261–270 of 299 posts
This site makes the wrong conclusion. People game their social scores by being provocative edgelords. There’s almost no incentive on social media to conform. And every incentive to stand out. Just look around at our political situation, you see far less conformity, and extremes in political expression. We even elected President Edgelord.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"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…
> If he says "God's perfect law" demands killing gay people 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…
>He did not say that.
Is this some parallel universe thing where you and I experience completely different versions of Charlie Kirk? Because in my universe, the YouTube link you posted has him saying exactly that:
"In a lesser referenced part of the same part of scripture is in Leviticus 18 is that thou shalt lay with another man shall be stoned to death. Just saying. So, Miss Rachel, you quote Leviticus 19, 'Love your neighbor as yourself,' the chapter before affirms God's perfect law when it comes to sexual matters."
I seriously have to wonder if you are actually watching the stuff you're telling me to watch, or you're just parroting something you've read somewhere.
What exactly do you think he meant here? I can't come up with any "opposite" that even remotely fits with what he said. My interpretation: God says gay people should be killed. You can't love God and deny any part of God's law. "So you love God. So, you must love his law." How else can that possibly be interpreted?
I was raised Christian and I was Christian for a long time. "Christians do not follow Leviticus" not correct. Some do not. Many do, or at least follow parts of it. Pretty much all of Christianity is an exercise in deciding which parts of the Bible are meant to be followed and which are meant to be interesting stories or history. And there is no universal agreement about which parts are which. The idea that homosexuality is a sin is extremely mainstream Christian belief, and Jesus said exactly zero on that subject.
In that clip, Kirk makes it very clear that he thinks Christians must love God and must love their neighbor, by way of Deuteronomy and Leviticus. He says that you love people by telling them the truth, and he says the truth is that the Bible says gay people must be killed, in the chapter right before where it says that you must love your neighbor.
If he doesn't follow Leviticus, why is he taking "Love your neighbor" from it? Why is he describing it as "God's perfect law"? Is that meant to be sarcastic?
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…
> How is that the opposite of what he actually said? > If a faithful Christian argues against cherry-picking the Bible Talks about what Charlie “actually said”, proceeds to strawman him. Mate. You literally got given evidence that debunks an idea you’d like to believe and you still continue to believe and argue for the idea you’d want to be true. Let it go. You’re egos too big and you’re acting like an idiot. Do you…
You understand that making a claim and linking to a video doesn't automatically mean the claim is correct, right? Sometimes the video doesn't prove what it's said to prove. In this case, Kirk very clearly said that Leviticus, including the "kill gay people" part, is "God's perfect law." He says that you can't take "Love your neighbor" from it without also taking "Kill gay people." He describes the commandment to kill gay people as part of "the truth."
To be very clear: I'm not parroting anyone else's interpretation of Kirk's statements. I'm taking the above directly from the video of Kirk talking.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
"I have no idea who you are talking about leave me alone you freak." 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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, provocation is a viable strategy for clicks and audience-building, but few people are attempting that, and among those who do it's not the only strategy. Everywhere else -- in corporate America, on Facebook, at churches and family gatherings, even with many friends -- conformity is still the norm, and there are more landmine topics than ever. Social cooling is real.
I don't think its "social cooling" as much as its a fracturing of social media into edgelords / influencers + their fanboys. Everyone seems to have their own parasocial relationships with some podcast / youtuber / media personality. The fanboys want to conform to their tribe of fanboys and what the influencer wants. The influencer usually wants to sell something.
I see them working together. If everyone is privately living in different fiefdoms of homogenous thought, you never know what crazy true believer you're going to run into. Every "normal" belief might be hated by someone, somewhere. The risk-averse strategy is to stop sharing everything but the anodyne.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This just happens to be the consensus opinion for their group. That becomes non-falsifiable then. Everyone everywhere from every period in history has been part of some in-group or another with a consistent scripture/canon/creed/whatever. No one ( especially nerd king HN commenters like us) is truly an independent thinker in the way you're constructing. The claim upthread was that modern kids were afraid of consens…
I think you have the wrong end of the stick. The surveillance here isn't Palinitr; it's TikTok. And the kids love TikTok. Same goes for pissing off their elders -- as the comment above said, it's about their peers, not society at large, who matter (as it is for all of us).
Once more: kids are assholes. More so now than they used to be. Threatening to surveil them, via TikTok or not, does nothing but piss them off.
The kids are fine, basically. The point is just wrong.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Eh. I am as honest with you as I can be on an internet forum. I think you completely misunderstand my position. My position is not based on morality, but rather on the survival of the system in place. It will not survive with the influx of unvetted, unverified, random human beings. The suffering, as it were, is not a concern here it all. I don't relish it. I nothing it. Do you understand the difference? Ooh, this con…
> My position is not based on morality This is clear. Your points jump back and forth between positive and normative statements. "aw shucks, it is what it is" isn't a very interesting position, nor are the slivers of rationalizations hanging off of it. > It will not survive with the influx of unvetted, unverified, random human beings So wait, you're saying that Trump hasn't actually stopped more people from coming in…
It is possible, but your note gave me an idea so thank you for this.
Then it begs the question: why did you deem it interesting enough to respond to. I don't need you to respond. This was rhetorical.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think, and I would like to think it was covered in civics, that state sanctioned violence is one of the few types that society allows for practical reasons. What I personally think the problem in this conversation is oddly simple: severe conflation of various related issues. You may be well-intentioned, but you are not exactly convincing me to 'your side'.
Political violence performed by random civilians and political violence performed by the state are not exactly the same thing, but both are very bad, and the latter is much worse. If the argument is that only the left does political violence by random citizens (blatantly false, but even if we grant it) then saying the right is currently doing political violence by the state is a perfectly response even if they are no…
1. This was not ICE ( so default boogeyman is missing ) 2. Information is missing ( so by default we have conflicting narratives floating )
The entire conversation borders on pointless.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is, by far, the only rational argument put forth so far, but even here I feel obligated to nitpick. What exactly is 'simple detention'? Are they separated in terms of severity or is it just one giant class of detention that is subject to an opinion of the officers on the ground? One would think that a massive crackdown like this would be at least 4h of one's life.
I do not think ICE is conducting themselves well here. The point of my post above however is that part of the reason ICE is acting like this is because ICE and Chicago have positioned themselves as antagonists and the results are reasonably predictable here. The cause is not poverty it's bad politics.
1. The linked story has CBP and not ICE 2. The citizens in question are children of illegal immigrants 3. Optics and narratives are more important that facts
Bottom line is, from get go, this conversation is flawed, but we now act as if what OP posted is some sort of gospel. And he barely understands basic civics.
[1]https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/07/difference-betwe...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is, by far, the only rational argument put forth so far, but even here I feel obligated to nitpick. What exactly is 'simple detention'? Are they separated in terms of severity or is it just one giant class of detention that is subject to an opinion of the officers on the ground? One would think that a massive crackdown like this would be at least 4h of one's life.
I can't imagine how it would matter. There's basically nothing more sacred in US law than the front door of one's home. There isn't a more intrusive ordinary investigative action any government body can take. From the photos: they trashed the apartments, too. Again, not that it much matters.
Lets then compare it to other law enforcement actions and see where it differs. If we do that, maybe we can learn something new.
Based on what I do know, this law enforcement action was not different from other similar crackdowns. If true, this would suggest that the sacrosanct status does not exist or exists in name only. I would be curious to learn, which you think is true.