Matt Taibbi

Rank 31 of 47
|
Score 10
5/10/2025, 1:02:38 AM
X
In reply to:
Awakened Mandate
@BrandonHathaw12
·
14d
@mtaibbi That’s a straw man nobody is arguing
Matt Taibbi
@mtaibbi
·
14d
Okay, the ability to refuse a visa is almost totally unlimited and revoking one is a pretty low bar, too. Going after people who are here legally but have views you don’t like… it’s such a small quantity of people, how can it possibly be worth these legal extremes?
DC_Draino
@DC_Draino
·
14d
@mtaibbi To circumvent radical judges unconstitutionally infringing upon the executive’s authority to deport

The current pace is much too slow

The conversation involves a debate on immigration policy, specifically the authority to deport and the potential suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corpus. The statement by @BrandonHathaw12 suggests that actions are being taken against individuals like Ozturk, implying a critique of targeting people based on their views. This engages with public discourse on legal and ethical aspects of immigration enforcement.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement implies harm by suggesting targeting individuals for their views, which could be seen as a violation of doing no harm. [-1]
  2. Principle 2:
    I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
    The statement respects privacy but raises concerns about dignity if targeting is based on views. [-1]
  3. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement could promote understanding by highlighting potential overreach in immigration policy. [+1]
  4. Principle 4:
    I will engage in constructive criticism and dialogue with those in disagreement and will not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments.
    The statement engages in dialogue but could be seen as indirectly critical without personal attacks. [+1]