Don’t bother trying to convince him. He’s relishing in the brutality against people he hates. He might try to intellectualize it (in the spirit of HN), but it’s coming from a place of pure emotion. Namely, anger, bitterness, resentment, insecurity, fear, and hatred.
Absolutely ridiculous slander. I challenge you to find good evidence against any assertion I make, because I only state things after I have researched them (and not only that, I ask an LLM to counterargue me). I don't hate anyone, I despise ideologies (one of which you are possibly unwittingly representing, without even realizing it, perhaps), groupthink, and baseless assertions or beliefs.
And most certainly, baseless accusations like this. There's no such thing as "rationalized emotion" (which you seem to be insinuating with your "He might try to intellectualize it" remark); criticism is either baseless/purely-belief-based/non-factual, or it is at least based on good-faith facts and reason.
That emotion you detect? That has to do with the amount of misinformation and truth-twisting going on out there... And it's growing.
Everyone was up in arms about this guy a few days ago; turns out he was intentionally hiding multiple red-flag affiliations; how would any government, much less the US, tolerate that?
>However, the government will have to prove to the immigration judge that Khalil willfully failed to disclose that information, and whether that disclosure would have impacted his eligibility for permanent residency.
>Baher Azmy, an attorney for Khalil, told NBC News: "These late-breaking, after-the-fact allegations, silly as they are, primarily show that the government must know the supposed 'foreign policy' grounds for Mahmoud’s removal are absurd and unconstitutional."
>Azmy said the government's new claims "cannot change the obvious fact the government has admitted — he is being punished in the most autocratic way for his constitutionally protected speech."
>the government has admitted — he is being punished in the most autocratic way for his constitutionally protected speech.
Gee, almost like we should have a legal system that sorts this stuff out before we take violent action against people here legally.
Agreed, but I still see value in wasting my working hours making sure people here at least see the reality.
All I have to offer this forum while I'm a student is politics, which I do know better than at least some here. There is no technology I can really offer a valuable opinion on, more than the experts here.
It's my armchair activism to at least make sure that the left's point of view is not wholly absent on this forum of affluent, insulated tech bros. Plus, my job has a lot of down time, so there are worse ways I could spend it.
It would be better if your goal was not to make "the left's point of view" more well-known (which is just pushing an ideology), but to call out unsubstantiated rightwing BS using evidence and reason.
Left wing positions, while they control no branches of the government and have no power is literally to raise alarms about what the fascists are doing, and how silly their propagandized reasoning is. That is exactly what I'm doing.
pushing ideology of anti fascists == calling out right wing bs using evidence (climate change, vaccine science, hell, any scientific research at this point all tick both of your boxes)
My last comment had about six sources, but I could find dozens more if you still find yourself blind and tasting fascist boot.
you don't even realize yet that you can't use "fascist" in a good faith argument without defining it precisely, because it's simply used as a cudgel word by both sides... and literally has been for almost 100 years
