Point to the advocation.
Edit: changed my mind, no need, see my other reply , good luck.
Senal
joined 2 years ago
Indeed, but the definition does, I don't care at all about this hill, but not being able to understand the application of the definition of words is going to make conversations difficult for you.
I would assume a competently executed strategy of eliminating the worst offenders (and/or the managing infrastructure thereof) would probably have more impact, they probably meant legal things though.
For instance, a solo campaign of taking out the biggest data centers would probably work. Difficult though.
Stating something is true with no supporting argument other than "I said so" followed by some shaky(at best) logic doesn't leave much in the way of conversation points.
But lets give it a go.
Firstly there was no demand or proposal for any demographic to partake in the activity mentioned.
Secondly, assuming the first point wasn't true, by your rationale there would be no way to mention any activity without it being a suggestion that all current recipients must immediately perform said activity, which it patently ridiculous.
Thirdly, the suggestion that you are a best in class mental gymnast isn't a thought terminating cliche, perhaps you could claim ad hominem but as I said before ,"I'm right, because reasons" doesn't leave many conversational avenues open.
The rookie was the most blatant example for me and i was incredibly disappointed , because i like Nathan Fillion.
I heard it got less bootlicky later on but i never made it that far.
There are now, after months of push-back on the shit they were originally trying to pull.
A "plugin"
- installed by default
- that you couldn't permanently disable (though that may have been a bug)
- that you couldn't uninstall (that was intentional)
- had no corporate level "We can't legally use AI so remove all possibility of it causing us legal problems please" option.
I say "plugin" because up until this , plugins were optional, could be uninstalled and generally didn't "accidentally" re-enable themselves on restart.
They've fixed most of it now, but the backlash was interesting to say the least.
Though, to be fair that was only the full AI and not the built in "small" line completion, not sure what the current state of the "big" line completion is.
How the fuck would I boycott a brand for being owned by Nestle before I find out that it's owned by Nestle?
Consumer research, look up the brands you don't know before you buy them, the corps aren't generally out here running shell companies to hide relationships.
Im not being snide and I don't care about the rest of the argument with OP, this is the literal answer to that one question, that's all.
Indeed, in a working ideal model(see below for more on this*) of society the police exist to enforce the rule/spirit of law equally to all people.
ICE should ostensibly be a federal branch that is held to account by the government as a whole and deals specifically with customs and immigration related issues.
Citizens with no customs or immigration issues aren't really part of that mandate so it should be handed off to the relevant authorities that do in fact deal with that type of 'crime'.
Things are so far removed from that, that ICE is effectively running on gang/gestapo rules at this point and the government is actively encouraging it.
* So, by working ideal model i'm describing a point of view using traditional ideals of fairness and law, that assume the system is working towards that ideal.
The current system is not at all set up that way, so even if it seems batshit , this might actually be the system working as intended by the current sitting majority power (or if you're really cynical like me, capitalism as a whole).
So not only are you fighting to move the overton window in a direction that resembles the storybook ideals of fairness and equality, you are also fighting the existing imposed status quo.
I also wonder why this even is a case for ICE and not the police.
Same reason the Mafia or the Cartels don't call the police when something goes down.
If you don't take care of it yourself how will people know not to fuck with you ?
No need for apologies, you don't mean it and i don't really care about your opinion enough to warrant it.
judging by the replies so far I wouldn’t expect any level of good faith discourse
^
Responding with a deflection is on brand though, so kudos for consistency.
Just to be clear you are saying you didn't provide a claim of truth with no supporting argument because, and I quote
I know you aren't going to understand how your reply doesn't make sense but if in the future you come back to this , this kind of thing is what people call mental gymnastics.
It kinda feels like punching down at this point so I'll leave you be.