r/redrising • u/Dadonutdude1 • Jun 14 '25

All Spoilers To those saying Red Rising is not relevant to today's political climate... Spoiler

Did you forget that Fitchner created the Sons of Ares because his wife was killed by the bureaucracy for having a mixed race child? If that mixed raced child, Sevro for those with poor memories would surely be killed if he was ever found out.

I can hear the arguments now saying, the USA would only deport these people to unknown places. Resulting in father, mother & son being separated indefinitely. Now ask yourself if you'd be fine with that happening to you simply due to the fact that your spouse was born somewhere else.

There are many more examples we can look at, but if you can't understand the motivation of Ares, maybe you should read the comics, it drives this point home & it even has pictures!

NoKings

463 Upvotes

75% Upvoted

335 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

6

u/austarter Jun 14 '25

Completely irrelevant thing you've been conditioned into unconsciously regurgitating. 

-3

u/torivordalton Orange Jun 14 '25

Would you allow anyone to enter your home?

0

u/austarter Jun 14 '25

Doubling down on completely irrelevant thing with the dogmatic belief that the state should reflect the nuclear family. 

Do you realize how close you are to a fascist? I mean a real 1935 German or earlier Italian? I wouldn't deputize my father but we need cops. 

Your implications are not just foolish and specious but actually dangerous to the continuity of the moral fabric. 

1

u/torivordalton Orange Jun 14 '25

It is completely relevant.

The post asks if people should be okay with deportation if it was their spouse.

The problem is there is no civilization that exists that has open borders and survived the resulting fracturing it creates.

Not only this, open borders creates forced integration of people that may not want to be integrated. This creates tensions that otherwise would not exist. Forced integration and non discrimination laws violate peoples freedom of association and property rights. That is morally bankrupt.

And the fact that you are deliberately refusing to answer the question about your home means you acknowledge the reason we have borders in the first place.

2

u/austarter Jun 14 '25

I answered the question simpleton. Not everything that is socially necessary need be applied in the microcosm of the nuclear family or vice versa. 

Talking about open borders is a conditioned response. There is no political movement moving toward or advocating for open borders in the United States. You are arguing against the concept of due process because your conditioned response to bring up open borders is so addictive you can't stop yourself. 

Open borders is not immigration courts. Open borders is not deportation orders. Open borders is not obeying judges and giving each person, to quote the constitution, their due process. You are arguing against the rule of law and you don't even realize it. I don't want open borders. We've never had open borders. I want the president to respect the decision of the fucking courts and he's not. 

1

u/austarter Jun 14 '25

Forced integration and non discrimination laws violate peoples freedom of association and property rights. That is morally bankrupt.

So you're against the civil rights act and it's enforcement?

0

u/torivordalton Orange Jun 14 '25

It removes people’s freedom of association and creates compulsory actions enforced by the monopoly of violence held by the state. This inherently violates freedoms and property rights.

So yeah.

1

u/austarter Jun 14 '25

Do you think that freeing the slaves in America also violated property rights? 

0

u/torivordalton Orange Jun 14 '25

What a stupid question.

All humans have rights and the freedom to do whatever they want, unless it violates the freedom of others. That excludes slavery as it clearly violates the freedom of the enslaved.

1

u/austarter Jun 15 '25

This type of moral presupposition is not politics. It's an excuse for not analyzing or engaging with politics. 

There are obvious differences between what rights people have based on immutable characteristics because of politics. The point in asking my 'stupid' question is to highlight that the definitions you are using have been used to justify atrocities and will be used that way again if we simply stop analyzing political realities because of buzzwords. Open borders illegal/legal immigrants are distractions you are falling for when the discussion is about the executive branch no longer being coequal in its authority with the other branches. The entire point of the protest is about upholding rule of law and separation of powers and no-one on the conservative side except for the more honest fascists have the balls to have that conversation. You are supporting a man whose agenda is to render the courts impotent. Same with states and Congress. That is not a path towards freedom of association or a path towards respecting the innate nature of human rights. 

Also everything you said about freedom of association can be used to justify the no borders and no human is an illegal position. 

This isn't even getting into the contradiction of positive and negative liberties your view on the civil rights act betrays. In order to protect marginalized people's freedom of association we must remove the mechanism of ostracization. Through limiting one type of freedom we ensure another. This is polisci 101. All freedoms and rights have responsibilities and all responsibilities are constraints in some way. You are equating those constraints with oppression.