A friendly public service announcement:
From the Inbox screen on Thunderbird, hit Ctrl+Shift+F for a powerful search function
975 karma · joined January 20, 2020
From the Inbox screen on Thunderbird, hit Ctrl+Shift+F for a powerful search function
Iran has produced a large amount of >60% U-235 (enriched), probably hundreds of kilograms, way more than would be required for any peaceful purpose. I don't think any modern medical uses actually require enriched uranium any more. And anyway, how much medical imaging or radiation treatment could you possibly be doing? And they could be developing propulsion systems, that wouldn't be a peaceful purpose (it would be a military ship).
Put all this together and it seems abundantly clear that the sole purpose of Iran's HEU program is the production of nuclear weapons. HEU isn't required in any significant amount for peaceful purposes.
The real situation is not 100x more complex, it's just that this is happening in Britain where everything is someone else's job and no one has any reason to care about the actual goals and everyone will go home at 5pm. Or, more likely, to the pub.
"It is well established that noncitizens have at least some First Amendment rights," wrote Judge William G. Young of the U.S. District of Massachusetts. "Although case law defining the scope of noncitizens' First Amendment rights is notably sparse, the Plaintiffs have at least plausibly alleged that noncitizens, including lawful permanent residents, are being targeted specifically for exercising their right to political speech."
So it seems less than clear.
From: https://reason.com/2025/05/02/immigrants-and-radicals-have-t...
A little reading leads me to believe:
- 1A limits what congress may do, "Congress shall make no law...". It does not positively define what people may do, and therefore doesn't pick out a class of people to whom it applies.
- It is settled that the U.S. government may condition immigration-related decisions on your speech and actions. They don't have to let in an Al-Qaeda member when he shows up at the border, and they don't have to give a pro-HAMAS agitator in the country on a temporary visa a green card. It's still not totally clear to me if a green card might have some sort of special-but-noncitizen status, and maybe it's not clear in general.
- The U.S. government asks people who are applying for entry or a visa questions like, "Are you a terrorist, or have you ever belonged to or supported terrorist organizations?". Part of the reason they do this is to catch you in a lie if it then turns out that you are e.g. supporting HAMAS. If you lied on your immigration documents, they can throw you out.
- For this reason, it seems like e.g. refusing to renew a visa on the grounds of HAMAS support would be fine. But maybe canceling a visa and kicking someone out wouldn't be fine?
The question is: To whom do these rights extend in the U.S.?
They certainly don't extend to foreigners at the border (any country would rightly turn away an avowed Al-Qaeda member). Foreigners in the U.S. are in the U.S. at the pleasure of the government.
Do foreigners currently in the U.S. have these rights? I don't know for sure, maybe it's not a settled issue. My guess is that the U.S. gov't asks "Are you a terrorist?" at the border for good reasons, and one reason is so they can kick you out for lying to them when they learn you're a HAMAS supporter.
Should they have these rights? I'm honestly not sure of my feeling on this. Perhaps the way to handle it is to prevent the renewal of a visa or re-entry, but not actually kick anyone out for it.
Shameless, wrong, and overtly illegal discrimination on the basis of race, sex, and creed, suppression of free speech, even the compelling of speech have all been de rigeur for Harvard for the past decade.
I just wish they would use a scalpel rather than a sledge hammer.
The University (and many other universities) has been engaging in overtly illegal discrimination on the basis of sex, race, and creed in hiring, grants, and I'm sure many other areas. There were many job postings where the CVs of white men were never looked at, because of their skin color and sex. There were many grant-funded opportunities (often federally-funded) where a white man, or a man, or a straight person would not have a chance because of those characteristics. Oh, and I should mention "diversity statements", now called "belonging statements". These are political tests: regardless of your skin color and genitals, if you don't sing the right political song you have no chance. This was a first line assessment at many places (e.g., UC Berkeley). This was all overt in that it was openly talked about, people would send emails to the effect "this job opening must go to a brown woman", etc. People generally, somehow, even Americans, didn't understand it was illegal. I would be greeted with quizzical looks if I enlightened them! (in casual conversation, of course, never officially!). This is all for hiring and similar. Students are different, and since the end of affirmative action Harvard has still been doing everything it can to continue discriminating against e.g. East Asians and Whites, which is of course illegal.
You risked losing your job for expressing an uncool belief (e.g., Carole Hooven: https://www.mindingthecampus.org/2024/02/15/carole-hooven-wh...). Of course, they will try to force you to resign before actually firing you, which would leave open the possibility of legal problems. This may be a sort of "why not, it's a small thing, just say it" to a chemist, but to an endocrinologist or social scientist it can be intolerable.
Compelled speech was on the table, too, which is a bright line we have so far, as a society, have managed not to cross. Harvard and other elite universities were crossing it, and the Biden admin's Title IX rules overtly crossed it (by forcing you to use someone's preferred pronouns). A bad look, to put it mildly.
Now, the Trump admin is not this careful, and many people who are not overt HAMAS supporters have probably been affected. But I wish to make the point that there is a substantial group of students (non-citizen HAMAS supporters) for whom punishment is not crazy.
The University (and many other universities) has been engaging in overtly illegal discrimination on the basis of sex, race, and creed in hiring, grants, and I'm sure many other areas. There were many job postings where the CVs of white men were never looked at, because of their skin color and sex. There were many grant-funded opportunities (often federally-funded) where a white man, or a man, or a straight person would not have a chance because of those characteristics. Oh, and I should mention "diversity statements", now called "belonging statements". These are political tests: regardless of your skin color and genitals, if you don't sing the right political song you have no chance. This was a first line assessment at many places (e.g., UC Berkeley). This was all overt in that it was openly talked about, people would send emails to the effect "this job opening must go to a brown woman", etc. People generally, somehow, even Americans, didn't understand it was illegal. I would be greeted with quizzical looks if I enlightened them! (in casual conversation, of course, never officially!). This is all for hiring and similar. Students are different, and since the end of affirmative action Harvard has been still doing everything it can to continue discriminating against e.g. East Asians and Whites, which is of course illegal.
You risked losing your job for expressing an uncool belief (e.g., Carole Hooven: https://www.mindingthecampus.org/2024/02/15/carole-hooven-wh...). Of course, they will try to force you to resign before actually firing you, which would leave open the possibility of legal problems. This may be a sort of "why not, it's a small thing, just say it" to a chemist, but to an endocrinologist or social scientist it can be intolerable.
Compelled speech was on the table, too, which is a bright line we have so far, as a society, have managed not to cross. Harvard and other elite universities were crossing it, and the Biden admin's Title IX rules overtly crossed it (by forcing you to use someone's preferred pronouns). A bad look, to put it mildly.
Shameless, wrong, and overtly illegal discrimination on the basis of race, sex, and creed, suppression of free speech, even the compelling of speech have all been de rigeur for Harvard for the past decade.
I just wish they would use a scalpel rather than a sledge hammer.
I'm going to be very honest with you: this strikes me as unhinged. I don't mean to put you down, I really mean to be honest. Our perceptions of the world are really, really different. I can imagine how you might believe things like this if you spent too much time in online echo chambers. The information environments they make for you are too...much. The bots run by nefarious parties seek only to make you feel the way you feel, make you believe the things you believe.
I can only recommend that you take a step back, and unplug, fellow traveler :-)
Obviously other words like "terminated" may be appropriate too. Of course, most situations like this don't come to firing--like with Carole, the bureaucracy simply takes away everything you love and makes it clear you will never advance. It's much simpler when people "choose" to leave.
As for Red/Blue not being current, I'm not an expert. The only bone I would pick is the Republicans aren't doing "Nazi shit". Nazi / Fascist used to mean something, you know. It seems like people are starting to use those words to mean "authoritarian" or something along those lines.
This is a fair point. If I concede it, we still need some denominators.
> So the only way to retort the bans tripling is if you think Most people banned are not humans.
Denominators.