221–230 of 299 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you making an analogy of having a moral obligation to engage in a flame war online?
Suppose this is inherent in human nature: https://xkcd.com/386/ Now decide if you would like something that works differently than Facebook to replace it.
I post here, and sometimes in a dynasty football reddit.
You’ll realize how evil the whole thing is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your "logical deductions" are lossy. You end up making false assumptions. In this case, your assumption is leading to rationale for political violence. No, arguing against cherry-picking does not mean you endorse everything. In the third link, it says that Christians do not follow Leviticus. Charlie was no different. He loved and supported gay people and welcomed them into his movement. There are many gays in his org…
"No, arguing against cherry-picking does not mean you endorse everything." How so? Either you cherry-pick or you take it all. Those are the only two possibilities, aside from ignoring the whole thing. Pretty sure he's not ignoring the whole thing. How is it ignorant to see that he thinks that the omnipotent and omniscient creator of the universe has written down "perfect laws" for us to follow, and that we shouldn't…
He did not say that.
Again, Christians do not follow Leviticus. I'm not a Christian, but I just looked this up:
> Mainstream Christian theology holds that Jesus Christ's life, death, and resurrection fulfilled the ceremonial and civil aspects of the Leviticus laws, making them no longer obligatory for believers, while the moral principles are reaffirmed and expanded in the New Testament under what is often called the "law of Christ."
You seem to think Charlie wants to stone gays because he's a Christian, and you're assuming that Christianity believes in stoning gays. But that last part is false. Christ revised the old testament. Charlie's making a point that you can't just take Leviticus at face value, and interpret its passages out of context from the new testament.
You're now interpreting Charlie's point to mean the opposite of what he meant. You're assuming that he actually wants to stone gays, because he's pointing out that the old testament talks about it, and because you don't understand Christianity.
Full clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CceJpiUPgPU
Again, I'm not a Christian, and I myself appreciate gayness. But we have to stop taking clips out of context and framing people as evil to justify political violence.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Depends on the government. Not always then. Notably not in the recent history of the countries most relevant to this discussion. > Also, depends on the organization. Some companies will fire your ass, or even find a way to sanction you, for talking back to the boss. Talking back has different meanings. Some are reasonable grounds for dismissal. Some are not. Companies should be less autocratic. Being fired even unj…
Aw, sorry to have hurt your feelings. That wasn’t my intention. My sincere apologies.
You did not. I rebutted false comparisons and called a philosophy boring. My other comment included a popular meme which mocked false comparisons and self congratulation. You made this assumption because you misunderstood the meme?
[1] https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/there-is-zero-difference-betw...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Aw, I really seemed to have upset you. That wasn’t my intention. I won’t get into fights, here, and I try to give the benefit of the doubt. Have a great day!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm confused. How is that the opposite of what he actually said? Charlie Kirk was strongly Christian, as I understand it. If a faithful Christian argues against cherry-picking the Bible, doesn't that imply an endorsement of everything in it? So if the Bible says to kill gay people, which he said it does, then does that not mean that he thinks that should be done? Especially given he describes it as "God's perfect law…
Your "logical deductions" are lossy. You end up making false assumptions. In this case, your assumption is leading to rationale for political violence. No, arguing against cherry-picking does not mean you endorse everything. In the third link, it says that Christians do not follow Leviticus. Charlie was no different. He loved and supported gay people and welcomed them into his movement. There are many gays in his org…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What are you talking about? Literally, what? Because I just linked a source: As part of the raid, some U.S. citizens were temporarily detained and children pulled from their beds, according to interviews with residents and news reports. Building hallways were still littered with debris two days later. What was these citizens crime besides living in apartments in Chicago? Flash bangs, guns, zip ties, and being detaine…
I read the link you posted. As far as I can see there was in fact reasonable suspicion that there would be people in those locations who were not supposed to be there. I can both realize that it is traumatizing for those involved and also recognize that the situation exists because there are people who coming in who are not following the process for doing so and Chicago has positioned themselves as the place to look…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A gun in your mom's face is a gun in your mom's face. I don't think those kids will find any solace in that being state sanctioned.
You may want to elaborate. Note that the emotional tone or non-plausible scenarios are not the way to advance your argument here. Still, I will counter to show some good faith. My mom would not have placed herself in a position where there is a gun in her face.
Everyone who has had a gun pointed in their face must have been really stupid then.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
oh I've accepted that. luckily I have GDPR on my side.
With that use case you either dont have enough anonymity, or will forget the number of identities and leave a lot of traces, like admitting you are in the euro zone.
I honestly love this as someone who never has a consistent identity in terms of the name I use online and not keeping a long history such as re-creating accounts whenever it is convenient. This is especially relevant on social media platforms where I don't want to feel like someone can just dig up something I've said or shared 5 years ago and use that against me. It also helps me stay myself without changing my behav…
This website analyzes speech to find your probable alternative names on HN. It’s probably easy to recoup a few more signals to find your name on other apps: https://stylometry.net/user?username=kachapopopow NB: Seems offline, but it was quite efficient !
sometimes i just dont bother using the shift key at all
I honestly love this as someone who never has a consistent identity in terms of the name I use online and not keeping a long history such as re-creating accounts whenever it is convenient. This is especially relevant on social media platforms where I don't want to feel like someone can just dig up something I've said or shared 5 years ago and use that against me. It also helps me stay myself without changing my behav…
Unless you rotate IPs and browser fingerprints for each identity and alter your visited sites, usage patterns, typing speed and style, mouse movements etc. etc. the data brokers will be able to connect your ”inconsistent” identities.
if data is linked to me via some vague data that is based on similarities there's no world where that can be used as a trustworthy source or at least not putting doubt into the person who is using such data as often times it also links to a bunch of incorrectly assigned data. It's like trusting LLM's with everything they say.