Young Republican's Racist Texts Leak

[BlazeHeatnix]

Me: what's with the name calling? Ran out of skill? Is this a skill issue that your brain can no longer provide any solid argument to counter my statements and my ability to destroy a heavy bag and run an engineering entrepreneurship program for kids with learning differences? Ironic that the man saying he wants to "fight" me is getting his feelings hurt when I ignore him and then he has to result to name-calling and racist/ableist remarks, so here, I will try to say this in a way you can understand:

"oh, little man hit big; he have big brain. But big man have little brain; he pick fights, he not use big brain. Why little man hit big and use big brain but big man hit little and have little brain?"

See? No profanity or racist/ableist remarks; perhaps if you didn't use combat sports but rather real Martial Arts, you would be able to protect your once-big brain well enough to not want to "fight" me at a family gym and now look bad in front of a parent all because you initiated aggression and used ableist language in front of a child you were willing to endanger for the sake of your own ego, at a family-friendly gym.

Every time you post, it sounds schizophrenic. Genuinely, are you ok?

 

[Foxi4]

*Words*

Nobody should be persecuted against *or* receive preferential treatment based on immutable characteristics. This is not a controversial stance.

 

[Sicklyboy]

This is not a controversial stance.

Not according to the Trump administration.

 

[BlazeHeatnix]

Nobody should be persecuted against *or* receive preferential treatment based on immutable characteristics

Are you denying that systemic racism exists? Racism is more nuanced than just "fuck black people, I will never hire black people" you know.

 

[Foxi4]

Are you denying that systemic racism exists? Racism is more nuanced than just "fuck black people, I will never hire black people" you know.

Treating people equally regardless of their race is non-negotiable in a fair society.

 

[Reualed]

Nobody should be persecuted against *or* receive preferential treatment based on immutable characteristics. This is not a controversial stance.

So why exactly did the supreme court stating that skin color and ethnicity is probable cause for arrest then?

I'd really like to hear your stance on that.

Either the court picks one or the other. It can't be both.


And no, nobody should have preferential treatment.
But the United States kept finding ways to proscute by color

Time and time a fucking again. So no, getting rid of voting rights act is not a smart move.
people had to fucking stand up and spell it out, and put in mechnisms to prevent racist bull crap from happening.


Also disabled people get extra assistance, is that "preferential treatment?"

Post automatically merged: Oct 22, 2025

And also the end result is pretty blantent on when the voting rights act is stripped and weakened

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-w...ting-rights-act-enforcement-increases-turnout

 

[Foxi4]

So why exactly did the supreme court stating that skin color and ethnicity is probable cause for arrest then?

Because it didn’t. What you meant to say was stopping and questioning (which may entail temporary detainment pending investigation), and only in the presence of other factors which collectively raise reasonable suspicion.

Since you’re obviously referring to Noem v. Vasquez-Perdomo, we may as well discuss it, even though it has nothing to do with this thread. Nowhere in that decision does it state that an individual can be *arrested* for the way they look - that’s a total fabrication on your part. If you’re asking me why an officer on the lookout for individuals that fit a specific description might stop and question people who match said description, you’re being disingenuous. Here’s your answer - for the same reason why they *wouldn’t* stop a bald black man with a lawnmower when they’re looking for a white man with long hair and an axe.

Per 8 U. S. C. §1357(a)(1), an immigrations officer can “interrogate any alien or person believed to be an alien as to his right to be or to remain in the United States”. Notice the word “believed to be”. Not a “definitely”, a “maybe”. This belief operates on reasonable suspicion, and reasonable suspicion is determined by the totality of circumstances. I quote:

Whether an officer has reasonable suspicion depends on the totality of the circumstances. Here, those circumstances include: that there is an extremely high number and percentage of illegal immigrants in the Los Angeles area; that those individuals tend to gather in certain locations to seek daily work; that those individuals often work in certain kinds of jobs, such as day labor, landscaping, agriculture, and construction, that do not require paperwork and are therefore especially attractive to illegal immigrants; and that many of those illegally in the Los Angeles area come from Mexico or Central America and do not speak much English. (…) To be clear, apparent ethnicity alone cannot furnish reasonable suspicion; under this Court’s case law regarding immigration stops, however, it can be a “relevant factor” when considered along with other salient factors.

Under this Court’s precedents, not to mention common sense, those circumstances taken together can constitute at least reasonable suspicion of illegal presence in the United States. Importantly, reasonable suspicion means only that immigration officers may briefly stop the individual and inquire about immigration status. If the person is a U. S. citizen or otherwise lawfully in the United States, that individual will be free to go after the brief encounter. Only if the person is illegally in the United States may the stop lead to further immigration proceedings.

The court’s reasoning is pretty clearly laid out, and the decision is not what you claim it is. To put it in simple terms, if you happen to be a part of a minority that accounts for a large subset of illegal immigrants in a given area, you’re at a location where said illegal immigrants are known to gather for the same/similar purpose as you appear to be there for and you don’t speak a lick of English, guess what? You match the description of a usual suspect and you may be stopped briefly and questioned so that your status can be established, in the same way as anybody else would be if they matched, say, a witness portrait during a manhunt. Not all 6 foot tall white men with a beard wearing glasses and a red shirt are murderers, but if the police is looking for someone like that and you happen to match this description, yes, you may be temporarily detained, for obvious reasons. You can just read the concurrence (and the dissenting opinion, since the court offers both points of view), it’s publicly available.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/25A169

Also disabled people get extra assistance, is that "preferential treatment?"

You mean a ramp, so they can enter the building? You’re not barred from using the ramp. By all means, take the ramp if you don’t like the stairs. In fact, I encourage it. The *point* of the ramp is allowing everybody to enter the building regardless of their physical capabilities. The ramp is not discriminatory - it works regardless of whether or not your legs do. The word “preferential” means special treatment that you receive and *others do not*. You receive the same treatment as far as access to the building is concerned, I promise you that. To be more specific, the treatment in question is “the building is made accessible to you”. If you choose not to use the ramp, rest assured that the existence of the ramp does not generate any kind of unfair advantage for the users of the ramp. The ramp would never do that to you, just look at it. The ramp is good. The ramp does not create division - it unites. It doesn’t make binary distinctions, it only gives options that lead to the same outcome, out of the goodness of its iron frame. Praise the ramp.

 

[Mythrandir]

Whether you call it objective or not, I think everyone can agree that some actions like torture, exploitation, or genocide consistently cause suffering and undermine a society from cooperating. So no matter what framework you want to use, it is objectively the right choice to resist those things.

Your claim to objectivity seems to rest on the subjective experiences of suffering and societal cooperation. Are suffering and societal cooperation not dependent on human preferences and emotions? If so, how can they be considered objective?

Whether you call it objective or not

This poses a problem for us to have any sort of coherent discussion on the topic. Do you agree or disagree with defining objective morality as universal and independent of preferences determined by the context of culture, time, and geographical location. If you disagree, how do you define objectivity so that it avoids relativism?

I don't feel the need to address the appeal to a higher power as you haven't addressed the issues I gave previously. Once you can square those circles, we can keep the conversation moving.

Whether or not you feel the need, the burden is yours as you made the positive assertion. You are undermining your position by refusing to address the necessity of appealing to a higher standard to justify your claim.

The recap:
- Appealing to a god doesn’t solve Euthyphro’s dilemma.

Euthyphro's dilemma claims that God must either be arbitrary, therefore not necessarily good by nature, which subversively presupposes a moral standard external of Him, or there must be an external moral standard which even God appeals to. This is a false dilemma because both options presuppose a moral standard external of God. The Christian worldview affirms that God is not arbitrary in His commands, His nature is, by definition, good, and that His commands are not based upon any standard that is independent of Him. Morality is grounded in God’s eternal, unchanging, and perfectly good nature, which is the ultimate standard for goodness.

Why should I accept the presuppositions of a dilemma that misrepresents the nature of God and ignores, rather than engages with, the assertions of the Christian worldview? The dilemma only works when one assumes an unbiblical view of God and is unaware that it essentially frames the dilemma as choosing between a moral standard that is independent of God and a moral standard that is independent of God. I’m not even sure that can constitute as a dilemma because the “choices” to choose from are equivalent. Plato framed the dilemma so that he could reach his desired conclusion, morality/holiness/piety is independent of the pantheon.

- It doesn’t fix the fact that Christians still can’t agree on what their god commands.

How does this disprove Christianity? Disagreements among Christians do not undermine the truth of Christianity any more than disagreements among scientists undermine the validity of science. Christianity has been combatting heterodoxy since the 1st Century, as the New Testament epistles clearly demonstrate. For the claim that such disagreements disprove Christianity would mean that any disagreement on any subject necessitates rejection of that very subject. For example, there is a long history of disagreement regarding the implementation of legislation. Does the fact of this disagreement disprove all legislation? The logic just does not follow.

- And it doesn’t resolve the bible’s inconsistent treatment of human value across different passages.

I assert that the Bible is consistent. I'm not going to guess at the passages you are referring to. I can offer that I’ve found that supposed inconsistencies are from a lack of considering context (prescriptive vs descriptive passages), anachronistic misinterpretation, and the negligence of proper hermeneutics. It seems as though you have already decided that such responses I would give for each example will not be sufficient. You're already rooted in your desired conclusion. Rather than go through the effort of examining all of the passages that you have in mind in vain, let's go a bit deeper.

I believe that we may agree that consistency is a necessity for a claim to be true. On what basis does your worldview account for and justify this necessity of truth’s consistency?

Many apologists have tried, and none are convincing. It hasn't been done in over 2,000 years, and I don't expect it to be solved on an emulation message board.

The issue is that we are functioning based on antithetical and incompatible worldviews. Your worldview assumes that the God of the Bible does not exist, while my worldview assumes that He does exist. This means that we fundamentally differ in how we interpret evidence. For me, the very fact that I can reason and interpret evidence is proof of God’s existence. Your worldview, on the other hand, seems to take these wonderful faculties for granted without offering any foundation or justification for them.

 

[Reualed]

Because it didn’t. What you meant to say was stopping and questioning (which may entail temporary detainment pending investigation), and only in the presence of other factors which collectively raise reasonable suspicion.

Which boils down to "working" in the wrong area, and speaking the wrong language. Imagine working in that area, being a citizen or have legal immigration, not speaking English (doesn't mean it's Spanish) and your skin is just ever so darker, and you get held up, loose hours at your job because that's "probable" cause, when 60% of people are living paycheck to paycheck.

Yeah just a friendly little mistake right there.

The court’s reasoning is pretty clearly laid out, and the decision is not what you claim it is.

The supreme courts reasoning is as flip floppy as a toilet paper in the wind. There has been several times where they made a ruling, and then went against it in another, just craft a specific special exception for whatever their bullshit agenda is.


Additionally Police have and continue to abuse their power and drone up and make up charges.
https://www.propublica.org/article/...ked-him-and-charged-him-with-resisting-arrest

So why should I expect that if we even give a microscopic inch, that it will not be somehow abused.

 

[Foxi4]

Which boils down to "working" in the wrong area, and speaking the wrong language. Imagine working in that area, being a citizen or have legal immigration, not speaking English (doesn't mean it's Spanish) and your skin is just ever so darker, and you get held up, loose hours at your job, when 60% of people are living paycheck to paycheck.

Yeah just a friendly little mistake right there.

The supreme courts reasoning is as flip floppy as a toilet paper in the wind. There has been several times where they made a ruling, and then went against it in another, just craft a specific special exception for whatever their bullshit agenda is.

Additionally Police have and continue to abuse their power and drone up and make up charges.
https://www.propublica.org/article/...ked-him-and-charged-him-with-resisting-arrest

So why should I expect that if we even give a microscopic inch, that it will not be somehow abused.

”The court said this!”
“It didn’t. Here’s what it actually said, and it’s in accordance to the law in the same way as it applies to citizens in other contexts.”
“Yeah, but I still don’t like it because the officers won’t follow the law.”

Then they’ll end up on the front page of a magazine too. There’s no pleasing you, the court does not control what people do, in this case bad officers. If officers abuse their powers, any victims can file suits and pursue relief. In court. That’s how it works for everybody, immigrant or not.

 

[Reualed]

”The courts said this!”
“It didn’t. Here’s what it actually said, and it’s in accordance to the law in the same way as it applies to citizens in other contexts.”
“Yeah, but I still don’t like it because the officers won’t follow the law.”

If a court ruling saying race can be used as probable cause in any shape, then yes, yes that is still racial profiling. You can have people who are white and are illegal, you can have people who are black, and are illegal, you can also have someone who is Hispanic, who chooses to not speak English, and be legal.
Specifically targeting people by the language they are using, and their skin color, with the very very thin and flimsy defense of "Well what about their job" doesn't get a pass from me. Especially since we already know and have seen officers ignore procedures in the past.
The supreme court knows what they are doing, and disingenuous pieces of crap will use their words as a shield, while the material outcome is exactly what I am calling out. Which it will, infact, will result in racial profiling.

Post automatically merged: Oct 23, 2025

Wrapping back around because this kept getting dragged out from the original conversation.
If you seriously cannot see how the Republican party is pro racism, pro nazi, I honestly don't have anything else to tell you, outside of the fact you are disgraceful moderator.

 

[BlazeHeatnix]

Treating people equally regardless of their race is non-negotiable in a fair society.

Treating people equitably according to their needs and their situation is non-negotiable in a fair society, but every time that gets brought up to people like you, you say "life isn't fair". Just say you want to eat the homeless.

 

[Foxi4]

If a court ruling saying race can be used as probable cause in any shape, then yes, yes that is still racial profiling. You can have people who are white and are illegal, you can have people who are black, and are illegal, you can also have someone who is Hispanic, who chooses to not speak English, and be legal.
Specifically targeting people by the language they are using, and their skin color, with the very very thin and flimsy defense of "Well what about their job" doesn't get a pass from me. Especially since we already know and have seen officers ignore procedures in the past.
The supreme court knows what they are doing, and disingenuous pieces of crap will use their words as a shield, while the material outcome is exactly what I am calling out. Which it will, infact, will result in racial profiling.

Post automatically merged: Oct 23, 2025

Wrapping back around because this kept getting dragged out from the original conversation.
If you seriously cannot see how the Republican party is pro racism, pro nazi, I honestly don't have anything else to tell you, outside of the fact you are disgraceful moderator.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink. Yes, when someone’s looking for illegal immigrants from Central America, they’re going to factor in the fact that a suspect appears to be from Central America because Central America is inhabited by Central Americans. This is not only common sense, it’s also just one of the factors that raises reasonable suspicion. Reasonable suspicion, not probable cause, which is a different concept altogether.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/probable_cause
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/reasonable_suspicion

Probable cause is required for an arrest, it entails a high level of certainty that a crime is occurring based on the evidence available. Reasonable suspicion is less severe - it entails circumstances wherein a crime *might* be occurring, prompting the officer to conduct limited investigative stops and/or question a person briefly, so long as they can point to articulable facts that give them justification. You keep confusing the two and they are not the same. You cannot arrest someone based on reasonable suspicion - you can investigate based on reasonable suspicion, and that investigation may reveal probable cause.

Treating people equitably according to their needs and their situation is non-negotiable in a fair society, but every time that gets brought up to people like you, you say "life isn't fair". Just say you want to eat the homeless.

That’s right. Life isn’t fair. Law, on the other hand, is supposed to be fair, and as such it should apply to people equally. How you *treat* people is your prerogative, what you do in your private life is your business.

 

[Lumstar]

Racial profiling is not "reasonable suspicion", and it's definitely not applying the law equally.

 

[BlazeHeatnix]

That’s right. Life isn’t fair. Law, on the other hand, is supposed to be fair, and as such it should apply to people equally. How you *treat* people is your prerogative, what you do in your private life is your business.

Equity is required for life to be fair. If the law is supposed to be fair, then the law should be equitable, not equal. The attitude that things shouldn't be better because that's just the way things are is exactly the kind of ideology that belongs in hell.

Probable cause is required for an arrest, it entails a high level of certainty that a crime is occurring based on the evidence available.

You've been shitty before, but saying that being Hispanic is probable cause that you're committing a crime is on a whole new level of "why the fuck are you still a mod".

 

[Foxi4]

Equity is required for life to be fair. If the law is supposed to be fair, then the law should be equitable, not equal. The attitude that things shouldn't be better because that's just the way things are is exactly the kind of ideology that belongs in hell.

All should be equal before the law, not because it’s tradition but because, in the context of law, it’s inherently unfair to treat people differently based on things beyond their control, such as their innate characteristics.

You've been shitty before, but saying that being Hispanic is probable cause that you're committing a crime is on a whole new level of "why the fuck are you still a mod".

That’s what @Reualed claimed, not me. I said the exact opposite, actually. I’m not sure which part of “totality of circumstances” is confusing to you or why you insist on treating reasonable suspicion and probable cause interchangeably (they’re not interchangeable, as I already explained and provided sources for), but it’s also not my cross to bear. You can catch up on the relevant literature on your own time.

Racial profiling is not "reasonable suspicion", and it's definitely not applying the law equally.

Nobody should be stopped solely because they’re a certain race, that in isolation is insufficient to establish reasonable suspicion and the court states as much in the decision. I posted the relevant fragment, all you have to do is scroll up.

 

[RetroGen]

I consider Foxi4 to be an Ayn Rand rightwing apologetics AI Chatbot and don't interact with it. It has a far greater capacity to produce sophistry than any of us have the ability to refute, meaning our time is probably best spent elsewhere. It will manipulate and reframe issues so fast that your head will spin at relativistic speeds.

 

[Foxi4]

I consider Foxi4 to be an Ayn Rand rightwing apologetics AI Chatbot and don't interact with it. It has a far greater capacity to produce sophistry than any of us have the ability to refute, meaning our time is probably best spent elsewhere. It will manipulate and reframe issues so fast that your head will spin at relativistic speeds.

Sophistry, noun, the use of clever but false arguments, especially with the intention to deceive. You have 0 free tokens remaining, please sign up for the premium subscription to receive more tokens.

 

[Lumstar]

All should be equal before the law, not because it’s tradition but because, in the context of law, it’s inherently unfair to treat people differently based on things beyond their control, such as their innate characteristics.
That’s what @Reualed claimed, not me. I said the exact opposite, actually. I’m not sure which part of “totality of circumstances” is confusing to you or why you insist on treating reasonable suspicion and probable cause interchangeably (they’re not interchangeable, as I already explained and provided sources for), but it’s also not my cross to bear. You can catch up on the relevant literature on your own time.
Nobody should be stopped solely because they’re a certain race, that in isolation is insufficient to establish reasonable suspicion and the court states as much in the decision. I posted the relevant fragment, all you have to do is scroll up.

You want to talk about "inherently"? Witch hunts seeking out immigrants, is an inherently racist approach to immigration.
A law that can only be enforced through selectively identifying a person's racial/ethnic/etc background, should not be a law.

 

[MPRTwice]

Every time you post, it sounds schizophrenic. Genuinely, are you ok?

Why is that word an obsession for you? What is on _your_ mind?