401–410 of 412 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"It is an interesting and somewhat macabre parlor game to play at a large gathering of [hackernews readers]: to speculate who in a showdown would go Nazi." https://harpers.org/archive/1941/08/who-goes-nazi/
Resorting to goodwin is an admission that you have no better argument.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A focus on preserving order is a far liberal/far centrist thing, not fascist. Fascists would ban to achieve political goals and not to maintain order. Major political groups: Liberals/centrists - maintain order/decorum at all costs Fascists - gain power at all costs, in groups of decreasing size Libertarians - reduce taxes at all costs Leftists - argue for an equal society but never get there Conservatives - return t…
Yeah, no. In centrist governments you don’t have a a secret police type law enforcement that go around and “enforce laws”(in quotes because only the laws they like, i.e. laws that say you can't be here without permission but not the laws that say you have certain rights rights) without trials etc by intimidation and executions, that is a fascist thing. In centrist governments the order isn't preserved at all costs, i…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would I want cops doing that instead of social workers or teachers doing it? No one becomes a cop because they want to be nice and help vulnerable people. Some might say they did but that is some coping technique. Being a cop involves exerting violence towards people who are vulnerable and desperate, and to become one you have to be fine with this. Some would say that this alone is enough to deem a person ethical…
Maybe you and I have vastly different experience with police. Disclaimer: From a rather small US state. Your other note is also well taken, it does however not imply that anything a kid or teen does is OK or automatically positive. Finally, it's OK to be suspicious. I am too. What I am saying is that one cannot just make the decision "all cops are evil or must be treated as such" and then hope for a good outcome in a…
However, many others have come to this conclusion and made a rather long tradition out of their arguments.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes because not assenting to the anon rando who makes a snide insulting comment is outside the bounds of normal well regulated self interest. I can't possibly eyeroll any harder at you.
I just don’t know what patting yourself on the back for your incorruptibility is really adding to the discussion.
My intent wasn't to pat myself on the back it was to make OP aware people have not all just been going along with it using myself as an example, and then it turned into a nice little side thread with me and the OP talking about that conceptually.
I can appreciate you disagree with how I chose to go about that though as objectively it was self centered.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You guys One of the reasons I chose to move to Europe is because I value the mininal safety nets and labor protections on this side of the pond. Yes, I make less money and pay more taxes but I believe this is how society should work, I reject the hyper individualism that ignores any sort of collective. But I am also not naive. Expecting individuals to take the burden for decisions way beyond their control is silly.…
Actually the social safety net has allowed Europeans a level of individualism that is completely unimaginable for the rest of the world. No charity from church or family needed. Just the State- and it does not care about your religion or sexual preferences.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What? Where's the bad faith? You made a really dumb argument and got a simple factual response. And you still failed to engage with that response instead making up imaginary persecution.
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just because some people who say "no one is illegal" also say "no more borders," that does not automatically mean that the former implies the latter. If that were the case, we could paint everyone who agrees with Nick Fuentes on any point (including, in the extreme, "nice weather we're having today") as a antisemite. The old joke linking dietary choices to Nazism ("You know who else was a vegetarian? Hitler!") is mea…
[flagged]
There aren't good statistics on how many undocumented immigrants overstayed a visa (and therefore legally crossed the border) vs how many entered without a visa, but experts estimate that it's somewhere around 40-45% [0]. It's not a criminal act to overstay a visa, though you do become subject to deportation. So a good chunk of "illegal immigrants" are doing something less illegal than, say, driving a car whose registration has expired (which is a criminal act), but, as another commenter noted above, we don't refer to "illegal drivers" on our roads.
The traditional term for someone who has not fulfilled a positive legal obligation like renewing their car registration is a "scofflaw," and I would not object to anyone referring to "scofflaw immigrants" the way I object to the phrase "illegal immigrants."
[0]: https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2018/aug/24/kevin-mcca...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> With the sorry state the software industry is currently in, I’m not surprised that developers would sell their soul in exchange for the peace of mind of being able to pay rent and food You really think adtech is the way to avoid starving on the street? There are a hell of a lot of jobs between entry level and adtech dev that could give you the same basic peace of mind.
No, there are ways to avoid working for adtech or tech support if you still have family or friends (I’m currently moving back to my parents’ place). But not everyone has this luck.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Why do you choose that single example, which I said was just that Because we're looking for people saying borders should be completely opened. An example of people saying something else is irrelevant. > Yes, people who use "no one is illegal" do also say "no more borders". Ok but the conversation is about people saying the latter. It was you who brought the former into the conversation. > Here a UK example Which Br…
[flagged]
Not in this thread, no. I asked a question in response to a specific assertion.
> What does THAT have to do with anything??? Why do YOIU suddenly limit this international phenomenon to just the US?
Because the assertion I responded to with my questions was based in that context.
> I explicitly pointed out that it is older and international and not recent and US-only!
And again, it's irrelevant to the point at hand. Goodbye now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The way I understand it, which may be dated: is that if it's automated or robotic it doesn't qualify as an "unreasonable search or seizure".
Or if it's a third party. The government is allowed to hire corporate contractors that don't obey the constitution.