>Remember when people said "it's only extremists like Alex Jones" and "white nationalists", yeah well now Twitter has banned the president of the United States.
The president of the United States is in fact an extremist like Alex Jones and a white nationalist.
> The president of the United States is in fact an extremist like Alex Jones and a white nationalist.
This sounds like a comment from Reddit. From an outsider perceptive (European) he seems neither an extremist nor a white nationalist. He is a nationalist for sure, but I have never heard Trump talk about people grouping them by skin colour, unlike Obama. I have only heard Trump talk about "Americans" and he divides that into the left or right.
Again, I want to be clear here that my defence of Trump isn't because I support him, I don't.
That said, I don't know how he can be an extremist given he received such huge support from the American public twice. He's called both a populist and an extremist, which seems - at least to me - to be an oxymoron.
I guess I also don't know why I should think he's a white nationalist? Could you expand on why you think that?
We've banned this account for repeatedly breaking the site guidelines, repeated flamewar, using HN primarily for political battle, and ignoring countless requests to stop, including one less than 24 hours ago:
If you make it excuses for any and every instance of police brutality—which you’ve demonstrated you’re willing to do—you are effectively supporting police brutality. That is obvious, and for you play naïf when someone points it out is an act of bad faith. Please stop doing that.
When people make these bets, they are betting against the oddsmakers. So all of the Trump supporters betting that he would win, especially _after_ the election and it was clear he lost, were basically giving the house their money.
This entire thread is just “are my opinions unethical? No, no it must be the entire team of professional ethicists who are wrong.”
Only without the even momentary modicum of self-reflection that implies.
I’ve been using some form of Firefox or its ancestors for 20 years, and I just cannot understand its decreasing popularity. In terms of performance, feature-richness, customizability, etc it seems to be superior to the more popular browsers. Can it really all be explained by the fact that it isn’t “pushed” by being an OS default (Edge, Safari) or by being suggested by the world’s most popular search engine (Chrome)? I don’t know what I’d do without Tree Style Tabs and the ability to irresponsibly open hundreds of tabs without worrying that the RAM usage is going to crash the browser!
that's exactly the case. most browsers are now good enough that people don't seek out alternatives. also Google makes it super easy to integrate chrome into their ecosystem , moving out feels like a chore. Firefox needs a killer feature to get noticed. I think the Picture in picture mode comes closer but it needs something bigger
Food banks and shelters might be in good shape wherever it is that you live, but in many parts of the country they’re stretched to and beyond their capacities. Food banks are simply not a scalable solution to poverty. No form of charity is. Government aid programs are a proven solution to getting resources (like food) into the hands of folks in need.
As to your argument that poor people are morally corrupt, it’s laughable, below contempt, and not worth responding to. Someone is morally bankrupt, but it ain’t the poor.
My point was that the poor are not the corrupt. They need to be helped. If the shelters are stretched we need to ensure those shelters get the funding they need to cover the demand. We need to treat these people down on their luck with dignity and help them get back on their feet.
The corrupt are those with other motivations beyond survival.
Oh don't try and weasel out of it. America's respect for freedom of speech is codified in the constitution, but goes far beyond that and is a core tenant of our social contract.
Yes, Google is entirely within their right to censor whatever they want on their platform. Does it make them look like anti-free speech goons? Yeah, it does.
> America's respect for freedom of speech is codified in the constitution
Is it? Where is this implication that the constitution is simultaneously both a legal document and also a list of broad values held by the nation's people?
There are lots of things that I believe to be important for the government but not at all important for other contexts. I suspect that's true for you too.
You probably support democratic control over the government where each citizen gets one vote. But very few Americans support democratic control over private corporations (that would be socialism after all). There are enormous numbers of such examples.
I think it is unreasonable to claim that because the constitution limits the state's ability to restrict speech that Americans believe that other actors should not be able to restrict speech in places where they exhibit control. It certainly could be the case that Americans support free speech more broadly, but it definitely does not follow from just being in the constitution.
I mean, I’m not basing it off the constitution alone, but also the pervasive reference to free speech across American discourse. I mean, some joker will put a giant middle finger on his lawn in defiance of a developer who wants to buy him out and Americans will rally around his right to do so.
The president of the United States is in fact an extremist like Alex Jones and a white nationalist.