Idiots proposed this kind of thing years ago; it was denounced as "both inappropriate and unethical to take radiographs of people when there is no health benefit for them"; and even the Home Office called it "unethical".
It should also be remembered that the reason the UK has immigration restrictions at all was to keep out Jewish people fleeing persecution. It has always been about bigotry.
Rory Stewart has told Novara Media
This is a practiced politician playing to an audience, a man who knows his post-politics media career is also served by telling people what he thinks they want to hear.
Don't project insight or decency onto him.
Who doesn't love a parade?
What fraction of lurkers do you think are won over by 'Nuh-uh, it's not technically genocide'? Not many, I'd bet.
I'm well aware of the performative aspects of online discussion. It is exactly that performance that I'm criticizing. As I said before, rules-lawyering genocide is not a good look. And giving the opponent an easy out allows them to steal the show.
420blazeit69 has provided a better lead-in:—
Genocide is a crime, and to prove a crime occurred you have to come up with evidence.
which might then be followed by the reminder that a motivated US State department wasn't able to do that—not even with all the efforts of a Nazi apologist. With additional detail, that would be somewhat more persuasive than simply "[throwing it out and seeing how they respond]". It at least returns the burden of justification, although I still think there are better spectator sports to play.
Absolutely, but the people hurling accusations don't care about the strength of arguments. They're not even necessarily trying to make an argument (in the logical sense). Tossing back a document that says "genocide is hard to prove" isn't going to win them over. It's more likely to make them double down. And that strikes me as a mistake.
There's also the problem that to people who rightfully abhor it, any action that appears to be rules-lawyering genocide is almost certain to be rejected, turning away any audience that might have been receptive to a counter-narrative.
That just leaves commenters who already agree, and when they join in, Hexbear is 'brigading with denialist propaganda', which feeds into the chuds' sense of righteousness when they harrass us.
Something this contentious needs time and a degree of receptivity, neither of which is provided by 'throwing out' some bombshell of evidence.
I don't think this is actually a particularly good suggestion. It's too easy to dodge with "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". It doesn't matter if they lack evidence of presence, because they're not trying to be objective, they're trying to be superior.
You are wasting your time. Evidence is for people who want to be convinced.
If this is actually important, don't push them to adopt your conception, interrogate theirs. Find the contradictions and insist they explain them away. Keep reminding them of the inconsistencies in their own claims. Force them to confront them instead of moving the goalposts. Record every concession and don't allow them to backslide.
A motivated believer will hold out for a long time because they risk losing a part of themselves. Is this really how you want to spend your time?
See the network icon on the right-hand side of the bottom panel? What does it show when you click it?
If the "Wireless" section is missing, go to the main Mint menu, run "Driver Manager" (under "Administration"), and see if it finds a WLAN driver for you. A working connection in the live environment isn't necessarily transferred into the installation.
You wrote this ten minutes after being reminded that "consent" by children is nonsense, in what is still the most approved comment.
If you want to be a successful troll, you are going to have to learn to be less obvious. If you want to discuss topics in good faith, you are going to have to learn that this "just asking questions" approach makes you look like a troll.
of my last 126,000 posts [emphasis mine]
"Not I'm I I" are from the following posts. They're clearly commentary, not the original canon. And you deign to call me revisionist?
However, in the spirit of anti-sectarianism, I welcome discussion from the Marxism–DayOfDoomism–blightism perspective.
For someone seemingly so eager to try out new distros, I'm surprised you haven't mentioned virtual machines. If the vibes are off, it's a whole lot less disruptive to find out that way.
Your experience with drivers won't be quite the same as a bare-metal installation, but checking out software shouldn't be a problem.