341–350 of 412 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you are German, then you are probably blind to the similarities between current German politics and the Nazis, so this is not a good point of comparison.
Yeeeaaaah, I dunno if you wanna go there while the US is investing $100B in state sponsored ethnic cleansing, terrorism, and concentration camps. Glass houses, stones, etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you are German, then you are probably blind to the similarities between current German politics and the Nazis, so this is not a good point of comparison.
Which politics are you referring to? The AfD ("Alternative for Germany") who has been classified as a confirmed right-wing extremist organization by the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution? And which has heavy ties to trump, musk, and the current U.S. government? Just because we currently have our own right wing populist faschists rearing their heads again, doesn't mean that the parallels of the cur…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Illegal immigration enforcement/code is civil, not criminal. If it was criminal, enforcement would require giving suspected offenders actual Article III judge hearings pre-every deporations, not use immigration court, etc. You know, rights. If you lot want to change it to criminal, go for it. But don't lie. People lose their shit when the Constitution is violated. When civil norms are violated in evil ways. When peop…
My argument is not about the legality, but selectivity of the outrage. Somehow if it's politically beneficial there are a ton of people outraged, and in other times like the pedophile scandal of the century, with a lot of powerful people in it, no one seams to really care.
It sounds like you don't really care about the law, or people that want the constitution enforced, you care about the politics and if it the Constitution is politically inconvenient. Following the Constitution is ALWAYS the politically correct choice in the USA. Choosing the law over 'civil immigration enforcement' used as a loophole to bypass the law/Constitution is always the correct choice.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"We also as individuals [without billions] have fairly limited capacity to directly act against these things. I donate a fair bit to the EFF for instance and I've sent outreach to representatives multiple times over the years for specific bills and when its possible I vote against surveillance." - from a parallel thread I was commenting in. I'm totally fine stopping at minimizing my culpability. I sleep just fine at…
Then don’t jump into a conversation as though you have some answer if all you’re doing is virtue signaling that you’re detached
I don't think you know how to read because I certainly didn't do that. But also go fuck yourself.
This is why no one cares about your causes btw because weird angry little dudes isn't a good look.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't lump me in that "we". I did no such thing. I know exactly how it could be abused and have spent 12 years intentionally not working for companies that perpetuate it.
We are all very impressed, I assure you.
It's exactly why I don't do more because I really don't want to be associated with people like you folks.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are right, I do acknowledge their efforts but did not do so here, which I should have. I don't necessarily mean to berate the public, but rather the politicians, who saw that they could use social media/big tech for their own personal gain, and the media, who went along with the narrative that putting all our public communication into privately owned platforms was good for democracy. And maybe our own governments…
Several years ago in Stockholm (2014) during a conference focus on the Internet, the Chief Technology Officer for Barack Obama's 2012 re-election campaign held a talk on how they revolutionary the campaign process by using targeted advertisement campaign on social networks, mostly Facebook, and how effective the technique was to reach voters during fund raising and getting their voters to vote. In their view, this wa…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is the exact same thing, with a different outgroup.
No it obviously is not. You do not have a right to stay in a country illegally, anywhere in this world. If you want to migrate to a country, you need that country's permission. Without it you are an illegal alien and will, at the minimum, be removed from that country as soon as you are caught. In many places in this world you then may end up in detention - potentially indefinitely, imprisoned, fined, and so on. The U…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We are all very impressed, I assure you.
Going by the upvotes I have generally yes people do seem to think so. It's only weird folks like you and the other guy that seem to have a problem. It's exactly why I don't do more because I really don't want to be associated with people like you folks.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Going by the upvotes I have generally yes people do seem to think so. It's only weird folks like you and the other guy that seem to have a problem. It's exactly why I don't do more because I really don't want to be associated with people like you folks.
Well one thing we can be sure of is your self regard.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
“The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.”
We don’t have good data because it’s illegal to, for example, ask citizenship status on our census, but if you believe the numbers many democrats cite, Obama deported more immigrants than Trump. You can use Google to verify that though I’ll warn you the rabbit hole runs deep when it comes to official statistics. Importantly, under Trump we have far more violent felons to deport. The media thrives on salacious and emo…
Learn about the tolerance paradoxon, there is no negotiating, nuance and reasoning with fashists.
Your enlightened centrism is nothing but smoke and mirrors. Get educated.