The public pressure against “the IDF” (but really against Jewish people) came from Qatari sponsorship of US higher education. If you dislike AIPAC you should dislike Qatar much more, for their budget is much higher.
I made a deliberate effort to neutralize my statement as much as possible. We could argue on this issue, but what we can't disagree on is the fact that there's an issue (which is all that's relevant to the point I was trying to make).
I was attempting to invoke Hanlon's Razor to rationalize the narratives being disseminated by news media, because I am exhausted by conspiratorial thinking. I chose the phrasing that I did in an effort to be as charitable as possible to both sides. I will not be badgered into wasting my time on an embarrassing and fruitless political debate on this orange website or any other.
So far we’ve had a genocide where the population increases, a destroyed hospital that was still standing, people begging for food from a photographer in a staged environment with no food being handed out, disabled children that look thin being used to fake starvation - if you’re exhausted by the conspiracy theorists you don’t to be as charitable as possible to them. Call them out.
Qatar gave a great deal of money to Tulane University - if you want to call an insititution with a 40% Jewish student body anti-Semitic I don't know what to say to you.
on the one hand you have the owner dictating his political bias to all his employees/journalists. on the other hand you have a person/journalist interpreting reality through their own political bias. what's the difference? in the first case the medium would only report biased in one direction, in the second case it'd report roughly split around the percentages of the (journalistic) population, e.g. 60% this, 40% that.
Apparently it's incredible that Biden wasn't a body-double his entire presidency but it's credible that "anonymous donors" are sponsoring a ballroom at the Whitehouse. I call this Schrodinger's presidency...
Sure, but if you measure that for a ten thousand people (controversially, ten thousand people that aren't already programmers may be better) you can get a good idea of what is efficient and what isn't.
Maybe, but also maybe not. Ten thousand people giving ten thousand uncorrelated responses is also a possible, not unlikely result of such a test. There's also the question of whether or not your methodology for "measuring" what is effective and what isn't is even possible, let alone sufficient for a definitive conclusion.
HN has always had a trend of political posts. The James Damore story here got massive over claims of his freedom of speech being violated. The 'Twitter Files' which was a whole lot of nothing also blew up.
Dang can't really win here as someone else mentioned because we're in unprecedented times. Tech CEOs are going full mask off, like how the Salesforce CEO is asking for the government to send in troops to SF [1] or YC openly courting people deeply tied to the admin. So now you have people noting the hypocrisy of some users being tired of politics conveniently as it ramps up more and more into our personal lives and as tech becomes the government.
Downtown SF has been bad since Covid, as anyone that’s been there before and after can attest. Salesforce has a building in downtown SF. Wanting to have it be something close to pre 2020 levels of crime is very much precedented.
to be fair Dang can't win here. should HN devolve into a never ending shouting match between people who either aren't listening or aren't saying anything meaningful?
if HN shuts down a story they are accused of stifling discourse and picking sides (apparently _both_ sides to hear it)
and the truth is this is a hugely important series of events for everyone, tech included, regardless of 'side'.
I think the strategy of letting one of these simmer on the back burner every day is the best HN is going to be able to do.
but don't dig into the staff, I'm sure they're not enjoying any of this.
> think Kirk probably wouldn't be proud of his own behaviour there
He had years to apologise. It could have meaningfully altered the temperature of our discourse, particularly among young men. He never did. Kirk gets no credit for amends he never made.
"Mere weeks before his death, Kirk reveled in Trump's deployment of federal troops to DC. 'Shock and awe. Force,' he wrote. 'We're taking our country back from these cockroaches.'"
Cockroaches! Literally language of the Rwandan genocide. And it's a Christian saying this about other human beings? The man never changed.
(Obviously, he should not have been shot. But his sanctification is repulsive.)
> Twenty-five years ago this month, all hell broke loose in my country, which is tucked away in the Great Lakes region of Africa. Hordes of members of the Hutu ethnic majority, armed with machetes, spears, nail-studded clubs, and other rudimentary weapons, moved house to house in villages, hunting for Tutsis, the second largest of Rwanda’s three ethnic groups. The radio station RTLM, allied with leaders of the government, had been inciting Hutus against the Tutsi minority, repeatedly describing the latter as inyenzi, or “cockroaches,” and as inzoka, or “snakes.” The station, unfortunately, had many listeners.
> The promoters of genocide used other metaphors to turn people against their neighbors. Hutus, by reputation, are shorter than Tutsis; radio broadcasters also urged Hutus to “cut down the tall trees.”
> In urban centers, government soldiers and well-armed members of the Interahamwe militia affiliated with the ruling party set up roadblocks filtering out Tutsis and killing them by the roadside. It was an easy task to pick them out. Ever since independence from Belgium in 1962, national identification cards specified ethnicity.
> Within 100 days, an estimated 1 million people, the overwhelming majority of whom were Tutsis, lay dead. The worst kind of hatred had been unleashed. What began with dehumanizing words ended in bloodshed.
Yes it is very bad to call your countrymen "cockroaches" even if they're criminals and you really don't like them. It's especially bad to do so atop a gargantuan media organization that looks to you for moral and political guidance.
Please quit it with these one-dimensional ideologically-charged utterances. Your account has been becoming predictable and tiresome in its content and style, and this is not what HN is for, and destroys what it is for. The purpose and ethos of HN is for curious conversation. We're here to learn and educate, not club each other over the head incessantly with blunt ideological instruments. You've been here for a long time. We presume you started participating here because you appreciate and value what it aspires to be. We don't want to ban you, but we need you to have a think about how you can make a more positive contribution to HN, more consistent with the spirit of its purpose.
The core of Christian theology is that all humans are sinners, yet capable of change and salvation. Dehumanizing criminals by calling them vermin is about as antithetical to Christianity as you can get. It is the language of hatred and fear, not humanistic love.
A Christian who calls his fellow humans cockroaches is wearing religion like a shirt.
I've re-read the thread a couple times now and frankly it seems like there's a piece of the puzzle you're not sharing with me.
"Criminals are cockroaches because they're evil" makes literally no sense. Even if one accepts that anyone who commits a crime is de facto evil (very silly), cockroaches obviously aren't evil!
The non-sequitur about trivial vs non-trivial problems is just that: a non-sequitur.
Is it just that you're okay with exterminating certain types of people (like they're cockroaches), therefore it makes sense to call them cockroaches? You should just say it so we can stop this very strange word association game.
The most immoral acts in human history, crimes against humanity, have followed campaigns of dehumanization.
(The term cockroaches is also peculiarly linked to historical genocides. If Kirk wasn't aware of the reference he was making, he was almost certainly citing someone who was.)
The wild thing about this thread is I’ve gone from being gently supportive of Charlie Kirk vigilers to sort of concluding they’re just cover for extremism.
NARRATOR: he was, in fact, proud of his behavior there, plainly visible by comparing such behavior to hundreds of other publicly recorded instances of such behavior for which he was also quite proud
But that’s not true - it was uncharacteristic. There are many instances where he was kind to someone being openly aggressive towards him and one where he made fun of Paul Pelosi.
kind to people....who he was speaking to directly in person? or making social media references while they were not present (or adding them to dox lists so they could be harassed for years with death threats [1]) ? This is the key difference of course. It's also a really basic technique of horrible people to come off as very empathetic and friendly in person under specific circumstances so people are fooled in exactly this way, giving them full leeway to do horrible things elsewhere (such as maintaining dox lists to terrorize people into submission, or referring to women of color as having lesser "brain processing power" - e.g. unfiltered racism [2]....oh or insisting that children should be forced to watch executions [3]).
The Kirk assassination was awful, as well as the plainly false things said about his life by some parts of the media. But nobody is obligated to have a particular political opinion and Kirk himself would have pointed out that civil disagreement is this man's right as an American.
Kirks career literally started with organised harasment of what they perceived as leftists professors. Kirk himself was pretty atrocious verbally to people he looked down at. And he wink wink condoned violence against husband of democrat.
His murder was wrong. It is not true that he would be some kind of universal "civil disagreement" advocate.
Murdering bad people is probably wrong, up to certain limits. Arresting someone for saying that the victim was also a bad person is definitely unequivocally wrong.
Do you want to post an example? Kirk would defend students being harassed for unrelated political matters - eg the most recent case on his channel was an Agriculture major who had to take some kind of 'equity in agriculture' class and was being bothered by her professor for not being left leaning.
Kirk on the attack against Pelosi husband: “Why has he not been bailed out? [] By the way, if some amazing patriot out there in San Francisco or the Bay Area wants to really be a midterm hero, someone should go and bail this guy out,..." That was about attacker by the way. Like common, the start if Kirks career was making a list of "leftists professors" and promoting their harassment. Kirk literally intentionally created and promoted toxic culture we have now. That is who he was.
Yeah, he would defend right winger or bigot. He would attack anyone not right wing. The rights of people who were not white conservatives did not concerned kirk. He was literally against civil rights, openly. Blacks are all stupid and trans are all groomers. They all should be fired.
I have no idea about what happened between that "left leaning professor" and student. But there is about zero reason to believe what right wing activist like Kirk says about the issue. As far as he was concerned, left need not exist and need to be punished for existing.
The silly thing about criticising a public speaker for saying things they didn’t is there are ample videos of them speaking about the topic.
No. He pointed out correctly that black Americans were poorer now than they were in 1950, and pointed out that one cause could be how the civil rights Act (which is not the same thing as civil rights) was interpreted. You can easily look up the many conversations on this topic for yourself.
A friend of mine was targeted by TPUSA. Members in good standing did things like
* take their class, deliberately do a bad job, and then try to get them fired for bias against conservatives
* take their class and write hate speech in coursework to harass my friend, then withdrawing to avoid the F
At the same time my friend started receiving emails with death threats, hate speech, gore, and hardcore porn from anonymous email addresses. I cannot prove it, but I would be stunned if this was not from the same people.
Kirk and TPUSA knew what happened to targeted faculty.
There is no ‘purest form of open source’. There is software that meets the open source definition and software that doesn’t. If you’re on HN it’s surprising you’re not aware of this.
stallman is from the free software movement which doesn’t agree with open source since FSF is concerned with moral freedoms.
