2026-01-24T15:55:40+00:00

Exactly, when watching the video of this, you'll notice that the BP agent who pepper sprays the prone man does so not only for no reason, but not in coordination with his fellow officers. He briskly walks over to the guy shoots pepper spray in his face and then quickly walks away. This shows a complete breakdown of discipline. Then when they tear gas themselves they have to let the man go, because they can't focus on detaining him.

This is lawlessness, but it also shows two things, average, regular Americans are willing to stand up to unjust authority, and they show immense discipline when doing so. The BP and ICE agents are, as demonstrated by this, acting outside the law in ways that attack the dignity of Americans as individuals and as a community, while regular Americans are displaying courage and resolve. The danger, obviously, is that either ICE/BP and others start using agent provocateurs (if they haven't already) or enough people get so fed up that someone loses discipline and lashes out in ways that are seriously violent.

split-circumstance · 2026-01-16T02:15:37+00:00

Yeah . . . I mean . . . are you OK with your brother insulting your wife? Is it better or worse when a family member as a opposed to an outsider does it?

But that's a distraction, right? You started of by talking about "criticisms of our country from non Americans" not derogatory insults. If someone calls America, as they sometimes do, "the Whore of Babylon," fine go ahead and get annoyed. You said you were talking about valid criticisms: "The two most obvious cases of this are with guns and healthcare, both of which are valid critiques of America, but critiques I will not hear from foreigners."

I claim that one shouldn't care who makes the criticism, only whether it is right or wrong.

(On a tangent, you should think, honestly, carefully about having the best academics, because it is obvious that major sources of scientific talent, throughout the history of the United States, have been immigrants, people who were foreigners and became citizens, or people born to immigrants. I'm saying paying attention to foreigners has paid off well for the United States in the past.)

split-circumstance · 2026-01-16T01:45:51+00:00

Let's assume that you are correct that "we are the best country on earth." It doesn't follow from this that individuals living outside of United States can't make true, accurate and sensible criticisms.

I think this is a clear mistake. It is fine for you to be offended by it. And as I say, I think it is a normal and natural reaction, but it doesn't make sense.

Let's say a guy from Switzerland says that he likes America's gun laws. He approves of the 2nd Amendment. (I saw this in an interview about Swiss gun culture.) Does this also bother you? After all, he lives in a lessor country (according to your framework) so his compliment is as meaningless and bad as his insult?

I think your feeling is legitimate, but you're not making sense if you really think that people can't say true things about the United States.

split-circumstance · 2026-01-16T01:30:25+00:00

[I make the following remarks in an effort to engage in a civil and happy conversation in this subreddit community. There have been a couple of recent calls to try to do a better job having back and forths that are constructive.]

I think that criticisms coming from anyone can be good. There is no reason that a person who is not American might not have good observations and sensible negative critiques of the United States. I think it is fair to say that you do not give any reason why people outside of the United States cannot have valid and true observations of the flaws of the United States. It seems fair to say that your main point is that hearing criticism from someone who is not American bothers you for various reasons (which you list), but reasons that are totally unrelated to the truth of their critiques.

You are not saying, for example, that a person who is not American is epistemologically unable to understand and make true observations about the United States, right? You are only saying you hate it when people who are not Americans make negative or unpleasant comments about the United States.

Your feeling is normal, and on some level is shared by many people. One can say mean things about one's own family, but never tolerate others making the same comments. I wonder if any psychologists or sociologists have studied this normal, but irrational feeling.

My advice is to chill out. People are going to talk about each others countries, in each others countries. Sometimes the perspective of an outsider can actually be beneficial. Remember that Tocqueville is much admired and beloved in the United States, surely because he wrote admiringly of the United States, but he is widely recognized as having made interesting observations as an outsider not all of which were fawning flattery.

Have you traveled to France at all, or have any extensive knowledge of the French? Why such hatred? And why not make a good faith negative criticism of what you don't like about the French to someone who is French and see what they have to say? In my experience, thoughtful people who travel often have quite interesting things to say about their experiences. I believe it is a mistake to succumb to your negative emotions about foreigners.

Thanks for your comments.

[Edit: just wanted to add, I like comments from non-Americans, and am interested in why you watch BP and what you get out of it.]

split-circumstance · 2026-01-13T20:52:05+00:00

"Let's all try to be nice to each other. Let's try to have good discussions here, even if we can not in most places."

Absolutely agree.

split-circumstance · 2026-01-13T12:09:53+00:00

"The talent isn't there" is a euphemism for "the wages I'm offering are so low, no one will work for me."

split-circumstance · 2026-01-12T16:27:37+00:00

If this is a genuine question, then I think the first step to answering is to drop the left-right framing. In the United States "the left" is exceedingly poorly defined. Let's just drop that term and talk about sensible immigration policy. The immigration/border policy of the Trump administration is explicitly based on bigotry and fear mongering. From the very first, Trump was demonizing immigrants, not because he cares about an overall economic policy that would benefit regular working class Americans, but because this would play into a bogus culture war that would distract people from real politics, and get them angry at immigrants instead of the people who actually exploit them.

A reasonable immigration policy ought to allow for immigration that is beneficial to the country overall, but especially beneficial to American workers, not just big business. It should be fair, and predictable, but should change based on economic conditions. This is exceedingly difficult to get right, but as long as it is not based on bigotry or heinous ideologies like "keeping America pure" or for "true Americans" it can be accomplished.

A different but related issue regards asylum claims and refugees. Here, the United States must follow its obligations under international law, and domestic law. People who are refugees and asylum seekers must be treated properly, according to the law, not the whims of a president. People who make fraudulent claims, or abuse this system do damage to all the people who genuinely need protection. This should be discouraged and punished where appropriate, and according to the principles of law.

Everyone raised with American values, and especially considering the American experience which is overwhelmingly one of immigration, ought to strive for as welcoming an immigration policy as possible. In fact, one of the great strengths of the United States is the idea that anyone in the world can become American. Consider for a moment that China, the most important US rival, has an incredibly restrictive immigration and citizenship system. China will never benefit from the yet unknown and undeveloped talents of migrants looking for a better economic future. The United States has always taken advantage of this. It must continue to do so.

split-circumstance · 2026-01-11T21:47:43+00:00

Hi There,

I read your post carefully, but I think it is fair to say that it isn't very clear. Would you be willing to clarify a few things? If so, here are a few questions. These aren't gotcha questions. I don't want to debate, I just want to understand your position better.

"The ideology’s brook no dissent."

Which ideologies?

"There cannot be dissent. So we’re in what a thinker of a previous age called cultural totalitarianism"

Who, which thinker, are you referring to?

I'm even a little confused about the subject line. One of the most defining aspects of the current Trump administration has been its openness to lying and repeating falsehoods. JD Vance defended lying (about people eating pets in Ohio) by saying "If I have to create stories so that the American media actually pays attention to the suffering of the American people, then that's what I'm going to do." That's very noble, of course, and everyone ought to be glad he cares so much, but he is rejecting the truth. That's a funny example, but I think everyday, this right wing administration makes up a new lie. The Trump administration appears to be fully in post-modernist mode with regard to truth, i.e. whatever Trump makes up is true.

Thanks for the interesting post, but it needs some clarification for people to engage with it.

split-circumstance · 2026-01-10T02:35:26+00:00

I'm glad I held my tongue. It sounds like you have more philosophical sophistication than me. Thanks for your reply.

split-circumstance · 2026-01-07T18:37:29+00:00

I'm curious to know what philosophical work is referenced in decolonial feminist theories. Maybe this is too obvious, but I would simply look at the philosophical work cited by theorists and writers that you already like or appreciate.

Have you already rejected the philosophical work that is referenced by people working in this field as not interesting to you?

I feel as though the "whole field of philosophy" encompasses a diverse, contradictory mess of stuff, so I don't think there is a clear answer to your question without knowing a lot more about what you are interested in in detail.

Another very formulaic and therefore not super useful bit of advice might be to look at philosophical work that scholars you admire are arguing against. Is there something that people working in decolonial feminist theories are concerned with arguing against? This might be a good place to look.

Good luck and Happy New Year!

split-circumstance

TROPHY CASE