Wonder what the "political correctness is bad" "nobody is allowed to crack jokes anymore" "cancel culture is out of control" crowd will say about this one...
Based on decades of experience with my family: it's only political correctness when other people do it. When they do it, it's just common decency, common sense, family values, etc.
And as far as the original story, individual border agents should absolutely not be doing this to people because they have a meme on their phone, doubly so one where Vance shared a version of it himself. There is straight up no justification for this.
Dark days for the values the US professes to represent.
>individual border agents should absolutely not be doing this
One of the underdiscussed aspects of an authoritarian regime is that it creates countless little tyrants that all feel empowered to exert whatever power they have in any way they see fit.
2006. O'Hare. I'm close to the front when exiting a UK > US plane. The 'agent' sees an implant (self-done years prior) in the back of my right hand. Calls it 'brutal'. I was directed to sit in a chair until way after the whole flight had disembarked. I was then questioned about my luggage, reasons for visiting.
Some years later "Pull the guy with tattoos". Full search.
Year or two after that, New York, pulled from the queue, directed to stand in a clear box. "Do not move your feet from those markings". My young daughter had to stand and watch.
Another trip. My passport photo did not fit their criteria. "Why did you shave your head?" .. "Because it was hot" .. repeat that whole interaction several times.
I am so so happy that I never have to visit the USA again and it's solely because of the 'people' assigned as 'guards'.
I had automatic weapons pointed at me and yelled at AFTER being waved through the crossing at the Ambassador bridge. 2010 era. I guess they wanted a second look.
Most border agents are brutal, regardless of the current administration. But things do seem to get worse when the Republicans/MAGA are in. I wouldn't even want to think about how they'll act if a big terrorist attack comes.
Frankly, I think this type of comment minimizes what is happening here. These anecdotes are nothing close to what is detailed in the story and they don't sound particularly tyrannical or even necessarily out of line. As an American, I have experienced similar things when traveling abroad in other western countries. What this article describes is much worse.
This is the type of comment I would expect from someone who tells women to go out in public in a potato sack to avoid unwanted attention, and if they choose not to, the harassment is their fault.
The dude lambasts the US because he has tattoos on his face and implanted metal in his body and was singled out by security. Security's job is to look for people who are out of the ordinary. Since most security people are not very bright, they're going to go after the shiny lure. But somehow, this becomes about sexualizing women? WT actual F??
People who put tattoos on their face are looking for attention. Attention is exactly what he got.
Obviously the guy has never traveled to Asia. He'd be singled out in every port and every station. Sounds like he lives a tidy life in No Europe. Where bald white guys with face tattoos and body armor are normal and only brown people are singled out in security lines...
It is "doubly so" because the border guard was wrong to judge the content as "lese majeste" on account of JD himself sharing it, and was wrong that "lese majeste" is applicable in America. The guard was wrong, and even if one doesn't agree with one of the reasons they were wrong because they don't share those values, the guard would still be wrong for the other reason. Therefore they were doubly wrong.
> Reminder: Support of free speech requires support of the right to say things that you loathe by people you hate or you don’t support free speech.
No it doesn't. You're putting arbitrary limits to suit your views. You can support free speech for American citizens and also support using a foreigner's speech to determine whether or not we allow them into the country. That's just smart border policy. We should be vetting who we allow into our country, and using their speech is one way to vet them.
Obviously not allowing someone in over a bald JD Vance meme is stupid. But the idea that we have to allow all foreigners the same level of free speech without it affecting their chances of getting into the country is also stupid.
Absolutely not. If you find out that the person who is trying to enter the country has made creditable threats to the USA, Sure, but that's also illegal for a citizen to do. Saying that the president is a poopy-head on Facebook doesn't count, and says nothing about what said person's behavior will be like once they are in our borders.
Pretty much where I stand. Some speech is criminalized for good reason (for example, planning to commit a crime). However, barring that, no speech should penalized. In particular, speech criticizing actions of the government or a government official should be especially protected.
The bar for when speech should be criminalized/penalized by the government should be very high.
For private entities I'm far more tolerate of censorship especially since it cuts both ways. Allowing or banning speech can directly impact a company's bottom line and should be regulated by customers choosing to interact with or avoid platforms.
Private entities are a completely different conversation. It drives me up the wall when people talk about "free speech" when they have a comment deleted on social media. (I'm not saying you said this btw)
The first amendment of the US constitution grants freedom of speech to all persons. Courts have interpreted that first amendment applies broadly, even to non-citizens.
> We should be vetting who we allow into our country, and using their speech is one way to vet them.
Who is this "we" and what rules govern these "we"? What are the consequences for this "we" just up and violating the rules or throwing those rules out altogether to grift, stay in power and persecute those they hate?
Note that they said "professes to represent" (emphasis mine). What the US professes to represent and what it actually represents for various people aren't totally unrelated, but it's a relationship that's always been pretty fraught.
and further that you're intending to use it as a burn on Trump and his government?
Regardless of what you think about them and Neo-Nazis/white supremacists, I think it's unfair because the policies of the current administration with regard to war, debt, environmentalism etc. evince a total disregard for the futures of children of any colour.
> I think it's unfair because the policies of the current administration with regard to war, debt, environmentalism etc. evince a total disregard for the futures of children of any colour.
Unfortunately, it’s pretty clear that there are strict quotas in place and border agents are expected to refuse entry to a certain number of people every day. The quotas are set by delusional xenophobes and thus aren’t remotely realistic, but border agents must find someone to kick out, so they latch onto any excuse. It’s truly sad and pathetic and evil.
I know that the likes of fact checking and checking for hypocrisy draws eye rolls in the present environment (which in and of itself I find disappointing), but I do think an interesting variation on it would be to track what underlining principle is associated with any particular argument and to track adherence to principles over time. Of limited utility in an information ecosystem that's deeply indifferent to litigating disagreements on the basis of factual accuracy, but I feel like bsing your way out of inconsistent principles is at least harder.
The "real" Mads Mikkelsen should fly into the US with the meme on his phone and post the bald JD Vance on his social media before his flight. He'll have the honor of being the second Mads Mikkelsen to be deported by this snowflake administration.
The whole “political correctness is so bad that we need to elect the current regime” crew only ever really wanted to feel aligned with power and are more or less indifferent to what that power does so long as they are periodically made to feel reassured that they are on the right side of it.
They usually resort to legalisms for cases like this: "The guy wasn't an American citizen so first amendment doesn't apply. The border guard was ENTITLED to harass him. America #1!!"
Wonder what the "political correctness is bad" "nobody is allowed to crack jokes anymore" "cancel culture is out of control" crowd will say about this one
As someone who would be closer to that side than the opposite: this is terrible and unacceptable.
"Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition. There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect."
My favorite thing about Wilhoit's Law is I worked with Frank Wilhoit for several years and still occasionally meet up with him. He's one of the most interesting and insightful people I know. He loves phrasing things in an unconventional way to encourage people to think about what's being said instead of thinking about the next thing they're about to say.
A little while ago Scott Alexander did a lengthy post about how Curtis Yarvin, aka Moldbug, has essentially backtracked on everything he ever said about tyranny and these days gleefully cheers on all the things he decried in his early writing. Yarvin's response was, essentially, "You actually believed that I believed that stuff? lmao, idiot. This was about power and now we have it, piss off." Yarvin is unusually candid compared to most commentators and so I wouldn't expect a similar response here, but that's what's happening.
I'm not a historian, but this reminds me a bit of the prelude to the French Revolution: a growing list of grievances against a ruling class by a population that feels abused, disenfranchised, and numerous.
Even if one expects to enjoy a sense of Schadenfreude were such a revolution/slaughter to occur, our staples of daily life (food, medicine, electricity, fuel) are distributed over such a geographically large network, that almost everyone on the country would suffer greatly.
Yeah, I see a whole lot of media parallels to Nazi Germany, but the two historical analogues that really pop to mind for me are the French Revolution and the Breakup of Yugoslavia. Both of which ended in slaughter - the Napoleonic Wars for the former and ethnic cleansing for the latter. People are crying dictatorship now, but I don't see that being the ending here; rather, I see it as being war and death on a massive scale.
The other thing to remember about the French Revolution was that nearly all the revolutionaries who came to power during it were dead by the end of it. The folks who are crying "We're in power now, suckas!" are being extremely stupid. Power doesn't last long at times like this.
The other thing that scares me is that the best place to be in all those historical times of crisis was an ocean away from the place where the crisis starts. But that doesn't work today; we have weapons with global reach that can level whole cities in 30 minutes. If the U.S. disintegrates nowhere on earth is safe.
> If the U.S. disintegrates nowhere on earth is safe.
This is a very Hollywood action film way of seeing the world. In the case of an American civil war, it's unlikely that it will be fought using nuclear weapons, and in that case, it's unlikely that they would use any on say, Chile, or Australia.
That's not really the threat model. It's that the U.S. has played the role of policing the world's oceans and world's regional conflicts since WW2. If the U.S. descends into civil war, it will be too preoccupied with internal power struggles to continue to play that role. Many, many countries elsewhere in the world will take the opportunity to settle old scores and jockey for regional advantage. Meanwhile, the population in many countries is supported by food imports that can only be sustained while global trade can freely occur.
If you live in Chile, the main danger is not that the U.S. drops a nuke on you. It's that Pakistan (freed from fear of international condemnation) drops a nuke in India, which then can no longer export rice to Saudi Arabia, where revolt breaks out, which cuts off the flow of oil, which makes Chile's economy grind to a halt.
> That's not really the threat model. It's that the U.S. has played the role of policing the world's oceans and world's regional conflicts since WW2. If the U.S. descends into civil war, it will be too preoccupied with internal power struggles to continue to play that role. Many, many countries elsewhere in the world will take the opportunity to settle old scores and jockey for regional advantage. Meanwhile, the population in many countries is supported by food imports that can only be sustained while global trade can freely occur.
So it’s not the Hollywood action movie view of the world. It’s just the standard 2005 version of Pax Americana make-believe.
Meanwhile Israel has attacked Iran and its US ally said “we want to do that too”.
> Pakistan (freed from fear of international condemnation) drops a nuke in India
India is also a nuclear state, so this is pretty unlikely unless the wheels really come off the deterrence strategy. North Korea attacking South Korea perhaps, but even that seems unlikely as it would greatly anger NK's closest ally of China.
When I grew up, I found history boring, and didn't understand why we were made to study it. I'd like to think it's partly because I was taught typical jingoistic rah-rah US history, but that's at best only part of the reason.
Anyway, even I, with my paltry education in history, can see the historical parallels. And here I am, versus an oligarchic class that had the opportunity for a world-class education, and surely knows at least as much history as I do. I wonder if they really believe that they've found the way to prevent the inevitable consequences this time, or if they just think that they'll have found some way out, possibly just having passed the buck to the next generation, before the consequences for them come to pass.
Just because who he voted for got the power, does not mean Yarvin got the power.
"Me Yarvin, Me powerful now". Is not true. What power does he think he has.???
The real question is, what has to happen before these people 'learn', or 'understand' that they were duped. What would it take for them to really grasp how they were played? Like all those Germans that shrug, 'I didn't know'.
It's been interesting watching who actually places rule of law and liberty above partisanship -- the Cheneys, tellingly, or Bill Kristol, or the Cato Institute -- and who has cheerfully befouled every declared principle they held in the name of untrammeled power. There are a number of law professors who talked a good game about common law liberty when the bad guy was the EPA, but signed on with Trump I and II the second they realized that tyranny was going to work in favor of their chosen policy preferences. Deeply dispiriting.
Yeah, going back and telling 2000 me and 2012 me that the Cheneys and Mitt Romney would become the conscience of the Republican party would have been interesting.
Who would you say was the conscience of the Republican party in 2012? What were they arguing for? Serious question, not American, follow their politics from afar.
I'd argue that republicans lost their conscience with Nixon. It doubly got worse with Reagan.
Democrats lost their conscience with Clinton.
The last republican president with a clear conscience was probably Bush Sr. He was also crucified for it (hence the single term). He foolishly let reason about running a government get in the way of party bluster and that ended his career.
Carter was the last democrat president with a conscience and he also was lambasted for it.
Unfortunately in the US, principles and conscience haven't resulted in party success in the last 50 years.
McCain is probably who a lot of people would name. I disagreed with him about a lot of policy specifics, but do think he was genuine in wanting to do right by voters and the nation.
But there's a silver lining. Democrats have been mostly true to their ideas.
And the difference is really striking.
Once Republicans got power, they immediately forgot basically ALL their ideals: small government, States rights, adherence to law, budget discipline, etc.
Yarvin tells Scott that today’s populist right is too weak to fear, while the real authoritarian danger comes from the prestige-driven institutions that already steer American life. His shift since 2008 isn’t a sell-out but a recognition that the fuel of mass democracy has run low and that the managerial regime’s ongoing failures are the greater evil.
Every generation has its "free-speech advocates" moaning, "you can’t say anything anymore." The current panics: political correctness, cancel culture, jokes under siege, has the usual suspects asking, "What will the free-speech crowd say about this one?"
This is a perfect example of Bourdieu's idea of symbolic violence and the violence of the arbitrary.
The uncomfortable truth is, for many the thrill isn't in enforcing fair rules, or even unfair ones. The thrill is in the power to enforce arbitrary rules. The point isn't who gets punished, it's that someone can be, at a moment's notice, for no coherent reason. And the joy is in unpredictability, in knowing they can shift the rules under your feet and there's no one appeal to.
This is the logic sitting beneath every hand-wringing editorial and rage-bait thread about "cancel culture run amok." The goal is sovereignty, not consistency. It's about who gets to draw the lines and when they can redraw them. Arbitrary enforcement isn't a bug. It’s the feature.
The clever "gotcha" crowd falls flat when they imagine that, by exposing contradictions, they'll force a confession, a moment of logic, an admission, and surrender. But that moment never comes. When the point is arbitrariness, contradiction isn't a failure. It's the currency of power. Pointing it out only proves you're not the one with power.
What will the "PC culture" critics say? Probably what they’ve always said. Remember, it's not about the arguments. It's about who gets to arbitrate, who gets to punish, and who gets to laugh last.
Yes, we hear versions of this conceit a lot, but how does it play out? Like where exactly is this arbritrary power exercised in your mind? Where is the payout? In each discrete call out or critique? Is the world in your view just full of a million tyrants fighting for various fiefdoms, or is there just one collective bad faith actor here? How can you marry here both the overarching individualism which would make this rendering possible with collective phenomena we actually see with this stuff?
This really is just what we have been hearing from the cultural right for a long time, masked as a kind both-sides/human-nature take. It sounds good, in that it gives something like general principle to subsume all the instances. But it just doesn't really make sense in the actually existing world. How could any given side even know they are the new hegemon, the new line-drawers, at any given moment. At what point are they rewarded with regard to the influence they wield? What does it even look like? Do you have examples? Sovereignty implies a concentration of something like power, but your very point here seems to decentralize sovereignty to the point of it being unrecognizable as such. Its like taking something very individual and trying to stretch it across everything in awkward way.
Just simply: how does this actually work? When does whatever side thats on top actually get to feel good, actually get to be the sovereign?
It sounds like you're asking what is the scope of this sovereignty?
In my experience, the scope is the establishment of a status hierarchy.
We love to put ourselves in a privileged position. In most internet discussion, the status hierarchy extends throughout the duration of the encounter. In most Thanksgivings, the crazy uncle goes away at the end of the night, in marriages, it extends for the duration of the relationship. It's fundamentally tied to the social engagement.
Yes gotcha. But just try to think it through carefully: does this really capture what is going on in these many instances? There is an implication here maybe that you have been on the short end of some interactions in the past, did you really feel subjugated by some abstract power then? Did it really seem like the person on the other end was getting some satisfaction, some giddy kickback from their "sovereignty"?
Does it not feel at least a little juvenile to think like this, if you look at it critically, maybe from a little more the outside than you seem to be? These kind of pat armchair psychologies that answer in one breath the phenomena of culture, of human interaction feel just extremely schoolyard to me... but I guess ymmv.
At the very least: its unfalsifiable; one could easily go the other way and say "people love to belong to a group, and being able to police another group's language/jokes/etc is the best mechanism for reinforcing their belonging".
To picture you and your smug interlocutor as ever placed in some asymmetric structure where they are the king and you are the pauper belies the staying power of these controversies, the clear struggle they manifest. You make it sound so much like there never even is a battle, just spontaneous winners and losers.
I don't want to come off as harsh, but what you are arguing for is the logic of a loser, in the technical sense. Its asserting a projection you/others have of perceived intellectual enemies as a kind social theory for everything. It dooms you to fatalism you just dont need to have! Humans, for better or worse have a capacity for much more complicated motives. You do not need to "Mean Girls" the entire world!
It really does capture what's going on because for decades I used to be the aggressor. That was exactly the mentality I held along with people from that group. Like recognizes like then and now.
I'm curious though, you seem to have not experienced this sort of internet domineering?
Thinking political correctness is bad does not necessarily put you in the "political correctness is bad" camp. I think political correctness is often bad, but I am not part of that "camp", i.e. people who irrationally hate things that they use "political correctness" as a broad disparaging label for.
In this case, we have a report that someone was denied entry over an image of JD Vance.
From the same report, we have the facts that JD Vance approved of the meme the image was taken from, using it himself; and that the image provoked border control agents into interrogating the person about his ties to "right-wing extremism". Not usually something you'd expect from someone about whom the only thing you know is that he appears to be criticizing right-wing politicians.
It seems safe to conclude that politics weren't a concern. If you wanted to diagnose what happened, this looks more like the agents were looking to turn people away and seized on whatever they thought they could make work.
I hate censorship in all its forms. And it should surprise no one that the Trump administration have matched and exceeded the Biden administration's levels of free speech infringement.
This meme "what about cancel culture" is no longer an interesting point anymore. Certainly online, most of Trump's fans don't care. Just stop taking these kind of conservatives you don't know personally seriously and just assume bad faith by default.
As a deplorable myself, I disagree with this decision and think it's ridiculous - but I do find the nature of it quite funny still.
Also remember that JD Vance himself has plenty of air time laughing at these memes, and they aren't considered threatening like calling out Biden's cognitive decline with memes making fun of it.
The overall response to memes of this nature are very different on either side. One side wants to censor the entire internet and penalize people for daring to share something politically incorrect, while the other caught an outsider who may harbor threatening sentiments about our nation, with the intent to harm - although I sincerely don't think that's the case here.
Part of the irony here is that you'll more likely find a right-winger with more JD Vance memes on their phone than this guy.
The mass-censorship has a much deeper weight to it than inconveniencing 1 tourist, and I think it's a little surprising this needs to be explained.
I'm pretty sure there is a free speech crowd that was serious about this; I just don't think it's as big as it is portrayed, maybe 5% of the US population at most. No one likes Free Speech when they are on the receiving end, but you learn to tolerate it.
Did you hold that attitude while complaining about cancel culture? Or is asking for more evidence something that is only necessary when it happens to your political opponents?
I'm a man of the left who thinks cancel-culture stinks and have campaigned against it for years, including warning those on "my side" (who you wrongly call my political opponents) that one day the boot would be on the other foot.
I condemn cancel-culture full stop whether its the right-wing mcarthyism of the fifties or the leftist bullies of the last decade.
