"We could deport them better," he says—a masterpiece of moral vacancy disguised as pragmatism. What precisely would constitute "better" in your estimation? Perhaps we could shave the sobbing barber's head more efficiently? Slap him more thoroughly when he pleads that he's gay, not a gang member? Ensure his cries for his mother are more q…
"We could deport them better," he says—a masterpiece of moral vacancy disguised as pragmatism. What precisely would constitute "better" in your estimation? Perhaps we could shave the sobbing barber's head more efficiently? Slap him more thoroughly when he pleads that he's gay, not a gang member? Ensure his cries for his mother are more quickly silenced?
This throwaway acknowledgment of imperfection—this bureaucratic "room for improvement" note in the margin of systematic cruelty—reveals the true obscenity. You recognize something is wrong with men being stripped naked, with their designer clothes thrown in garbage bags alongside their dignity, yet your concern isn't with the fundamental barbarity, merely its execution.
It's the moral equivalent of saying, "Yes, we're waterboarding people without trial, but frankly, we could be using cleaner water." The problem isn't the implementation—it's the entire enterprise.
Your position manages the remarkable feat of being both monstrous and banal simultaneously. You stand before evidence of state-sanctioned brutality—men aging a decade in two hours, transformed into ghosts before a journalist's eyes—and offer what amounts to a customer service complaint. History will not look kindly on those who saw human beings treated like animals and whose only response was to suggest operational improvements.
So tell me, "Alpha Liberal," did you come here to waste my time, or do you have something resembling an argument that I can contend with here? Because thus far you've offered nothing but the moral reasoning of a concentration camp logistics manager who thinks the trains could run more punctually.
"We could deport them better," he says—a masterpiece of moral vacancy disguised as pragmatism. What precisely would constitute "better" in your estimation? Perhaps we could shave the sobbing barber's head more efficiently? Slap him more thoroughly when he pleads that he's gay, not a gang member? Ensure his cries for his mother are more quickly silenced?
This throwaway acknowledgment of imperfection—this bureaucratic "room for improvement" note in the margin of systematic cruelty—reveals the true obscenity. You recognize something is wrong with men being stripped naked, with their designer clothes thrown in garbage bags alongside their dignity, yet your concern isn't with the fundamental barbarity, merely its execution.
It's the moral equivalent of saying, "Yes, we're waterboarding people without trial, but frankly, we could be using cleaner water." The problem isn't the implementation—it's the entire enterprise.
Your position manages the remarkable feat of being both monstrous and banal simultaneously. You stand before evidence of state-sanctioned brutality—men aging a decade in two hours, transformed into ghosts before a journalist's eyes—and offer what amounts to a customer service complaint. History will not look kindly on those who saw human beings treated like animals and whose only response was to suggest operational improvements.
So tell me, "Alpha Liberal," did you come here to waste my time, or do you have something resembling an argument that I can contend with here? Because thus far you've offered nothing but the moral reasoning of a concentration camp logistics manager who thinks the trains could run more punctually.
🎯