I think you misunderstand. I’m not saying I’m in favor of this law.

By state’s rights, I’m referring to the way republicans pretend they want the freedom of choice where they are actually just looking for excuses to keep doing what they’re doing. In this way, letting parents choose is functionally identical: parents won’t choose, so it is equivalent to doing nothing.

There has to be a cultural shift for anything to change.

Kids seeing stuff they shouldn’t isn’t itself a problem,

If I’m being perfectly honest, I do not give a shit if 9-year-olds can see titties. Like, my other argument against this government overreach is that I don’t know what problem it’s supposedly solving that can’t just be solved with better sex-ed.

I feel like I’m standing between two really stupid positions here.

On the one hand, just let parents teach their kids is basically a state’s rights argument. A lot of parents won’t teach their kids, so… do we care? Does this matter? We should probably mount a stronger effort then.

On the other hand, we don’t need the government to get involved to stop 9 year olds from seeing titties—we just don’t! Websites the world over have implemented 2-factor-authentication more or less by themselves (and probably because they want to spy on you). And, no one says the word r----- anymore because if you ever do, a bunch of anti-bullying PSAs will be really annoying about it in your replies.

Not every social problem needs to be solved by swinging around Thor’s hammer. We do have other means.

• people taken w/o violating any actual crimes - the detention facility is for those suspected of immigration crimes

Wow.

You know, it’s no wonder you live in a red state; you’re still bought into the republican propoganda. I believe you that the “immigrants” rounded up into unmarked ICE vans will be tried fairly, and only the vile criminals among them will be deported to an El Salvador slave camp.

• the intent was genocide - intent for detention facility is temporary holding until people can be tried or deported

Deporting people en masse is genocide.

even the conservative Supreme Court would very likely strike this down.

The conservative justices are loyal to the Republican party. The Republican party does not want to be held accountable. What on earth gives you the idea they’ll want to strike this down?

Look at Trump’s approval rating.

His approval rating is only down among Republicans because his tariffs have been hurting them and not the brown people they voted to kill.

They thought the white ethnostate Trump would usher in would make them lions among sheep, and they are only upset that they are among the sheep.

—Not to mention, listen to any on-the-streets interviews with republican voters about their disapproval, fucking all of them say they’d vote for him again.

it could get very spicy indeed.

Absolutely beside myself at your cavalier attitude. I do hope your state gets everything it voted for.

“Russians do X,”

*Russia.

You keep making this mistake. I’m starting to think you’re doing it deliberately.

Because propaganda associated the terrible actions of the Japanese government with the Japanese people

Are you not reinforcing the idea that a country’s name refers to its people by insisting that everyone else and not you are the ones nefariously conflating the two?

The idea that a people are the same as their country is nationalism. How are you battling nationalism by preventing people from saying a country’s name?

If you said “Netanyahu did this,” and fair, he does a lot of things, would the racist not assume that the Isreali people elected him and thus agree with him anyway? Because they’re “of the same kind.”

You seem to think that their racism is derived from a simple misconception and not, like, a deep-seated fear and paranoia.

If you see someone say “Isreal does this,” then assume they mean the state. If you see someone say “let’s bomb Isreal into the shadow realm,” then politely snap their neck. It’s not that hard.

You think that caging brown people “for no reason” is a disgusting comparison to the Holocaust?

This is unreal. I didn’t see this conversation coming at all. You’re actually doing nazi apologia. You’re refusing to acknowledge the pressure building in your pipes only because the pipes haven’t burst yet. How many brown people do you want to die before you’re willing to concede this? Do we need to wait until the full 6 million?

they do have to follow US law in how they treat people

No. They don’t.

• Neither Democrat congress members nor journalists are allowed to see what’s happening inside that camp. Rather, they are, legally, but they’re being prevented from doing so anyway.
• The Democrats are weak and refuse to punish Republicans for anything. If there is no threat of punishment, they can just do whatever they want. Republicans have abused this weakness of Democrats like 5 billion times.
• The Big Beautiful Bill includes a provision that judicial funds cannot be used to pursue rulings. This passed, so, if it can’t be repealed, this means it is illegal to use funds intended to punish criminals to seek punishment for Republicans breaking the law. This kills the law.

Call them out on actual policy issues

Call them out for being evil. Their policies are evil.

If the majority of Republicans are not evil, as you say, then they should have no problem dropping the line. They can form a new party, and the current one can be dropped into a wastebin in hell.

where people attribute problems to the people of a nation rather than its leaders.

But you’re the one doing this. I’m not conflating people with country here. OP isn’t either.

Yet we get hate crimes against the people that come from a region just because their government did something stupid.

Are you proposing that racists, when they hear “Russian government” instead of “Russia,” will stop being racist? I don’t really know what to say to that.

The problem is people wanting to force others into their worldview,

No, I will force nazis into my worldview, actually. They can come willingly, or we can beat them into submission like we did 80 years ago.

What, actually, is wrong with you? Building alligator auschwitz does, in fact, make you a bad person—if you seriously disagree with this, then you and I are enemies.

“Americans do X”

*America. Look at the title again.

I gotta be honest, I don’t understand what you’re fighting for here. That people in Finland will have a slightly better opinion of you? Mexico will know you’re one of the good ones?

Russia has done a lot of disagreeable things, I’ve got to imagine its people are pretty upset about it.

anyone affiliated w/ him

Well, this is what I’m asking for, so I sure hope so.

but it’s probably somewhere between Trump and Bush.

So, keep in mind, republican voters are not upset with Trump because they’ve decided they no longer want a border wall. The architects of Project 2025 don’t need anything from Trump but political power, which they already have.

The next election cycle, if it’s real, I do imagine will swing back, but it cannot just “swing back,” it needs to deal with the sickness plaguing the US. That sickness is the republican party. That sickness is the republican voter.

What if they said employees of your company all support a thing? That would include you.

But no one is doing this. America is a state.

Why not enforce these standards through legislation, then? Doesn’t the world’s payment processor, a political body you can’t appeal to when it fucks up, seem a bit heavy-handed?

Only in the sense that crypto is an alternative payment method in the same way that pulling out is an alternative to condoms.

If Trump comes out and says some dumb shit, you can’t just say “AMERICA WANTS THIS”, because that is obviously untrue.

You need to realize how insanely defensive you’re being. Why? For what?

Think about what you’re arguing for for a second: America doesn’t want AI, only Trump’s administration does. Is this not all of politics?

“America doesn’t want free health care, only some of its democrats do.”

“America doesn’t want ranked choice voting, lots of people in Wyoming hate ranking things. And math.”

“America doesn’t want gay marriage, there are still lots of people really upset about that supreme court ruling.”

You’re drawing a scenario in which “America” can’t actually “want” anything because no one ever agrees on who America is.

I’m being competely serious: you need to unwrap your ego from all this. This isn’t about you. ICE raids aren’t your—you specifically—your fault. No one is saying it is.

America is a really, really big machine, and sometimes it does things I don’t like. Sometimes it does things I do. You know what I mean?

How do you refer to the machinations of a state?

You know, this might actually be really bad politics.

Trump is not the only person at the top. He’s kind of a lame duck, actually: he just does whatever Miller says. The only time he steps in is when he’s personally insulted by something because he desperately wants everyone to know he’s a very special boy.

I do take issue with democrats blaming everything the republicans are up to on Trump specifically, as if the party might return to normal once he dies.

I just, I do not understand why this upsets people so much.

I work for a company that does things I don’t want them to do all the time. I’ve never felt like someone saying “[the company] wants to do [this thing]” was ever referring to me specifically whatsoever.

To the point of marriage?

Well, firstly, because I did think for a moment you were going to start defending tobacco companies—that would have been wild. Thanks for not doing that, I guess.

But secondly, because there is nothing actually wrong with this word choice. Like, this is kind of a literacy issue: smuggling is more than just moving physical goods, it is to sneak them across lines and borders maintained by authorities. The advertisement here is the good being smuggled; it’s a perfectly apt metaphor. The implication is either that regulators don’t know this is happening, or are by some technicality unable to do anything about it.

Broadly, this is related to arguments I’ve had with people about whether ‘genocide’ is an appropriate term for what the US is or wanted to start doing. And, what do you know, we now have our first internment camp. I’ll pause for applause; you gotta love an achievement.

Hell, I remember arguments about whether Isreal was technically committing a genocide. They are doing that. People were just calling it ahead of time.

I desperately want to see people stop particulating over the details of at best mildly incorrect word choice. This is a kind of anti-intellectual behavior. It’s refusing to see a metaphor, or even a perfect application, for what it is. You actually work against positive forces by constantly dragging the discussion down.

Anyway, sorry for the long post. I just thought thoroughly explaining would be better than going back and forth 17 more times.

The article specifically calls out advertising—how does ‘smuggling’ imply anything else? To smuggle here just means “to circumvent regulators.” And yeah, I think it’s appropriately terse.

You are reacting to what is, at worst, a bit of poetry. I don’t understand why you’re doing that.

They’re advertising tobacco to children, which is illegal. Why would you throw yourself on this hill?

If they are circumventing regulators, and they are doing that, then they are smuggling advertisements to illegal targets, yes.