- This is a stupidly glib comment. The poster meant that the reality of life as a Jehova's Witness cannot be gleaned from looking at some document of the religion, and I think you knew that, but decided to take a shot at the Bible anyways because you've been acculturated to think that dunking on religion is both correct and acceptable.
- Oh interesting.
I would be willing to give them a shot one again one day (there are so few purveyors of pre-installed Linux computers), though not for the ~$1k Thelio costs.
Right now, WSL is working great for me, but Windows seems to be getting increasingly aggressive with wanting one to use their search, etc.
- Fake news about Hillary Clinton is a good example, as is Breitbart's very existence, as are foreign reddit bots, as are a lot of political extremists parroting views in their own posts on subjects about which they have no knowledge, etc.
Granted, for things like Breitbart, one has to affirmatively opt-in.
- This isn't new, but most Republicans didn't care when the brunt of this was felt by Muslims and others. Only when a far-right politician who plays to white supremacist tropes wanted to buy political dirt from an American adversary who was also emgaged in a digital misinformation campaign against the politician's opponent did they start to act like this was some abuse of power.
Meanwhile, during peak "War on Terror", they routinely accused people who raised concerns about law enforcement abuses of being unpatriotic "bleeding hearts"
- The "criticized the president" scenario is already simply a violation of the first amendment and not done, and the gun thing is plausible with or without CBDC.
I'm not stumping for CBDC, but these examples seem to carry the assumption that the government would be doing them were it not for practical barriers that CBDC permits them to bypass. But I think the government could do them now, it just doesn't.
I'm not actually sure what the social media thing has to do with CBDC at all actually.
- NYPost is in a liminal spot; for example, if it's saying something happened in NYC, that thing likely happened in NYC, in my experience. Its commentary on said event can likely be ignored if it's the kind of event that gets right-wing voters riled up, but it doesn't just make shit up. It's not Breitbart or something lol, and if the issue isn't a political hot topic, I don't know if one needs to avoid it
- Not really sure how Mohammed can be said to have a "dubious" history. If you don't want to believe the traditional accounts, that's fair, but late antiquity was not a golden age of objective recorded history lol, so there isn't much better info to go off otherwise. I would refer people to r/AcademicQuran on issues of early Islamic history.
I can't say whether Smith had a "dubious" history, but I'm not inclined to take this view because people think it's ok to bigoted and dismissive of the Church of LDS, and I think it's unfair.
Also polygamy was part of pre-Islamic Arabia, whereas it was contrary to custom and law in the context in which the LDS Church developed. Comparison on this point is superficial.
- I think this line of thinking is unrealistic and rather unempathetic.
People on both sides of culture war issues really do care about them. I agree that there are a number of more important issues, but the ordering of political priorities is basically subjective and nobody needs share anyone else's.
There are a few small law firms/sole prop type guys, however, who I have crossed paths with for whom this kind of stupidity and carelessness would be on brand though.
Guess he was just in a rush and figured this would be one of the 2/10 times he files something without at least taking a look at the opinions first, and it ended up being a massive error.