"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...". George Washington stressed freedom of religion as a fundamental American principle even before the First Amendment was ratified. Welcome back to the Inquisition. Or perhaps rebirth of the Blockwart ? https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Blockwart
And having successfully evicted all Muslims, Jews, Atheists, and "non-Christians" from government, we can then get back to what this country is really about: Protestants fighting over power with Catholics, Anabaptists, Presbyterians, Mormons, and so forth.
The United States currently deports visa holders for criticizing a foreign Jewish country, Israel. Don't lump in the power structure with those who are actually victims.
> United States currently deports visa holders for criticizing a foreign Jewish country
We’re deporting people for any and no reason, including a tattoo of “an autism awareness ribbon” [1].
Trump was elected to stop illegal immigration. He’s staffed his White House with idiot sycophants, however, and so can’t actually do that because it’s hard. So we get random deportations to make the numbers while the gangs probably have the freest reign they’ve ever had amidst the confusion at the FBI and in D.C.
The man was deported due to his tattoo. His tattoo was of an autism awareness ribbon. The man was deported due to his autism awareness ribbon tattoo.
The US government doesn't seem to be specifically targeting autism awareness, but it is targeting people with innocuous tattoos, including in this situation a tattoo of an autism awareness ribbon.
And he wasn’t deported, he was sent to a black site in a foreign country with no sentence and nobody willing to take responsibility for him. A life sentence.
> that the op meant to suggest the administration was targeting people due to
Very certainly not in the understanding of, hopefully, most.
--
Edit: now, the very clear intention of that poster, with a high degree of probability, seems from here to suggest that the running situations can be absurd.
Sorry, I do not understand your post. You say, I understand, that some are investigated because of tattoos; we understand some of them are being deported; then you seem to state that the deportation is not because of the tattoos. Well, it seems after the tattoos... And the press does not make it evident that proper evidence is sought - it makes it look very discretionary.
The account “hnpolicestate” arguing against the idea of a police state by defending tattoo-based deportation stereotypes is peak satire. You couldn’t script it better.
Textbook MAGA logic. Just like all the Americans who spent the last few years claiming that they were free speech absolutists who acted mortally offended if you even suggested that wasn’t a genuinely held belief who for “reasons unknown” are completely silent with nothing to say on the topic any more.
It’s a political group of fundamentally dishonest people.
It seems, from your other post, that your understanding of "autistic" is "non paranoid" - somebody who does not read in other's intentions what his own mind, calibrated on his own use and language, would suggest.
Now, we have more problems there: * your disrespectful attitude towards those who have to deal with dire conditions, and * your belief in what your mind tells you, and * your idea that you believing your perceptions would be good practice...
Re-read the guidelines, because your reading of people's speech is undesirable in general and here in particular.
The [State] department ... will work with an administration-wide task force to collect information "involving anti-religious bias during the last presidential administration" and will collect examples of anti-Christian bias through anonymous employee report forms.
This aligns with the WhiteHouse' order to eradicate attacks on all faiths, as long as they are Christian.
Somebody having for their own reasons flagged the other post, I will have to write it again: this article was submitted as this input from the current adminstration seems relevant in those times when attempts at knowledge engineering (in the form of LLMs) are greatly concentrated in the USA.
As written in the other post, aspects of the action in question seem to suggest a potential for the reduction of "debate" to low standards. It is a drive that could be concerning not just in general, but especially in light of the historic efforts abovesaid.
The original post should be still visible for most - it just says the same in other terms. (Note: it was already heavily hit before I encouraged the silent attackers to grow speech and fingers - then it got flagged.)
--
Addendum: furthermore, a factor with consequences will remain a sense of distrust towards the institutions. Very rightfully, as the article said, one part notes that «targeting anyone for their religious beliefs is discriminatory and is contrary to the Constitution». But other parts will be afraid that «in reality, it will weaponize a narrow understanding of [etc.]». There have been many signals that bring to doubt that matters will be treated with all respect to complexity - point that was strongly made in the original post.
25% of the Swedish population migrated to the US during the 1800s. A large portion of those were very christian. Essentially they migrated because their christian beliefs were "too extreme" for the state protestant church here at the time.
I've always wondered if that's how Sweden ended up mostly agnostic/atheist and part of the explanation for why the US ended up being so very religious.
One side of this idea could also be advanced for the Mayflower. That non-conformists look for new land and new societies is another reason for migration.
I suspect religion is just a front. There are so many contradictions that suddenly make sense when you start thinking of it as a proxy for ethnic groups.
Historically, embracing a "persuasion" has been part of strategies in games of power - as in, "you are different from us so you cannot govern us".
In the context of this submission: yes, again there can be suspicions of "partitic" actions ("see, we are defending our base").
Which, if this is the case, amounts to blasphemy (again as per my original introduction, then flagged).
(And of course, with regard to the more times expressed relevance of this submission, it raises a question of "and where will this "defence" stop, also considering that we are creating pseudo-mind software?")
It is scary that this could be used for... nearly anything? "Omg I am oppressed because this person has rights". Someone bad that someone else got a promotion and just looking for a "justifiable" reason to be upset that removes any personal responsibility or an easy explanation of "why".
I honestly don't even know how to respond to this anymore.
I feel like we are weeks away from Trump trying to actually make an official religion or some other crap like that.
Of course there should be concerns about how the "anonymous denunciations" will be then held. I just did not think that the matter was really "on topic" here. But that could impact the credibility of the "partner" (which is in topic).
But before establishing that that will be the treatment of the specific cases, we should either wait that such cases happen - or induce, judging whether horror stories (such as the Canadian actress recently detained and telling the story on the news) should be considered exceptional or structural.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...". George Washington stressed freedom of religion as a fundamental American principle even before the First Amendment was ratified. Welcome back to the Inquisition. Or perhaps rebirth of the Blockwart ? https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Blockwart
Well, except for natives (until 1978).
And having successfully evicted all Muslims, Jews, Atheists, and "non-Christians" from government, we can then get back to what this country is really about: Protestants fighting over power with Catholics, Anabaptists, Presbyterians, Mormons, and so forth.
You ain't seen nothing yet.
> You ain't seen nothing yet.
I know.
This is exactly what Hitler did.
The United States currently deports visa holders for criticizing a foreign Jewish country, Israel. Don't lump in the power structure with those who are actually victims.
> United States currently deports visa holders for criticizing a foreign Jewish country
We’re deporting people for any and no reason, including a tattoo of “an autism awareness ribbon” [1].
Trump was elected to stop illegal immigration. He’s staffed his White House with idiot sycophants, however, and so can’t actually do that because it’s hard. So we get random deportations to make the numbers while the gangs probably have the freest reign they’ve ever had amidst the confusion at the FBI and in D.C.
[1] https://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/2025/03/31/venezuel...
[flagged]
The man was deported due to his tattoo. His tattoo was of an autism awareness ribbon. The man was deported due to his autism awareness ribbon tattoo.
The US government doesn't seem to be specifically targeting autism awareness, but it is targeting people with innocuous tattoos, including in this situation a tattoo of an autism awareness ribbon.
And he wasn’t deported, he was sent to a black site in a foreign country with no sentence and nobody willing to take responsibility for him. A life sentence.
[flagged]
> that the op meant to suggest the administration was targeting people due to
Very certainly not in the understanding of, hopefully, most.
--
Edit: now, the very clear intention of that poster, with a high degree of probability, seems from here to suggest that the running situations can be absurd.
Would you agree, "deporting because otherness" would make a fabulous liberal bs headline? The only problem, it doesnt mention tatoos.
I sincerely hope you'll manage to leave the right reality distortion field some day, mr hnpolicestate.
Sorry, I do not understand your post. You say, I understand, that some are investigated because of tattoos; we understand some of them are being deported; then you seem to state that the deportation is not because of the tattoos. Well, it seems after the tattoos... And the press does not make it evident that proper evidence is sought - it makes it look very discretionary.
What was the intended logic?
The account “hnpolicestate” arguing against the idea of a police state by defending tattoo-based deportation stereotypes is peak satire. You couldn’t script it better.
I am not sure the poster is «arguing against the idea of» (etc.). Have you read both posts in the branch?
I wanted to point out their username
Textbook MAGA logic. Just like all the Americans who spent the last few years claiming that they were free speech absolutists who acted mortally offended if you even suggested that wasn’t a genuinely held belief who for “reasons unknown” are completely silent with nothing to say on the topic any more.
It’s a political group of fundamentally dishonest people.
I didn't vote in 2024 or 2020. Identical parties.
[flagged]
It seems, from your other post, that your understanding of "autistic" is "non paranoid" - somebody who does not read in other's intentions what his own mind, calibrated on his own use and language, would suggest.
Now, we have more problems there: * your disrespectful attitude towards those who have to deal with dire conditions, and * your belief in what your mind tells you, and * your idea that you believing your perceptions would be good practice...
Re-read the guidelines, because your reading of people's speech is undesirable in general and here in particular.
Ableist comments like that don’t belong here. Let’s keep it respectful.
That does not necesserly mean that they care about particular religion.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/02/erad...
> as long as they are Christian
Or Jewish, which was their first priority (before Trump even):
U.S. Says It Is Now Monitoring Immigrants’ Social Media for Antisemitism - https://www.npr.org/2025/04/09/g-s1-59149/immigrants-social-...
Teacher Sues Texas After Being Fired For Refusing to Sign Pro-Israel Contract - https://www.newsweek.com/teacher-fired-refusing-sign-pro-isr...
The mayor of Dickinson, Texas, says a new state law requires that the city ask aid recipients not to boycott Israel. - https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/texas-harvey-israel/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-BDS_laws
Justice Department Announces Formation of Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism - https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-announces-...
RFK Jr Declares “Anti-Semitism” a Public Health Crisis - https://seemorerocks.substack.com/p/rfk-jr-declares-anti-sem...
Office of the Special Envoy To Monitor and Combat Antisemitism - https://web.archive.org/web/20211210030412/https://www.state...
Trump Administration Investigates These 60 Colleges Over Antisemitism Allegations - https://www.forbes.com/sites/tylerroush/2025/03/11/trump-adm...
Honestly I don't know how you missed these - in aggregate, they were widely publicized.
This isn't about being anti-Jewish, it's about being pro-palestine. That makes you a political enemy of the state.
Somebody having for their own reasons flagged the other post, I will have to write it again: this article was submitted as this input from the current adminstration seems relevant in those times when attempts at knowledge engineering (in the form of LLMs) are greatly concentrated in the USA.
As written in the other post, aspects of the action in question seem to suggest a potential for the reduction of "debate" to low standards. It is a drive that could be concerning not just in general, but especially in light of the historic efforts abovesaid.
The original post should be still visible for most - it just says the same in other terms. (Note: it was already heavily hit before I encouraged the silent attackers to grow speech and fingers - then it got flagged.)
--
Addendum: furthermore, a factor with consequences will remain a sense of distrust towards the institutions. Very rightfully, as the article said, one part notes that «targeting anyone for their religious beliefs is discriminatory and is contrary to the Constitution». But other parts will be afraid that «in reality, it will weaponize a narrow understanding of [etc.]». There have been many signals that bring to doubt that matters will be treated with all respect to complexity - point that was strongly made in the original post.
25% of the Swedish population migrated to the US during the 1800s. A large portion of those were very christian. Essentially they migrated because their christian beliefs were "too extreme" for the state protestant church here at the time.
I've always wondered if that's how Sweden ended up mostly agnostic/atheist and part of the explanation for why the US ended up being so very religious.
> beliefs were "too extreme"
One side of this idea could also be advanced for the Mayflower. That non-conformists look for new land and new societies is another reason for migration.
I suspect religion is just a front. There are so many contradictions that suddenly make sense when you start thinking of it as a proxy for ethnic groups.
Historically, embracing a "persuasion" has been part of strategies in games of power - as in, "you are different from us so you cannot govern us".
In the context of this submission: yes, again there can be suspicions of "partitic" actions ("see, we are defending our base").
Which, if this is the case, amounts to blasphemy (again as per my original introduction, then flagged).
(And of course, with regard to the more times expressed relevance of this submission, it raises a question of "and where will this "defence" stop, also considering that we are creating pseudo-mind software?")
Nope. They are most of the time "true believers".
sigh 1379 days...
It is scary that this could be used for... nearly anything? "Omg I am oppressed because this person has rights". Someone bad that someone else got a promotion and just looking for a "justifiable" reason to be upset that removes any personal responsibility or an easy explanation of "why".
I honestly don't even know how to respond to this anymore.
I feel like we are weeks away from Trump trying to actually make an official religion or some other crap like that.
Of course there should be concerns about how the "anonymous denunciations" will be then held. I just did not think that the matter was really "on topic" here. But that could impact the credibility of the "partner" (which is in topic).
But before establishing that that will be the treatment of the specific cases, we should either wait that such cases happen - or induce, judging whether horror stories (such as the Canadian actress recently detained and telling the story on the news) should be considered exceptional or structural.
[flagged]