I love that Steve’s penchant for handling hecklers extends beyond his shows to his own subreddit. (It’s also so fun how much he engages there, he’s such a good dude.)
This the 2nd post about his subreddit I have seen today, and your comment makes me think I might enjoy his stuff, so I suppose I shall look up his work
To give your absurd point a modicum of merit: Yes, it could be that ordering something is not illegal even while the order itself contains illegal things. So if you mean that, have a cookie for pursuing a niche perspective on what was said and acting as if that was the only interpretation.
Otherwise the idea is - and I don't know if you just act stupid to make a point or actually do not understand this - that all these illegal deeds have been ordered. Most likely by Trump or some other big political figure. For people with functioning cognitive abilities giving such orders would count as "giving illegal orders" because that's entirely within the definition and just absolutely fucking obvious.
And please don't tell me your actual point was to proclaim no one gave those orders. That would just be really disappointing because you know, you could just say that instead od wasting everyone's time then.
Detaining someone based on what they look like is illegal. Using unnecessary force is illegal. Ignoring due process is illegal. Lying under oath is illegal. Etc etc.
From Department of Defense’s Law of War Manual (2023)
18.3.2.1 Clearly Illegal Orders to Commit Law of War Violations. The requirement to refuse to comply with orders to commit law of war violations applies to orders to perform conduct that is clearly illegal or orders that the subordinate knows, in fact, are illegal. For example, orders to fire upon the shipwrecked would be clearly illegal.
Admiral Bradley ordering the strike of shipwrecked survivors from a previous drone strike In September. There, you happy?
It might seem illegal but he clearly cited the naval strike variant of the "he made a furtive movement towards his waistband" argument, where the "he" was two survivors of the preceding naval strike, the "movement" was climbing onto the wreckage of their boat to keep from drowning, and the "weapon" was packets of cocaine headed towards Suriname.
Logic! /s
(I think the admiral knows this is nonsense, but is desperately trying to push it back on the JAG advisors and their bosses all the way up the chain who concocted this ridiculous legal argument in the first place)
Trump? Patel? Hegseth? Bondi? Everyone down the chain from them to the troops and officers that are actually executing the illegal orders?
It's undebatable that illegal acts have occured, so are you claiming that if we can't nail down exactly who ordered them, no illegal orders were given? Do you at least believe the people executing the orders should be held responsible for their crimes?
ICE detainment is when federal police just all systematically go out and do illegal things because of vibes I guess and not some sort of order
Your framing implies all these illegal things can only be blamed on individual agents but that would be so much worse - that'd mean there's just a ton of masked people with badges with no respect for the orders from above and ALSO that the leaders in charge just don't care that they have no control over these federal agents.
Or maybe, just maybe, they're complicit with illegal orders from above. Which is marginally better than a disorganized entire government, because at least things are traceable and hopefully recoverable once we can get these leaders out.
so... your claim is that ICE and the national guard members helping them are acting independently of any orders when they perform illegal profiling and brutality?
My claim is that what the OOP is correct. No one was able to name or point to a single illegal order.
Steve then lists off illegal actions, as you have, but you, Steve and others in my inbox have been unable to point to or name a single illegal order. Same with everyone in the video that OOP is talking about. No one is naming an illegal order that’s been given.
If you are talking about a subject confidently, you should be aware of all the news related to the subject(which is impossible to avoid on the internet with how viral they became). And with the bare minimum critical thinking skills you should be able to connect those illegal things to the orders. But you seem to be admitting that you need to be spoonfed information like a 5 year old.
I'm a veteran. I've spent hours being briefed on this.
There are unlawful orders. These include orders that are given outside of an operational command that go against the mission. An example would be my captain telling me to get my crew ready to clear out underbrush off base.
There are also illegal orders. Any order which violates a law is an illegal order. Extrajudicial killing violates many laws. Ordering the death of anyone outside of a police action or an actual war is extrajudicial killing.
An unlawful order can be an illegal order as well.
For example, ordering the killing of shipwrecked sailors, as is the example in the UCMJ, and allegedly exactly what happened in the Caribbean recently.
I thought our military was safe from this totalitarian BS. Then this happened.
Tbh, I'm not surprised. The culture of the military 15 years ago was more good ol boy culture than integrity culture. It's like they forgot that the harm that refusal to hold each other accountable would eventually lead to collapse.
The worst thing is that they're not even war crimes! There's no war, no Authorization for the Use of Military Force! They're just crimes! The whole affair is just straight-up murder!
The follow-up strike is just two additional murders!
Eh that's basically the standard left pro Israel take in the Jewish community here ime. Maybe there's more he's not saying, but it seems to be like,
<-- Israel is committing genocide -- Israel is committing war crimes -- Israel is doing what needs to be done and fuck Netanyahu -- Israel is doing what needs to be done and Netanyahu is fine/good -- Israel is doing what needs to be done and should be doing more / Ben Gvir is fine/good -->
(1) isn't pro Israel, and usually comes with other ideological baggage; (2) often remains pro Israel, but is obviously more critical than (3), which is where I've seen most people in the community. (4) is Republicans, and I'm not sure I've seen so much of (5) outside Israel itself.
Fair. I’m not overly tuned into that side of the discussion. I’ve got Jewish friends but am not Jewish myself, and we’re all American, so truthfully the discussion doesn’t come up often.
Acknowledging that the literal terrorists aren't exactly great guys and that the situation isn't as simple as people make it out to be sometimes, while also acknowledging the killing of innocent civilians etc, seems like a pretty reasonable take IMO.
I'm not saying I completely agree with him, but it's really not some wild hot-take.
It also depends how you define "Pro-Israel".
Is anything less than "Israel should cease to exist as a nation" pro-israel?
Agreed, it's a very reasonable and sensible take. Too many chronically online leftists are just one step away from openly supporting Hamas, a literal islamic terrorist organisation. That is dangerous.
What is more dangerous is this again chronically online idea that there is a clear "good" and "bad" guy. The world is not that clear cut at the best of times and this is an example of even more shades of grey. Idk why a lot of social media has to define by this binary of "good" and "bad", which unfortunately stems a lot from liberal and leftist sides of social media political commentary. Especially the "if you're not x, you're y" statements. Massively reductionist and do more harm than good.
As a chronically online leftist myself, sadly you're right.
I don't think the black and white mindset is particularly a "chronically online people" thing, I just think that has made it more apparent how many people think like that.
I think it's just human nature to polarise everything and to see things through the lens of a clear "good guy" and "bad guy".
I didn't say it was some wild hot take. From what I've seen, a lot of people operate under the assumption that the IDF is trustworthy, follows LOAC, and that the civilian casualties we see are unfortunate but necessary. My mental picture of (2) could reasonably be called "pro-Israel" as well, and is where I personally fall. There's an important distinction between ius ad bellum and ius in bello -- the former is with them, but I think they've acted in willful violation of the latter. Whereas many in the community believe they're acting rightfully wrt both. Whether Hamas is bad or not isn't a dividing line between (2) and (3) above. Maybe between (1) and the rest, but even there you have some people who will agree that Hamas bad but think what Israel is doing is genocide.
I love that Steve’s penchant for handling hecklers extends beyond his shows to his own subreddit. (It’s also so fun how much he engages there, he’s such a good dude.)
This the 2nd post about his subreddit I have seen today, and your comment makes me think I might enjoy his stuff, so I suppose I shall look up his work
No one can name an illegal order
Well what's that got to do with this subreddit
Yes, but actually no. Those are illegal, but it’s still not an illegal order.
What is an illegal order if not an order to do something illegal lmao
[removed]
Have you been watching the news lately?
Have you named an illegal order?
Are you having a stroke?
Are you impervious to logic and understanding of the English language?
Bro is out here being deliberately obtuse and acting like he's the one with intelligence
Smh my head some people
explains why ruzzia is the way it is...
Asking someone to kill a group in a boat that has no legal standing to do so is an illegal order. Hope this helps!
To give your absurd point a modicum of merit: Yes, it could be that ordering something is not illegal even while the order itself contains illegal things. So if you mean that, have a cookie for pursuing a niche perspective on what was said and acting as if that was the only interpretation.
Otherwise the idea is - and I don't know if you just act stupid to make a point or actually do not understand this - that all these illegal deeds have been ordered. Most likely by Trump or some other big political figure. For people with functioning cognitive abilities giving such orders would count as "giving illegal orders" because that's entirely within the definition and just absolutely fucking obvious.
And please don't tell me your actual point was to proclaim no one gave those orders. That would just be really disappointing because you know, you could just say that instead od wasting everyone's time then.
Detaining someone based on what they look like is illegal. Using unnecessary force is illegal. Ignoring due process is illegal. Lying under oath is illegal. Etc etc.
Congrats, you still haven’t named an illegal order jus illegal things.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/judge-rules-trump-national-guard-dc-deployment-illegal/
Notice the silence from the troll smh.
You are deliberately playing with semantics and pretending it is a "gotcha."
When Trump sends out people from ICE and they are not being held accountable for the fact that there is no due process, it is illegal.
When Trump shares fake images to suggest an innocent man is part of a gang, it is illegal:
https://edition.cnn.com/2025/05/01/politics/abrego-garcias-tattoos-explainer
From Department of Defense’s Law of War Manual (2023)
18.3.2.1 Clearly Illegal Orders to Commit Law of War Violations. The requirement to refuse to comply with orders to commit law of war violations applies to orders to perform conduct that is clearly illegal or orders that the subordinate knows, in fact, are illegal. For example, orders to fire upon the shipwrecked would be clearly illegal.
Admiral Bradley ordering the strike of shipwrecked survivors from a previous drone strike In September. There, you happy?
It might seem illegal but he clearly cited the naval strike variant of the "he made a furtive movement towards his waistband" argument, where the "he" was two survivors of the preceding naval strike, the "movement" was climbing onto the wreckage of their boat to keep from drowning, and the "weapon" was packets of cocaine headed towards Suriname.
Logic! /s
(I think the admiral knows this is nonsense, but is desperately trying to push it back on the JAG advisors and their bosses all the way up the chain who concocted this ridiculous legal argument in the first place)
Trump? Patel? Hegseth? Bondi? Everyone down the chain from them to the troops and officers that are actually executing the illegal orders?
It's undebatable that illegal acts have occured, so are you claiming that if we can't nail down exactly who ordered them, no illegal orders were given? Do you at least believe the people executing the orders should be held responsible for their crimes?
If something is illegal, it’s illegal, but the point isn’t that illegal things aren’t happening. It’s that there is no order.
So you think these orders just materialize or come from god or what?
ICE detainment is when federal police just all systematically go out and do illegal things because of vibes I guess and not some sort of order
Your framing implies all these illegal things can only be blamed on individual agents but that would be so much worse - that'd mean there's just a ton of masked people with badges with no respect for the orders from above and ALSO that the leaders in charge just don't care that they have no control over these federal agents.
Or maybe, just maybe, they're complicit with illegal orders from above. Which is marginally better than a disorganized entire government, because at least things are traceable and hopefully recoverable once we can get these leaders out.
Are you familiar with RICO laws by any chance?
Removed -- Stay civil with each other. Remember the human.
How in the actual fuck do you figure?
Because there is no order to do illegal things.
Is this shit just happening spontaneously in a vacuum then?
so... your claim is that ICE and the national guard members helping them are acting independently of any orders when they perform illegal profiling and brutality?
My claim is that what the OOP is correct. No one was able to name or point to a single illegal order.
Steve then lists off illegal actions, as you have, but you, Steve and others in my inbox have been unable to point to or name a single illegal order. Same with everyone in the video that OOP is talking about. No one is naming an illegal order that’s been given.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/judge-rules-trump-national-guard-dc-deployment-illegal/
Crickets....
No, it's just the Russian-to-English translation site is REALLY slow right now.
If you are talking about a subject confidently, you should be aware of all the news related to the subject(which is impossible to avoid on the internet with how viral they became). And with the bare minimum critical thinking skills you should be able to connect those illegal things to the orders. But you seem to be admitting that you need to be spoonfed information like a 5 year old.
Still haven’t shown any illegal order.
Who do you think told ICE to round people up and meet quotas?
I WISH i could attain this level of cognitive dissonance.
Semantics.
I'm a veteran. I've spent hours being briefed on this.
There are unlawful orders. These include orders that are given outside of an operational command that go against the mission. An example would be my captain telling me to get my crew ready to clear out underbrush off base.
There are also illegal orders. Any order which violates a law is an illegal order. Extrajudicial killing violates many laws. Ordering the death of anyone outside of a police action or an actual war is extrajudicial killing.
An unlawful order can be an illegal order as well.
For example, ordering the killing of shipwrecked sailors, as is the example in the UCMJ, and allegedly exactly what happened in the Caribbean recently.
I thought our military was safe from this totalitarian BS. Then this happened.
Tbh, I'm not surprised. The culture of the military 15 years ago was more good ol boy culture than integrity culture. It's like they forgot that the harm that refusal to hold each other accountable would eventually lead to collapse.
Has this person doubled back now that it's been confirmed that US troops were ordered to commit a war crime?
Probably screaming something incoherent about Hunter Biden's laptop.
Or Her Emails.
Cuz we all know that unsecured emails are way more dangerous than signal chats to unauthorized persons
The worst thing is that they're not even war crimes! There's no war, no Authorization for the Use of Military Force! They're just crimes! The whole affair is just straight-up murder! The follow-up strike is just two additional murders!
Was just about to post this lol
I'm surprised /u/thehofstetter didn't crosspost it here himself.
Funny guy. I just wish he wasn't pro-Israel.
“Pro-Israel” seems like a strong way to put it.
Eh that's basically the standard left pro Israel take in the Jewish community here ime. Maybe there's more he's not saying, but it seems to be like,
<-- Israel is committing genocide -- Israel is committing war crimes -- Israel is doing what needs to be done and fuck Netanyahu -- Israel is doing what needs to be done and Netanyahu is fine/good -- Israel is doing what needs to be done and should be doing more / Ben Gvir is fine/good -->
(1) isn't pro Israel, and usually comes with other ideological baggage; (2) often remains pro Israel, but is obviously more critical than (3), which is where I've seen most people in the community. (4) is Republicans, and I'm not sure I've seen so much of (5) outside Israel itself.
Fair. I’m not overly tuned into that side of the discussion. I’ve got Jewish friends but am not Jewish myself, and we’re all American, so truthfully the discussion doesn’t come up often.
Acknowledging that the literal terrorists aren't exactly great guys and that the situation isn't as simple as people make it out to be sometimes, while also acknowledging the killing of innocent civilians etc, seems like a pretty reasonable take IMO.
I'm not saying I completely agree with him, but it's really not some wild hot-take.
It also depends how you define "Pro-Israel".
Is anything less than "Israel should cease to exist as a nation" pro-israel?
Agreed, it's a very reasonable and sensible take. Too many chronically online leftists are just one step away from openly supporting Hamas, a literal islamic terrorist organisation. That is dangerous.
What is more dangerous is this again chronically online idea that there is a clear "good" and "bad" guy. The world is not that clear cut at the best of times and this is an example of even more shades of grey. Idk why a lot of social media has to define by this binary of "good" and "bad", which unfortunately stems a lot from liberal and leftist sides of social media political commentary. Especially the "if you're not x, you're y" statements. Massively reductionist and do more harm than good.
As a chronically online leftist myself, sadly you're right.
I don't think the black and white mindset is particularly a "chronically online people" thing, I just think that has made it more apparent how many people think like that.
I think it's just human nature to polarise everything and to see things through the lens of a clear "good guy" and "bad guy".
I didn't say it was some wild hot take. From what I've seen, a lot of people operate under the assumption that the IDF is trustworthy, follows LOAC, and that the civilian casualties we see are unfortunate but necessary. My mental picture of (2) could reasonably be called "pro-Israel" as well, and is where I personally fall. There's an important distinction between ius ad bellum and ius in bello -- the former is with them, but I think they've acted in willful violation of the latter. Whereas many in the community believe they're acting rightfully wrt both. Whether Hamas is bad or not isn't a dividing line between (2) and (3) above. Maybe between (1) and the rest, but even there you have some people who will agree that Hamas bad but think what Israel is doing is genocide.
That clip is pretty strongly pro-Israel.
that clip is mostly apologia