There’s a difference between cutting people out of your personal life and knowing people who are of whatever political leaning where you’ve heard them share their views at some point, whether people at work or clients or just, you know, come across in some context. Even if you choose to cut them out of your life after discovering their perspectives, you still must know tangentially some people who would fit the bill and probably know what they’re on about. Unless you can expunge your memories as well.
If I overhear or learn, even indirectly, I basically cut the person off. I had a co-worker at my last place who I discovered supported Trump. I never spoke to him again except when strictly necessary to do my job, and avoided him at every opportunity from that point forward.
Unless they literally never talk politics at any point, I’ll know and I’ll avoid them forever. If they never talk politics, either they’re so crypto that it doesn’t matter, or I don’t actually know them. Faceless coworker or faceless client isn’t someone I know.
People I interact with tangentially don’t matter or count. They’re like shopkeepers in an RPG. But if I have a real conversation with them and I get even a whiff of conservatism, I usually press the issue to confirm what they may believe.
I don’t have any close friends who have high religiousity, nor do I have any close friends who are even tangentially supportive of Republicans.
I’m also privileged in that I don’t have any relatives that are horrible. My whole family is very left/liberal.
But I won’t even socialize with a Republican. I won’t be polite unless I am specifically required to in a limited interaction due to employment or other circumstances.
3 Likes
I had a distant cousin from Eastern Washington State visit me about ten years ago. I was helping connecting his computer to my parents wi-fi so he could check emails and such.
His home page was set to the homepage of the local internet provider. It was considered to be a “Good Internet Provider” in that its selling point what that it didn’t allow access to porn and was Pro-Christian. Imagine the MSN splash page that all internet explorer browsers are set to, now imagine that page with a Fox News/Conservative Christian Slant. All of their news input is highly curated by the Conservative Christians, and trust me the Christian-side of that has me more spooked than the usually Libertarian-Conservative who just loves money.
That’s what you’re dealing with in Red State Land that isn’t part of the regional Broadband monopoly. It’s like Conservative AM radio, only internet and it exists in near-isolation from the rest of the country.
You are what you consume, and boomers suck at internet. My mother (69, not nice) refers to “page 3 of the net” by which she means the third page of Google results. She rails about the conspiracy to manipulate results when she can no longer find the link on the third page. I honestly wish Google would do more to provide some counter propaganda results (as they do with people researching suicide), but the algorithms have been pretty shit so far re bias.
7 Likes
I was about to ask why they think this will prevent people watching porn but then I remembered most people don’t know what a VPN is, and that’s assuming its just blocking at the ISP level and not just a browser plugin or something.
It wasn’t a browser plugin like net nanny, I do remember that.
You’re talking about people who aren’t very technical, and most of their experience is going to be highly curated with that splash page.
Wait are you saying its not even as sophisticated as a plugin or a Net Nanny? Its literally just that the install person sets your home page to the company’s splash page which I guess doesn’t have a search bar? If there’s literally nothing stopping you from going to Google and typing Pornhub then I’d say there’s a case for droppong a dime about dishonest advertising.
Edit: I googled “Christian ISP” and hoboy that was an adventure. There’s three or four and they all offer dialup and only one has DSL. Their websites were obviously made by someone’s nephew in HTML in like 2007 and are plastered with the usual weird ‘repeat the Christian buzzwords ad nauseum’ advertising copy.
All “Christian” ISPs and the like are based primarily around providing a performative service. They don’t have to work. At all.
The user just has to be able to say they are using it instead of the evil unfiltered Internet that made the rest of us Satanists.
2 Likes
I may be a satan-touched heathen, but at least I get 120mbit down.
5 Likes
I mean I figured as much but damn.
Hail Satan!
Don’t hail too hard, 5mbit up. Moderate Hail.
2 Likes
1 Like
I am trying to fathom at all what purpose this serves even to this administration. If your parents are citizens you’re a citizen right?
It’s not great, but the new policy only applies in three very niche circumstances:
“USCIS issued a clarification to the rule later Wednesday, explaining that the new rule would only affect three categories of people: Children of non-U.S. citizens adopted by U.S. citizen government employees or service members; children of non-U.S. citizen government employees or service members who were naturalized after the child’s birth; and children of U.S. citizens who do not meet residency requirements.”
It’s racism slowly tightening the noose of isolationism. Can’t have your armed forces heading out into other countries and adopting the orphans they create, bringing outsiders into the country through marriage, or fraternizing with the natives. Easier to dehumanize them that way.
2 Likes
Someone I follow on twitter got very pissed about this. They adopted a young child from South America (who still is a minor) and now they found out that chance of deporting her is very much non-zero.
1 Like
When someone living in the US adopts a child from outside of the US, part of the adoption process is for that child to go through the US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). How does this change that?
The reason why I commented is that the distance between the title of the article:
“Some children born overseas to certain US troops may not automatically have American citizenship, Trump administration says”
and what the change in policy actually does is so wide you could sail an aircraft carrier through it.
Out of the three scenarios that this change affects, the first one doesn’t affect children born to US troops at all, the second situation is when the children is already born and the parent then becomes naturalized, in which case the child will presumably become naturalized at the same time, and the third situation is when the U.S. citizen doesn’t meet the residency requirements.
To quote from the article that’s referenced above, after it had been updated with more information:
“Children who are adopted by US service members abroad, and children who are born to service members while overseas who are not yet citizens (such as service members who are green card holders) will not receive automatic citizenship by merely living with their parents who are out of the U.S on orders.”
This is not a big deal. This is news organizations jumping the gun and creating panic and hysteria over pretty much nothing.
Materially I agree it doesn’t mark a huge jump. It’s a minor policy change, an administrator saying what will be accepted is a slight different set of requirements than before, a little more paperwork is required, or an extra process that affects a small number of people.
But the only explanations for why this was made at all seem to point in none-good directions and it’s better to start people on this issue before it gains any traction. Why wait until it is potentially an actually bad policy change and try to react?
Either so many children were being naturalized through this pathway that the govt felt it was bringing undue problems, too many people abusing it. Which, I don’t know, but then it’s a big issue for people. Or so few were coming through this pathway, and the wording to change it so minor, that someone felt that it was one easy gate they could close off with minimal consequences, and putting themselves that much closer to working on closing the next gate. And the next gate. It’s a tiny, nigh imperceptible move on the needle if you aren’t particularly sensitive to the topic. But it’s a tiny move in the bad direction and it’s not likely going to swing back the other way unchecked.
More likely the rat-faced goblin in charge of “Making America White Again” discovered this process and decided to “Nope” it out of existence, because the Trump administration is rife with petty asshats.