- Does this article actually expect the reader to download two random APK files and then install them on their Shield? This seems... dangerous?
- What about after, when he explained it away by making "I did not 'Nazi' that coming" jokes on Twitter?
- How about this: we are living in the build-up to Idiocracy. The period that came before Not Sure showed up, when Brawndo was convincing the government to water crops with Brawndo.
- > What I meant that it was infantile and immature
Unlike your very sarcastic, passive-aggressive response?
The observation they are making is real. An article about how identity politics is bad shouldn't be engaging in that exact tactic.
- > How is following the law
How many legal court orders have been ignored during this case?
If a court is asking for his release, then it's "following the law" and not political, right?
Why do you get to choose what part is the law, and what part is the politics?
- This feels like an oversimplification of the issue. Why moderate at all? Spam posted here would only require you to "have to scroll sometimes".
- So those folks must be doing it because they think it's helpful, right? They are explicitly trying not to take credit for the words. Do you think, after a ban of these kinds of posts are implemented, that those posters would start hiding their use of AI to create replies, or would they just stop using AI to reply at all?
- No, you also claimed Snopes edited an article about masks, and claimed something about the contents it was edit from and to:
> My favorite was their check on masks in early 2020 - they said that masks do nothing to the airborne viruses and the government will never force you to wear one, people who are walking around with masks are dangerous lunatics who deprive medical workers of much needed PPE.
This is what I am asking about
- >> I was just trying to understand what parts of this admin you lean towards, and if this is one of those cases.
>Why?
Because I can't square your previous statements without understanding what parts are acceptable to you and which are not. You have not provided anything for me to understand your position politically except that you don't think it's worth worrying about the Supreme Court potentially destroying birthright citizenship.
> At no point do I expect or intend to change anyone's mind; that's not the point. When it comes down to it, I don't believe that a belief that won't survive being challenged is worth holding, and I want to know if I've missed something. To put it another way, any time I mention something political here, it's because I see someone who holds a contrary belief and want to challenge my own beliefs on the subject.
Well put, and I agree. Arguing a belief is the fastest way to improve and correct it. That is why I was trying to get a more well-rounded picture of your opinions on this admin, because I want to understand your context surrounding your political ideas.
> Yep, that's my point. I love talking politics and philosophy, but my respect for the norms of this community outweigh that. It's been my experience that most of these conversations quickly turn adversarial - if you go through my comment history you'll likely see that I often disengage when that happens, or wait a day or two to reply to avoid starting a flame war.
We can end it here to keep with those norms. I appreciate you responding with some of your opinions and your honesty.
- "Anyone involved in harming the country" is easy to say. It's much harder to know what "harming the country" means in this context. One persons censorship is another persons fact checking.
If the government is going after anyone "censoring free speech", they can pick and choose who to apply that to because there is no clear definition of a civilian censoring another civilian (because legally this does not exist).
- > Did someone write a blogpost/tweet/reddit post/take a screenshot of it at the time?
For a claim you are making, you seem to not be able to find a single piece of evidence. How did you ever find out there was an original article that they edited? Is this purely from personal experience?
- There are other options besides those. You have two pieces of information: If you trust experts or "do your own research" and if you are correct or not. This leads to four choices:
- You trust experts, and the experts are right -> You are right
- You trust experts, and the experts are wrong -> You are wrong
- You do your own research and are right -> You are right
- You do your own research and you are wrong -> You are wrong
Now, if I had to guess, the people who are more knowledgeable on a subject would likely have a better idea on the truthiness of a statement regarding that subject. Your argument appears to be the opposite.
> It's incredible that in some cases people who know nothing about the topic have way less (in percentage) stupid and incorrect facts than people who try to actively educate themselves through "experts".
I assume this is just an anecdote but could you extrapolate on this point a bit?Is there a study you could show me where they tested "do your own research" people's knowledge vs domain experts? What topics do you think have the highest chance of the "experts" being stupid and incorrect?
- > Sure, and that woman could surely have come up with some bible verses or something. But would they even bother, if we accept them as an authority?
In a modern, secular society, we do not take "the bible" as a logical reason for something. However, we do accept statements of things that are verifiable like that an event occurred, was observed by many people besides the one making the claim, and possibly even recorded by multiple sources.
> There weren't exactly many sources to support the claim that a certain laptop "had all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation"
There also weren't many sources to support the chain of custody for said laptop. Given the people involved, the implications and the timing, it is right to be skeptical of such a fantastical story.
> The point isn't that the truth is unknowable, but that we should be deeply skeptical of people who claim to be truth experts
Assumedly the fact checker is not researching every fact check per post, but is referencing some internal document stating what the organization considers "fact". This could have surely been created through discussions and research with experts.
Is your solution that we should never attempt to fact check anything?
> At least Divine Authority Lady probably didn't have much opportunity to benefit at my expense
I guarantee there is a lucrative spot for someone claiming to have secret knowledge from God. And even less fear of being executed as an apostate than in the past. However, being a "Fact Checker" now means you are scrutinized by the US federal government and may be denied entry or citizenship. The fact checker took a bigger risk and had a worse outcome than Divine Authority Lady.
- > Preparation is not the same as worry. Worry solves nothing
Would you prepare for something you did not have any worries about? I assume any preparation would be in response to a worry/fear/uncertainty about a situation. You study for a test because you are worried you will not know the answers. Preparation and worry seem intrinsically linked. Worry is the onus through which preparation becomes necessary.
> I truly try to limit my sharing of my own views on HN
Is that true? You freely gave your opinions on this issue and the admin in your previous comment, and you seem to talk about your opinions on these things elsewhere on HN. I was just trying to understand what parts of this admin you lean towards, and if this is one of those cases.
If you copy a post from that other forum here, I would read and likely respond to it if it was relevant to my earlier question.
> I assure you, I have no hate in my heart for anyone. What I feel is driven by empathy, what I say is informed by empathy, and what I do is -- to the best of my ability -- a result of careful rational thought.
I have a hard time squaring this with "leaning towards agreeing with 2/3rds of the admin's decisions." Trump is highly vindictive and has made that a cornerstone of this "revenge tour" presidency. But that is probably a conversation for another, more politically-inclined forum.
- > First - there's no point in worrying about something before it's clear what will happen
You don't think it's important to prepare for things that have a non-zero likelihood of occurring? This case has already worked its way to the Supreme Court, it's obvious something is happening with it.
> Second - I propose that it doesn't matter. I lean toward the Trump administration's positions on probably 2/3 of the issues commonly discussed today
Is the anti-immigrant rhetoric of this admin one of the things you do or not lean towards?
- Surely in these situations, the fact-checked information is more knowable than God. The fact checker can provide other sources that may support their position. The woman with a hotline to God cannot possibly provide any proof of her claims.
Comparing a belief in spiritualism to a fact checker thinking they've found misinformation is apples and oranges in terms of falsifiability.
- Assumedly you need an email hosting service to place behind your domain, correct? Or do you self host an email server? If you are completely self-hosting, how do you deal with being marked as spam by large spam filter organizations for being a low-trust sender?
- Privacy is not a culture war issue. Not wanting massive amounts of personal data hoovered up to train an AI for Google is reasonable. Arguing against this kind of invasion of privacy is not "dumb propaganda".
- Surely the fact that there is a comment section on user submitted media means this website is social media?
This is incredibly rich coming from the person defending Trump, the man who is ruling almost exclusively via executive order.
> The troops were there to protect Federal Law Enforcement and Federal property.
You are OK with them performing rule lawyering to get around the intent of things like not deploying the military into US cities against US citizens. When Trump posted his "Chi-pocalypse Now" meme, do you think he was implying the military was going to Chicago to "protect federal property"? His exact phrasing in the Tweet was "I love the smell of deportation in the morning".
> Were you referring to Biden's son? Seems within scope of the comment.
What are you talking about? He obviously means the *PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY* ruling SCOTUS handed down recently. Don't be obtuse, Biden's son does not have presidential immunity for his actions.
And again, this is rich coming from you considering the people that Trump is pardoning this term...