A Vancouver man was denied entry into the United States after a US Customs and Border Patrol officer read his profiles on the gay hookup app Scruff and the website BBRT.
[...] André, a 30-year-old Vancouver set decorator who declined to give his full name for fear of retaliation from US Customs, describes the experience as "humiliating."[He] says he was planning to visit his boyfriend, who was working in New Orleans. But when he was going through Customs preclearance at Vancouver airport last October, he was selected for secondary inspection, where an officer took his phone, computer and other possessions, and demanded the passwords for his devices.
"I didn't know what to do. I was scared, so I gave them the password and then I sat there for at least an hour or two. I missed my flight," André says. "He came back and just started grilling me. 'Is this your email?' and it was an email attached to a Craigslist account for sex ads. He asked me, 'Is this your account on Scruff? Is this you on BBRT?' I was like, 'Yes, this is me.'"
[...] "I could tell just by his nature that he had no intentions of letting me through. They were just going to keep asking me questions looking for something," he says. "So I asked for the interrogation to stop. I asked if I go back to Canada am I barred for life? He said no, so I accepted that offer."
A month later, André attempted to fly to New Orleans again. This time, he brought what he thought was ample proof that he was not a sex worker: letters from his employer, pay stubs, bank statements, a lease agreement and phone contracts to prove he intended to return to Canada.
When he went through secondary inspection at Vancouver airport, US Customs officers didn't even need to ask for his passwords — they were saved in their own system. But André had wiped his phone of sex apps, browser history and messages, thinking that would dispel any suggestion he was looking for sex work. Instead, the border officers took that as suspicious.
-- submitted from IRC
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 27 2017, @05:29AM (31 children)
Government is not just a monopoly; it's one that is violently imposed.
(Score: 4, Touché) by Grishnakh on Monday February 27 2017, @05:47AM (13 children)
The problem with your "gub'mint is evil!!!" notion is that people in civilized countries don't seem to have this problem.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 27 2017, @05:52AM (11 children)
You'll never be able to square that circle.
Organizing society around taxation is the last vestige of humanity's barbaric, uncivilized origins; if you consider yourself to be "civilized", then surely you are interested in figuring out how to organize society around voluntary agreements rather than coercive dictates.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by c0lo on Monday February 27 2017, @06:09AM (10 children)
(idiotic)
Taxation has more than one reason to exist. Wealth redistribution, common infrastructure everyone benefits from, etc.
Scandinavian countries have quite a high taxation rate, and they are living a better quality life than USians, in spite of having less natural resources than US.
On the other side, if you value individualism and competition more than cooperation, you'll never get your head around the idea the "taxation is not necessary theft". So continue to stick your head into the sand, be happy... as long as it would last, 'cause it may not last long.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 27 2017, @07:13AM (6 children)
As with any complex phenomenon, society evolves by variation and selection; it is through competition that society as a whole cooperates to find solutions to problems that no one necessarily even knows exist.
"Wealth resdistribution"... you mean THEFT? Here's the deal, we're not discussing "higher quality" of life; we're discussion the nature of civilization—and civilization cannot possibly be something that is based around violently imposed, coercive dictates.
(Score: 5, Touché) by c0lo on Monday February 27 2017, @07:38AM (4 children)
Yeah, mate, I know. War is peace, freedom is slavery and ignorance is strength. I read the textbook.
Yeah, heck, let's invent problems, because nature doesn't provide enough challenges.
No, I mean wealth redistribution. A thing that makes a society balanced and sustainable over long periods of time within a system with limited resources
Discuss whatever you like, but not with me.
KTHXBY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 27 2017, @09:08AM (1 child)
I have found that a lot of confusion goes away when we think of money as power in tangible form. Government immediately becomes a nothing but a powerful being laying down laws for the powerless. Rich becomes powerful, richest becomes powerful enough to negotiate with government. Socialism becomes a system where no individual is powerful enough to negotiate with government. Communism becomes a system where only government is powerful etc. In this framework the need of taxation becomes obvious as the only tool in the hands of people to stop a handful of lucky assholes monopolizing power.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 27 2017, @09:39AM
Relevant xkcd [xkcd.com].
If you push faulty analogies enough, they'll break. Some, like this one, earlier than others.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by TheRaven on Monday February 27 2017, @12:18PM (1 child)
No, I mean wealth redistribution
The problem with the term 'wealth redistribution' is that we only use it when we mean wealth moving from people who have accumulated wealth to people who have not. We don't talk about wealth redistribution when we mean someone who inherited a few million getting more in rent from the properties that he bought with that money than most people earn working a full-time job. We don't talk about wealth redistribution when we're talking about the owners of a monopoly taking a cut of all of the income from working people. We only talk about wealth redistribution when we're talking about taking some money from people who have benefitted the most from the infrastructure of a modern society and using it to improve the lives of the people that have benefitted the least.
sudo mod me up
(Score: 4, Insightful) by art guerrilla on Monday February 27 2017, @01:52PM
no, what we don't talk about when we talk about 'wealth distribution' in any meaningful way, is that it is the 99% who are getting fleeced at every turn in this society/gummint, with the .01-1% taking virtually ALL the gains...
in reality, 'wealth distribution' effectively has a diode built into the system, where it only travels one way: UP, there is no 'trickle down', kampers...
production goes up, hours go up, efficiency goes up, automation goes up, AND virtually ALL the wealth goes up; up to the .01%, NOT -i would say obviously, but some people (the 25% who are authoritarians, mostly) defend a system which screws them- to the people who ACTUALLY did the work, ACTUALLY made the widgets, ACTUALLY performed the services, no, it goes to the rentier klass who have a stranglehold on the finances/capital...
regardless, we have a world run by the 1% for the benefit and convenience of the 1%...
will the sheeple wake before the technological means of total authoritarian control is completed ? ? ?
actually, i don't think so, too fat, too lazy, too stupid...
welcome to dystopia...
(Score: 2) by q.kontinuum on Monday February 27 2017, @08:09AM
Competition *is* cooperation
Competition is based on egoism. That's why we need a strong state able to enforce the monopoly on violence, a strong separation between legislative, judiciary and executive (to avoid an egoistic government to take advantage of their powers) and good educational system, to help people understand the ramifications of loss of state control.
In any big enough group whithout enforced laws (=strong enough state) some individuals will see the competitive advantage of building alliances to subdue outside individuals (or smaller alliances). No matter what the means of control are (religion, violence, ownership of mandatory resources), the end will always be feudalism / slavery. Only the ultimate alliance (=state, for now, world government somewhere in the future (?)) can end this, and that can only be stable if the masses have enough influence to change the system from within.
(For smaller groups it iften works to appeal to common sence, empathy and fairness)
Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
(Score: 3, Funny) by Whoever on Monday February 27 2017, @03:34PM
Yeah, but I bet they have a much smaller proportion of billionaires. Where would society be without the billionaires to hoard money and resources?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 27 2017, @09:33PM (1 child)
Redistribution of wealth is not a legitimate use of taxation.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 27 2017, @09:59PM
AC dixit, thus so it should be, ey?
('xept authoritarianism doesn't work that well when the "would-be authority" is anonymous)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 27 2017, @05:06PM
And I'm considering leaving merka for one of those civilized countries.
Merka used to be, but not since the nazis took over.
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 27 2017, @06:45AM (15 children)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 27 2017, @07:07AM (14 children)
Try again.
(Score: 1) by charon on Monday February 27 2017, @08:30AM (7 children)
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahaha. That was a good one.
So, when are you libertarians going to move to Galt's Gulch anyway? Drop me a line to let me know which billionaire volunteers to wash the dishes after dinner.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Monday February 27 2017, @08:55AM (6 children)
Even poor people have dishwasher machines, charon.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by MostCynical on Monday February 27 2017, @11:42AM (1 child)
Ok, but who cleared the table and filled the dishwasher?
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 3, Touché) by takyon on Monday February 27 2017, @01:04PM
Amazonk Prometheans [soylentnews.org]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 27 2017, @01:17PM (1 child)
Source. [bash.org]
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Monday February 27 2017, @09:18PM
So about half of everything you own, then?
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 27 2017, @04:21PM (1 child)
> Even poor people have dishwasher machines
What? In the US? Not a chance.
Sure, some poor people do.
But many, probably a majority, do not.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Monday February 27 2017, @06:47PM
Even (implicit "some") poor people have dishwasher machines (therefore a billionaire can afford them).
That was hard!
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 27 2017, @11:05AM (5 children)
A warlord is government
And there's the huge elephant in the room that people like you ignore or don't see:
Once there's enough people around you're going to get some form of government anyway. Whether you like it or not.
So if you're not suggesting that everyone live alone on their own island or similar you should be thinking of ways to get a better government.
Too many retards keep barking up the wrong tree railing against Big Government and trying to get a smaller government as if it would help.
It's not the quantity of Government that makes it good or bad, it's the quality. You'd be screwed just as much if not more by a small corrupt government in league with large corrupt organizations. There's no right to bear arms in Disneyland. The FOIA does not apply to Apple or Monsanto. CorporateLand might not even pretend you have freedom of speech.
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 27 2017, @01:56PM (4 children)
The problem is always that there is a monopoly, one that is violently imposed. This is a cultural problem; the worship of such a monopoly is a vestige of humanity's ancient, barbaric, tribal, superstitious, uncivilized origins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 27 2017, @03:44PM (2 children)
Ugh, that's all you've got? After all the discussion it still boils down to "violently imposed monopoly" of the government?
Government is actually the single most important aspect of civilization. The laws against murder, and the ability to enforce those laws, are actually the only thing stopping humanity's vestigial barbarism.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 27 2017, @05:00PM (1 child)
Governments don't STOP much of anything. They START a lot of mass-murder, also known as war.
Try looking up Warren vs D.C. sometime. Governments not only don't care about YOU or YOUR safety, they've explicitly said so. That you seem to believe otherwise is a lie you've swallowed.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 27 2017, @05:10PM
Governments are men; they are not angels. Governments are warlords. Men are warlords. Men are neither angels nor governed by angels. Does that help?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 27 2017, @05:07PM
You always become so boring. You haven't given us enough to help us see how men would become angels so that they do not impose their wills on one another through violence.
The best solution we've come up with is the one big warlord, that violently imposed monopoly. Violence cannot be removed, which is our stumbling block. Perhaps humans are not evolved enough. (Again, assuming humans might evolve into angels.)
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Monday February 27 2017, @01:48PM
Come on then, let's have it. Vent your anarchist nonsense and be done with it.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Rosco P. Coltrane on Monday February 27 2017, @05:34AM (1 child)
Visiting the US in 2017 is like visiting Germany in 1933: yeah, you can. But do you really want to?
(Score: 2) by davester666 on Tuesday February 28 2017, @05:05AM
But the guy is a bit of a moron...you had a device with all your passwords on it to a gov't official, who then rifles through all your online accounts. If you don't change all your passwords once you walk away from the doofus, you are one as well...
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Whoever on Monday February 27 2017, @05:34AM (5 children)
I submitted this story. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 27 2017, @05:48AM (4 children)
It's Texas, what did he expect? Texas is like the arm pit of the southern US.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 27 2017, @05:54AM (2 children)
You moron - it was an "exception to the rule". Do you know every exception to every rule in your own field of "expertise"? Yeah, Texas is the armpit of the US, California is the anus - which would you rather live in? Don't bother to tell me, you feces eating bacteriophage.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 27 2017, @04:09PM (1 child)
I'd rather live in California where human lives have value than in Texas where only human lives belonging to billionaires matter.
California has serious issues, but it's hardly aspiring to be a 2nd world country the way that Texas does.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Ethanol-fueled on Monday February 27 2017, @11:23PM
California is now basically a third-world country because the useful idiots in L.A. and San Francisco allowed too much unfettered immigration, and instead of distributing its wealth to parasitic leeches, it could spend that money on a decent goddamn dam spillway to protect the hard-working White folk who deserve such benefit. But why have a functional state when you could just buy more votes of welfare people, who agree with your party handing out free shit, ensuring that the taxpayers will ensure that your party will stay in power?
Give it time. In a few years California will be a lawless war-zone like Malmo or Mogadishu, and the Whites who manage to flee won't learn their goddamn lessons about "its racist to criticize illegal immigration" and attempt to spread their cancer to other states. As it is, I'm praying that Trump pulls funding for sanctuary cities and all public education institutions who condone curtailing free speech - And enact that law to organizers and participants of paid activism under RICO laws and confiscate their resources.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 27 2017, @06:01AM
Texas is like the arm pit of the southern US.
Hold on there, pardner! It's not "like" at all! And not just of the Southern. Everything is Big in Texas!
(Score: 0, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Monday February 27 2017, @05:50AM (44 children)
What happens in other countries, if a customs officer refuses you entry? Does it make the news? Do lawyers get involved? Does anyone give a damn, aside from the few people who might have been expecting you? It might be interesting to hear some stories on the subject.
I would expect that Canada is much like the US, with a similar freedom to talk, write, broadcast, and exchange ideas. (I'm aware that the laws are different, but the end result is similar) The UK, and most of Europe would be similar as well, and let's not forget Oz. How about other countries? N. Korea is out - we're unlikely to hear anything. "Not only can you not visit where you want, but we're goint to imprison you for a couple hundred years!" Iran? "You're a spy! Off to prison with you!"
I would be willing to bet that a lot of people around the world are denied entry, sometimes simply because the border agent has a headache, or can't be bothered with the paperwork, or the applicant is just ugly.
Here, it makes the news. "I think you're a degenerate, and you can't come in." Works for me!
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday February 27 2017, @06:14AM (3 children)
Pray tell, why do you think this makes the news there and not some other westernized places, like Oz, Canada, UK?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Monday February 27 2017, @06:25AM (2 children)
Uhhhh - let me look at my post again.
"I would expect that Canada is much like the US, with a similar freedom to talk, write, broadcast, and exchange ideas. (I'm aware that the laws are different, but the end result is similar) The UK, and most of Europe would be similar as well, and let's not forget Oz. How about other countries? "
I thought I more or less covered my bases, in regards to "some other westernized places". There is a separate sentence, contained within the quote, asking, "How about other countries?" The rest of my post is in reference to "other countries", ie, "NOT some other westernized places".
Long story short, I'll bet that if the roles were reversed, and some gay American were denied entry to Canada based on his posts on a gay site, it would probably make the same sensation in little-noticed news sources.
Does the DailyExtra have a wide readership in Canada? Or, is it just some local backwater rag?
Let me also add, a man with a name like André is probably a terrorist or something, like Stefan.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1EY7lYRneHc [youtube.com]
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday February 27 2017, @06:42AM (1 child)
(my mention to "other westernized places" was meant to exclude from focus N.K>, Iran and others)
Suppose you are right. So, once again, why do you think stories like this don't make appearance in other countries' news?
Is huffpo [huffingtonpost.ca] good enough for a noticeable news org?
:) I'm as hard as I'll ever be, mate, even without moustache.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Monday February 27 2017, @06:03PM
A Belgian site carried the story.
Canadese man geweigerd door douane VS omwille van profiel op homo-app [www.hln.be]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by lentilla on Monday February 27 2017, @06:51AM (34 children)
What happens in other countries, if a customs officer refuses you entry? Does it make the news?
Generally speaking; in civilised countries; people going about their normal business are not refused entry. This is why it is newsworthy.
Sure, in North Korea people are probably disappeared. Iran? Well, heads might roll. The quintessential difference here is that North Korea and Iran are not civilised countries - at least by the standards of the rest of the civilised world.
The United States of America believes themselves to be a civilised country, yet their actions are regularly fall short of the bar. Far, far short. Visiting your boyfriend in a neighbouring country is a fairly normal occurrence. Look around next time you are at an airport: all those people travelling for business, tourists, and those visiting friends, family and loved ones (and perhaps the occasional drug mule). Visiting your boyfriend is an entirely normal and valid reason for travel. That is why it is newsworthy.
Those citizens of the United States who are not already ashamed of their country's behaviour most definitely should be. "Simply because the border agent has a headache" is not acceptable. There is a chain of command which should have determined that a mistake was being made and corrected it in very short order. The agent might have a headache - but that does not excuse their boss, their boss' boss, nor their ultimate boss: the citizenry.
"I think you're a degenerate, and you can't come in." Works for me!
Well, that's not the agreement. (I make the assumption here that by "degenerate" you mean "homosexual".) It's not illegal to be homosexual in the United States, in Canada, and in the rest of the civilised world. Those border agents all need to be singing from the same choir book - we can't have people denied entry for arbitrary reasons according the whim of the individual agent - even if they manage to fabricate a lame excuse (here: "I am pretending that I believe he is a sex worker".)
If there is one positive thing we can take away from this whole sorry mess is that people are willing to stand up and say "I am gay, and your treatment of me is unacceptable". This would not have happened such a short time ago. All those gay pride marches, all those homosexuals beaten and killed have not been in vain. Finally we might be able to call ourselves civilised humans.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 27 2017, @07:12AM
f there is one positive thing we can take away from this whole sorry mess is that people are willing to stand up and say "I am gay, and your treatment of me is unacceptable". This would not have happened such a short time ago. All those gay pride marches, all those homosexuals beaten and killed have not been in vain. Finally we might be able to call ourselves civilised humans.
Yeah, maybe! But I just checked out Runaway1956's profile on Scruff, and I am truly disgusted! Really, Runaway? Like that? Could you not just chose another account name, so we would not know it was you that wants to have something called ******* sho***** with Hillary Putin? OMG, now there is something that I can never un-see, and it will follow me to my grave. And they let Runaway into the United States? With all this evidence that he is a trafficker, or at least a former truck driver? I blame trump, and his gay advisors, Stephen Bannon, Stephen Miller, Stephen Smith, Fr. Stephan Comealotius, Peter (Peter!) Thiel, and Suckerberg, and Father Dolan, of my parish, may he perish in the sharp and steamy fires of hell, along with Milo, and that Brit guy.
(Score: 1) by Kawumpa on Monday February 27 2017, @07:46AM
Next thing you know you not only have to unlock your devices and provide passwords but also have to give a trigger warning....
(Score: 1, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Monday February 27 2017, @07:52AM (20 children)
I think the term "undesirable" comes up in immigration processes. It may not be illegal to be homosexual in the US, but that doesn't mean that homosexuality is a desirable trait. "undesirable" is open to definition, and/or interpretation. Let me run a quick search . . .
http://sonorannews.com/new/2017/02/20/government-mandate-exclude-undesirable-foreigners/ [sonorannews.com]
A law in effect since 1952 gives our government the legal right to deny entry to enemies, potential enemies or undesirable persons: the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, commonly known as the McCarran-Walter Act of 1952.
Unless this law is reversed by Congress, our government has a mandate to prevent the immigration of potential terrorists from unfriendly regimes, specifically from the seven Muslim nations identified as terrorist sources. Not included in this list are forty-six other Muslim nations, not affected by the exclusion, whose Muslim citizens are not barred from entry, provided they obtain the required visas from our American consulates.
Shouldn’t the media make the clueless Boobus Americanus aware of this protective piece of legislation?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1952 [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 5, Informative) by charon on Monday February 27 2017, @09:00AM (14 children)
Wait, did you mean the Immigration and Nationality Services Act of 1965 [wikipedia.org] or the Immigration Act of 1990 [wikipedia.org], both of which modified and negated portions of the 1952 Act? You know, the 1965 one that specifically removed "national origin, race, and ancestry" barriers as well as the quota system? And the 1990 one that specifically removed the language stating that homosexuals are "sexual deviants" and therefore undesireable? Also note that these laws (passed by congress, mind you; not borderline illegal executive orders) apply to immigrants, which refers to people coming to stay, not just visit.
You might want to actually read the pages you link to before asserting that they support your viewpoint.
As an aside, for all the crowing we do about how freedom and bravery, we Americans sure are enchained and cowardly.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 27 2017, @09:13AM (8 children)
You might want to actually read the pages you link to before asserting that they support your viewpoint.
Ha Ha! He is Runaway! You are like the buzzing of flies to him! Do you think he needs to read! No, he knows all already! And besides, he can't read, too much, where big words are involved. Besides, I have it on good authority that the Muslins and the Calicos have targeted Runaway, just because he is so, um, average and uneducated. And it seems to be working! Soon they will Canvas him and Denim all the Cordouroy out of him with a Seersucker finish. The Horror! The Horror! The Laws that don't exist, and the Horror of tiny hands signing unconstitutional executive movements! Oh, dear.
(Score: 1) by charon on Monday February 27 2017, @09:18AM (7 children)
Thanks, but having you on my side is not necessarily helpful, aristarchus.
But anyway, Ancient Greeks together, rah rah rah!
(Score: 2, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Monday February 27 2017, @10:41AM (6 children)
Charon is a Greek? I didn't realize the gods and other characters were Greeks. That's kinda like saying that Allah is Muslim, or Jesus is Christian, or the Great Father is Seminole. Charon would have been above any national or ethnic identity. Which makes you far superior to that other character from Greek history - Aristarchus.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 27 2017, @04:25PM
That's kinda like saying that Allah is Muslim
Arabic speaking christians say Allah.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 27 2017, @04:39PM (4 children)
That's kinda like saying that ... Jesus is Christian
So you mean it is incorrect?
Ignoring the tense (these should be past tense, not present), Jesus was not Christian. Jesus was Jewish. The followers of Jesus were (or were to become) Christian, not Jesus himself.
I'm not sure about Allah, but I am guessing (I am not 100% sure) that he was not "Muslim" too. It was probably a movement which started in his wake.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday February 27 2017, @05:08PM (3 children)
"Christian" means "a follower of Christ" - and I imagine that it's difficult, even for a God, or a Son of a God to follow himself. (Metaphysicists may argue that point - or not.)
Allah isn't a person at all. Allah is the name of God. The name derives from one or more forms of Yahweh, I believe. Let me do a search . . . https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_in_Abrahamic_religions#Islam [wikipedia.org] That link should suffice to show that Islam's God is supposedly the same God that Jews worship.
Better link here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allah [wikipedia.org]
"The etymology of the word Allāh has been discussed extensively by classical Arab philologists.[17] Grammarians of the Basra school regarded is as either formed "spontaneously" (murtajal) or as the definite form of lāh (from the verbal root lyh with the meaning of "lofty" or "hidden").[17] Others held that it was borrowed from Syriac or Hebrew, but most considered it to be derived from a contraction of the Arabic definite article al- "the" and ilāh "deity, god" to al-lāh meaning "the deity", or "the God".[17] The majority of modern scholars subscribe to the latter theory, and view the loanword hypothesis with skepticism.[18]
Cognates of the name "Allāh" exist in other Semitic languages, including Hebrew and Aramaic.[19] The corresponding Aramaic form is Elah (אלה), but its emphatic state is Elaha (אלהא). It is written as ܐܠܗܐ (ʼĔlāhā) in Biblical Aramaic and ܐܲܠܵܗܵܐ (ʼAlâhâ) in Syriac as used by the Assyrian Church, both meaning simply "God".[20] Biblical Hebrew mostly uses the plural (but functional singular) form Elohim (אלהים), but more rarely it also uses the singular form Eloah (אלוהּ)."
Since I only speak English, I can't say for sure, but I imagine that Yahweh and Allah might sound similar, when pronounced in their respective native languages. They look near enough the same to an English speaker, anyway.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 27 2017, @05:32PM (2 children)
blah blah blah
Did you actually have a point, or were you just so triggered by the fact that christians use the word allah too that you had to say something, anything to relieve the pressure induced by cognitive dissonance?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday February 27 2017, @05:49PM (1 child)
It's totally pointless, like your life.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 28 2017, @05:11PM
Sick burn! Oh runaway you rule!!!!
(Score: 0, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Monday February 27 2017, @10:37AM (4 children)
Well, good points. I realize that being homosexual doesn't rule a person out for immigration - I did read those later changes to the law. But, the changes didn't make homosexuality a "desirable" trait, either. Then again, you point out that the laws apply to "immigrants", not necessarily to a visitor, as was the case here. There is room for interpretation, and the guy on the job may do a poor job of interpreting sometimes.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 27 2017, @03:53PM (3 children)
This wasn't some bad judgment, or mistaken identity, it was simple prejudice. Stop being an apologist for shitty people.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday February 27 2017, @04:26PM (2 children)
Uhhhh - which part of "sex worker" did you fail to understand? The US doesn't want or need to import prostitutes. Those few people who do want to import prostitutes are called "human traffickers". Think about it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 27 2017, @08:11PM (1 child)
Are you saying that circumstances (installed apps, profiles, etc) that would not be a cause for even a moment of suspicion were it for the purposes of arranging heterosexual sex, even promiscuous heterosexual sex, are evidence that the person in question is a sex worker if it's for the purposes of arranging homosexual sex?
Or does evidence of sexual promiscuity imply sex work regardless of whether heterosexual or homosexual?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday February 28 2017, @01:27AM
The latter sounds realistic.
(Score: 4, Touché) by tfried on Monday February 27 2017, @09:26AM
Let's forget about any formal objections that might be raised against your interpretation of the law, for the moment. I ask you Runaway1956, do you think it is good and reasonable to deny people entry due to undesirable traits such as
- ugly
- overweight
- bald
- short-sighted
- dumb
- just too clever
- jet-lagged
- old
- depressed or overly cheerful
? Do you, Runaway1956, think denying entry to homosexuals is what US border agents should be doing?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by lentilla on Monday February 27 2017, @09:27AM (3 children)
It may not be illegal to be homosexual in the US, but that doesn't mean that homosexuality is a desirable trait.
A civilised government should have no opinion regarding the desirability of homosexuality. It is; simply; none of their business.
It may be that I find redheads disgusting. That's fine (although, in truth, I'd live a happier life if I got over that particular hang-up - after all, it's a bit childish - it's not like a redhead has any choice in the matter). Whatever my personal opinion on the matter doesn't change the fact that it is not a government's job to police the fundamental construction of a human being. Judge someone by what they do, not who they are.
Much is made of that "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" - but what could be a greater personification of freedom than the freedom to be me: male, female, hetro or homo, or even (gasp!) redheaded?
"undesirable" is open to definition, and/or interpretation.
Well, it shouldn't be open to interpretation. That's what I meant by "singing from the same choir book" above. It's not even that hard: "Hello Sir, and why are you visiting the USA?" "I am here to visit a friend." "Welcome to the United States, Sir, y'all have a nice visit!" That conversation takes place thousands of time every day. This situation isn't special. It's so boringly normal.
Unless this law is reversed by Congress, our government has a mandate to prevent the immigration of potential terrorists from unfriendly regimes, specifically from the seven Muslim nations identified as terrorist sources.
Just checking here... you do know that homosexuals don't have to be Muslims, right? Well of course you do - it's just that we've been talking about a bigoted border agent and his embarrassingly incompetent change-of-command and now; suddenly; you seem to be talking about Muslims. Muslim terrorists to boot! I get the segue but the proximity of these two hot-button topics is disingenuous and clouds the issue under discussion.
I realise many people find the thought of homosexuality makes them uncomfortable. It's time for them to make peace within themselves. Homosexuality isn't going away - in fact it has always been with us - they only real difference is that we are being more honest with each other. If you find yourself being revolted by homosexuality, just stop and replace "gay person" with "red-headed person", or "short person". Think how stupid that sounds. Now take a good long look in the mirror. Keep practising and it gets easier. You aren't going to "catch the gay disease" by being in close proximity, your sons aren't going to "turn gay" unless they were gay to start with. Shakespeare says it better that I: "If you prick us, do we not bleed?" [mit.edu] Gay or straight, we are each other's brothers and sisters. There are bigger issues to worry about.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Monday February 27 2017, @10:55AM (1 child)
http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/28/travel/ben-gurion-worlds-safest-airport-tel-aviv/ [cnn.com]
Profiling. In point of fact, a security (customs) agent doesn't actually need a reason to turn someone around at the border. If a particular border agent grows suspicious of someone, for ANY REASON, he can take one or more of many different actions, including denying entry.
Right or wrong, it works for Israel. It can be made to work in the US, if we pull our heads out of the sand, and stop pretending that we can't know anything about a person just by looking at him.
Now, what seems funny to me is, much of the US population insists that we always err on the side of safety - then turns around and says that we must maintain open borders, safety be damned.
Always remember this: If you go to any country in the world, attempting to gain entry for any reason at all - that country can deny you entry, for any reason at all. That includes the US of A. We don't really need a reason to tell someone they have wasted their time, they can't stay, they have to go home. If I have a house full of people, and I grow tired of their company, I can tell them all that it's time to go home - and I need not give them a reason. That even goes for my own brothers and sisters, my sons, anyone who doesn't live here, in my home.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 28 2017, @05:14PM
> Right or wrong, it works for Israel. It can be made to work in the US,
Your nihilism knows no bounds in service to your bigotry.
The US's situation is not even remotely like Israel. As the resident ISIS collaborator it obviously serves your purposes for the US to end up in a state of constant war and apartheid. So fuck you and your trumpanzee bullshit.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by TheRaven on Monday February 27 2017, @12:25PM
A civilised government should have no opinion regarding the desirability of homosexuality. It is; simply; none of their business.
While I agree, I don't think that's really the issue. A civilised country requires the rule of law as a prerequisite. If you are detained or prevented from movement by any kind of law enforcement officer, then they should be able to point to the specific law and to the fact that it is universally applied (at least, to the degree humanly possible within budget constraints). If he is being denied entry because he is homosexual, then all other known homosexuals should also be denied entry. If not, then he's being denied entry because, basically, someone in a position of authority doesn't like his face. At that point, you no longer have the rule of law, you have the rule of petty despots.
sudo mod me up
(Score: 2) by Zz9zZ on Monday February 27 2017, @08:47AM (9 children)
Oh plenty are ashamed, and you'd probably be shocked how many conservatives would be shocked and ashamed if they were faced with the bald truths.
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Monday February 27 2017, @04:13PM (8 children)
you'd probably be shocked how many conservatives would be shocked and ashamed if they were faced with the bald truths.
I completely disagree. Any "conservative" who is shocked and ashamed isn't a true conservative. Real conservatives (which is most people who describe themselves as "conservative") will happily back up and make excuses for all these "bald truths", because that's how people are: they will defend, to the death, their "team", no matter how horrible their team becomes. We're seeing it right now; just look at internet comments by conservatives in any current story about some outrage, like some gay Canadian guy being horribly mistreated. I even see it among my own family: people who 5-10 years ago I never would have imagined being xenophobic, hateful Trumpists are now posting all kinds of far-right-wing insanity on their Facebook pages. The fundamental truth is that most people are "followers", and once they're following a "team" will adopt that team's opinions and mentality as their own, and it's very rare for people to change teams, especially as they get older.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 27 2017, @04:42PM
Yep. Same thing happened in reverse with Obama.
The black community was the most homophobic group of any significant size in the country, including evangelicals, with something like an 80/20 split against/for marriage equality. But within weeks of Obama officially endorsing marriage equality, it went to about 40/60.
Same thing with trump's putinism. Republican support for putin more than tripled since 2014 [politico.com] - 10% favorable to 37% this past december.
I think the republican meltdown is due to two reasons - (1) the authoritarians have colonized the party, it started with LBJ's support for civil rights - the republican party made a deliberate play to attract disaffected racist democrats (e.g. the southern strategy) so now there are a disproportionate number of naturally hateful people in the party. The rest are faced with the hard decision to abandon their tribe over principles that don't really affect them on a daily basis. Its easier to give up those principles than it is to make that leap into the unknown. It is nowhere near as risky as literally abandoning your tribe on the savanna to live on your own, but people still feel like it is a big deal.
(Score: 2) by Zz9zZ on Monday February 27 2017, @06:15PM (6 children)
Sure, there is plenty of tribal behavior, but there is a cause for this problem. Propaganda and lies. When I said "bald truths" I had in mind all necessary evidence to show actual reality to such people, incontrovertible facts. I've met many conservatives that do backpedal and even self-reflect when faced with proof they can't deny. This involves a lot of bullshit fact checking and is generally more trouble than its worth, but I think we should focus a bit more on the purveyors of hatred and misinformation. Hell, Glenn Beck apparently feels guilty for his role in whipping up the frothing madness.
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Monday February 27 2017, @07:40PM (5 children)
When I said "bald truths" I had in mind all necessary evidence to show actual reality to such people, incontrovertible facts.
How is this even possible? Unless you're going to grab someone and physically drive them to show them something in-person, they're just going to dismiss your "facts" as lies because they don't believe your preferred media source. It doesn't help that many of our mainstream sources really are full of lies and half-truths, as seen during this election cycle where prominent news sources like Washington Post were clearly doing their best to trash Bernie and push Hillary.
I've met many conservatives that do backpedal and even self-reflect when faced with proof they can't deny.
Like what? Do you have any real examples? I'd love to find something to make my conservative family members back-pedal, but I'm highly skeptical; they'll just claim my information sources are wrong. Our own President now is even saying such things publicly.
(Score: 2) by Zz9zZ on Monday February 27 2017, @07:59PM (4 children)
Yes the blind trust is a problem. It takes time and research, and if someone adamantly opposed to factual evidence in favor of tribal loyalty then you have to call that out. My point was that this partisan divide is not actually as bad as people are thinking. Sure its bad, but I honestly think some of Trump's supporters will fall off as reality becomes harder and harder to ignore.
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Monday February 27 2017, @08:18PM (3 children)
It takes time and research, and if someone adamantly opposed to factual evidence in favor of tribal loyalty then you have to call that out.
How do you know that your evidence is factual? If you didn't research it yourself firsthand, you're just trusting someone else who likely has an agenda, which we saw clearly with how Bernie was knifed in the back by the establishment and the press. Obviously, I can't trust news sources like Breitbart and WND, but I also cannot trust mainstream sources like Washington Post or NYT (which was beating the war drums in favor of Bush's invasion of Iraq in 2003). So where do I find "factual evidence"? I guess you can say that the mainstream media doesn't usually resort to outright falsehoods though, but they definitely do color their reporting a certain way to fit their agenda, so when Trump signs an executive order for something that's pretty unarguable as a fact, but that's not usually what these arguments are about.
Finally, you haven't provided me with any examples of forcing conservatives to back-pedal and self-reflect as you claim.
From my observations, you're never going to change their minds, because even if you convince them of something wrong on their "side", they'll just shift to some other issue they're invested in, usually abortion or guns or illegal immigration. Basically, it doesn't matter what GOP politicians do, even if it means locking these conservative cheerleaders up in private prisons for smoking a little pot, they'll still defend their side because "the Democrats want to take our guns", "abortion is murder", or "I hate Mexicans" (they won't say that exactly, but that's what it amounts to).
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Zz9zZ on Monday February 27 2017, @09:24PM (1 child)
Found your problem: "How do you know that your evidence is factual?"
Cross referencing, research, critical thinking. You have to apply these, develop an arsenal of well documented facts. Reports from actual organizations that deal with whatever topic, quotes from politicians / legislation proposals (for the "taking our guns" stuff). But most importantly, you have to remove your own emotions. As soon as you get the tiniest bit upset you start the emotional cascade which shuts down all reasonable discussion. SO, they'll spout nonsense and you have to respond with facts. You also must understand that the shit you hate is done by the democrats as well, so conservatives have legitimate complaints too. You must acknowledge and not dismiss those complaints.
If you really care, then document the process, write down all the lies you got them to see, etc. etc. I don't have any go-to documents prepared so I can't provide you with some fact packet, but since you're worried about whethe
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 28 2017, @05:41PM
I disagree. Facts really don't matter. There are so many cognitive failures in the human mind - like filtering where contradictory facts are simply demphasized, and there is also this funny effect where people acknowledge that the foundation of a chain of logic is in error but still retain their belief in the conclusion. Its like once the conclusion is made it stands on its own. Maybe because reasoning it all through again is a lot of mental effort, so people in general just keep track of the conclusions but not how they got there as a sort of mental shortcut.
If you want to change minds there are two ways - get the hater to see themselves in the position of the hated. [npr.org] The old "walk a mile in another man's shoes" thing. The other method is for someone they look up to tell them changing their mind is a good idea. That one is harder, but its rare for everyone that someone admires to be in exact lockstep so sometimes you can find records of one expressing an opinion that contradicts all the others.
To paraphrase, Jonathan Swift, "You can't reason a man out of a position he never reasoned himself into."
(Score: 2) by Zz9zZ on Monday February 27 2017, @09:46PM
Found your problem: "How do you know that your evidence is factual?"
Cross referencing, research, critical thinking. You have to apply these, develop an arsenal of well documented facts. Reports from actual organizations that deal with whatever topic, quotes from politicians / legislation proposals (for the "taking our guns" stuff). But most importantly, you have to remove your own emotions. As soon as you get the tiniest bit upset you start the emotional cascade which shuts down all reasonable discussion. So, they'll spout nonsense and you have to respond with facts. You also must understand that the shit you hate is done by the democrats as well, so conservatives have legitimate complaints too. You must acknowledge and not dismiss those complaints.
If you really care, then document the process, write down all the lies you got them to see, etc. etc. I don't have any go-to documents prepared so I can't provide you with some fact packet, but since you're worried about whether you can even trust anything then I recommend you start with fixing that to your own satisfaction. It should be the people vs. the gov, not people vs. people.
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 2) by wisnoskij on Monday February 27 2017, @12:39PM
People are turned away all the time. Hell, America alone has something like 50 million people who have had a DUI sometime in their life, which alone means they would be ineligible to enter Canada. I would not be surprised if half of Americas would not meet muster if they were interviewed by a Canadian border guard.
(Score: 1) by SparkyGSX on Monday February 27 2017, @06:05PM (4 children)
How about you stop assuming and come over to Europe to see for yourself? Just leave you guns at home, bring a jacket and make sure your return ticket is refundable.
In most of western Europe, gays can get married. That's quite a difference from the homophobia epidemic in the US, especially in the south. So, please, do not consider Europe to be "much like the US". We don't particularly appreciate it.
If you do what you did, you'll get what you got
(Score: 1, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Monday February 27 2017, @07:24PM
Freedom of the press, man. The point was not a gay guy, the point was the press.
If some country tells you that you're unwanted, no one notices, 99.9% of the time.
(Score: 1, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Monday February 27 2017, @07:25PM (2 children)
Oh - you also presume to speak for all of Europe. I don't believe that gays are commonly married in Russia, are they?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 27 2017, @08:34PM (1 child)
Ok, stupid semantic games are when you know you've lost. You know damned well what he was referring to.
In most of western Europe, gays can get married.
So you bring out an example of a country that is geographically in eastern Europe. Good job.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 28 2017, @01:25AM
So, Eastern Europe isn't really Europe?
Jesus Christ, the faggotry runs deep here.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 27 2017, @06:12AM (3 children)
I am not sure I want to do the Google on a "Scruff" profile. Can someone provide details, discreetly, of course. The Congressman I work for is interested. And yes, he is an (R).
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 27 2017, @06:22AM
Specially brought to you for your (R) congressman, as discreet as possible, still NSFW (you've been warned): here you have a sample [nerdgranny.com]
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 27 2017, @06:35AM
Use https://startpage.com [startpage.com] and click the "Proxy" link next to a search result to view it anonymously through a Startpage proxy server.
Disclaimer: Startpage claims to be very privacy conscious, but I can't personally vouch for it.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 27 2017, @08:19AM
Some freedom you have if you're afraid to search for something on Google.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by charon on Monday February 27 2017, @09:10AM (9 children)
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Rivenaleem on Monday February 27 2017, @09:23AM (4 children)
Sure it's bad that they kept his passwords. However, what kind of idiot doesn't change their password after they are compelled to divulge them to the customs officials?
(Score: 4, Informative) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Monday February 27 2017, @11:57AM (2 children)
Yes, this. Also, what kind of idiot would voluntarily subject himself to that bullshit again by turning up at a US airport? 49% of US voters and the government they voted for have made their stance clear, and the rest of the world should listen:
GO AWAY. THE US DOESN'T WANT YOU DIRTY FOREIGNERS. GO SPEND YOUR TOURIST MONEY IN CANADA OR EUROPE INSTEAD.
I for one intend to listen, I see no reason to visit such an unwelcoming country.
(Score: 1) by butthurt on Monday February 27 2017, @06:23PM (1 child)
> 49% of US voters [...]
46.1% of the votes went to Mr. Trump.
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/12/21/politics/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-popular-vote-final-count/index.html [cnn.com]
If that many people voted for him, it would be 19.4% of the population.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Monday February 27 2017, @10:46PM
> 46.1% of the votes went to Mr. Trump.
I stand corrected.
> If that many people voted for him, it would be 19.4% of the population.
Depends if you define "voters" as "people eligible to vote" or "people who actually got off their arses and voted". I intended the latter.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 27 2017, @01:44PM
..However, what kind of idiot doesn't change their password after they are compelled to divulge them to the customs officials?
For shame you don't know, obviously one with nothing to hide/fear/whatever..
(Score: 2) by lx on Monday February 27 2017, @09:26AM (1 child)
It's terrible and wrong.
OTOH I'm disappointed that he apparently didn't change his passwords after the previous incident.
(Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Monday February 27 2017, @11:12AM
I'm disappointed that he apparently didn't change his passwords after the previous incident.
That would have been proof he was a terrorist sex worker deviant, etc.
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Monday February 27 2017, @12:29PM
Yeah, I noticed that bit alrighty. Note to self: change your passwords to temporary throwaway ones before trying to cross the border.
Did they keep his credit card numbers too? Could get the banks on his side if the customs agents did that.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 27 2017, @02:32PM
That part did stand out to me. Granted the traveler should have changed his passwords, but it is completely unacceptable his passwords were stored. I actually think agents should not be allowed to ask for passwords, and instead ask the traveler to enter their passwords themselves. Whether requesting access to personal accounts should even be allowed is another discussion.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 27 2017, @12:32PM (2 children)
If you read the article, the first visit where the gentleman's phone and computer were confiscated and he was barred entry took place in October, before the election.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 27 2017, @03:59PM
I read pretty much all the comments, your post is addressed to fictional people in your mind.
TL:DR you crazy yo!
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Grishnakh on Monday February 27 2017, @04:19PM
That's a very salient point. This stuff isn't new, we really started seeing it so obviously under GWBush, and it didn't get any better under Obama. This authoritarianism isn't unique to Trump (who's only been in office barely over a month now), though Trump is undoubtedly make it much worse; this stuff has been going on for a long time, and given its bipartisan nature is something we can rightfully blame on the US population as a whole.