Jesus, did none of these dozens of upvoters even click on the link? This is full Protocols of the Elders of Zion antisemitic trash.

Free and open source is the only ethical choice to use while serving the oligarchy.

Haole means white. There’s history and original translations that have different meanings, but in modern usage I’ve only ever heard it meaning white. It’s definitely not used for “not family” and it’s not really applied to other races unless it’s to describe them as being like stereotypical white people. Uncle/auntie is just an informal honorific for anyone older than you (no race or family restrictions). I’d be described as a haole and referred to as uncle by people younger than me with no implications about where I’m from. There are plenty of white people born in Hawaii that wouldn’t think twice about being labeled haole, even some with Native Hawaiian ancestry.

It’s not necessarily a slur though, that depends on context, but in the context of threatening or beating the shit out of someone it’s kind of hard to argue they were just using it neutrally. Like it’s not impossible, but you’re really starting at a disadvantage.

It’s an editorial against the concept, using incongruous words to convey the moral bankruptcy.

All of these descriptors aptly describe Steven Cheung. I don’t know why anyone contacts him for anything. He just produces substanceless verbal diarrhea. You can just not talk to a “communications director” as a journalist.

We can’t simultaneously be in a society where productivity goes up faster than wages and AI is going to provide labor for free and one that is worried we won’t have enough resources to support the elderly in some indeterminate future.

The retired have already had a lifetime of wages stolen from them to pad capitalists’ bank accounts. The excess productivity is there, it’s just not available to the broad tax base. Take that back and there’s plenty to go around.

I hadn’t seen the “blog” discussion before. He’s been pig-headed in the past, but that’s inexcusable.

There are proactive steps that separate a forced conscript and a bomb dropper.

Oh look, more fake election results. You need to stop saying things until you can recognize when a “factoid” isn’t even remotely close to believable reality.

This applies to the intolerant trying to gain power to inflict their intolerance on the wider society, not performing odious acts within their own families. It doesn’t make sense here at all. We shouldn’t tolerate murders because they’re murders, not because we’re going to end up with a surprise caliphate.

A) My student government certainly didn’t have a budget worthy of boycotting anything.

B) Do it anyway. Boycotts are speech, you’re in California, and students aren’t obligated to do anything because the school would prefer it. Hell, do it because they told you not to.

C) Don’t boycott a specific country. Boycott all countries found to be plausibly engaging in genocide. Or all countries currently occupying extraterritorial land. Or all countries currently engaged in large scale offensive military operations. Give an exception for the US of A because you’re so patriotic. Israel is in a small club of rogue nations and we don’t generally do business with them.

The leading edge of the Nazi thought machine is already saying it.

https://bsky.app/profile/elnorterecuerda.bsky.social/post/3lsyrlsj3wc2x

These aren’t contractors. They’re mercenaries.

Lol, sure man. Definitely no one ever makes an argument in an editorial. It’s not possible as their opponent is not present, may not even read it, and frequently will not be allowed to publish a rebuttal to the same audience.

Arguments are about the audience, not the opponent. Making a straw man when your opponent is not present is the most common form of the fallacy. When they’re there they might just say that’s not what they’re argument is.

Lol, what? Do you seriously think you cannot create a straw man argument in anything but direct debate? Sure Mr. Smartman.

Hint, logical fallacies are about the logic, not the debate.

Just because you feel like the straw men deserve it doesn’t change that you’re arguing with hypotheticals versions you’ve created instead of actual people.

You’ve literally defined the argument of an opposing group to look stupid so you can dunk on them. You’re arguing with a straw man. This isn’t even a critique of your rhetorical basis though, it’s just normal Internet lameness.

It’s a very American viewpoint to believe that sentiments just spring up organically with no influence from political leaders and their role in the whole process is to take opinion polls and only then decide what they believe.

Taking away the microphones of hate-mongers doesn’t make hate cease to exist, but it pushes it back into the shadows and cuts off an avenue for it to breed. The US would be a less hateful and less fascist place if Donald Trump was in prison. Leaders can drive the conversation and mainstream fringe ideas. The Democratic establishment just chooses not to.

Yes, that’s exactly what they’re talking about and you’re being extremely weird in making it a priority of discussion on something at best tangentially related.

It’s just a straw man writ large because you’re miffed at another online argument you had somewhere else.

New Zealand recently just punished three politicians harshly for doing the Haka. They were protesting a proposed law to strip special constitutional privileges for the Maori stemming from the original colonial treaties. Those old British colonizers were apparently too respectful to the rights of the indigenous people for modern conservatives.