I smoked daily for years. I’m endlessly relieved that I no longer do. Quitting was like getting an almost immediate intelligence, memory, focus, and QoL boost.
Because we don’t need to focus on getting people into government who we can trust to represent our interests as their prime duty. No, what we really want to focus on is finding MORE PEOPLE WITH DOCTORATES. Yes.
Great engagement-building post for the author’s startup, blog, etc. Contrarian and just plausible enough.
I disagree though. There’s no good reason that careful use of this new form of tooling can’t fully respect the whole, respect structural integrity, and respect neighboring patterns.
The end result is really interesting. As others have pointed out, it looks sort of like it was rendered by an early 2000s game engine. There’s a cohesiveness to the art direction that you just can’t get from green screens and the like. In service of some of the worst music made by human brains, but still really cool tech.
> In a statement to the Tribune, A&M said the decision did not amount to a ban on teaching Plato and that other sections of the same course that include Plato – but do not include modules on race and gender ideology – had been approved.
Why have we all lost the ability to think in a nuanced way? It’s very disturbing to witness, particularly on a forum like HN, ostensibly populated by smart people.
It’s possible to simultaneously believe that ICE has a clear and ethical mandate while also believing that they are going about fulfilling that mandate via bad methods that need to change.
It’s possible to simultaneously believe that people shouldn’t be marked as intrinsically “illegal” while also believing that an immigration queue should exist and skipping it is immoral and should be illegal.
Etcetera, etcetera.
You don’t HAVE to dedicate yourself to a fully polarized set of beliefs. Nuance is possible. What the hell is causing us to lose our minds like this? Is it really just social media? So frustrating to witness.
Unfortunately while proselytizing about nuance, the side with the power and the guns is working overtime to make it so there is only one valid set of beliefs, and those beliefs are “American”. This is no longer a symmetric conflict of ideologies, I’m not sure what it’s going to take for people to realize this. A tidal wave of blue in the midterms I think is the only hope a lot of us have left. Maybe if that doesn’t come to fruition, either legitimately or illegitimately, despondent Russian literature will start to resonate much more strongly for us.
Heh, the “illegitimately” was in reference to it “[not coming] to fruition”, precisely in the immediately preceding clause of that sentence.
In other words, I was saying that the reason for it not coming to fruition could be either legitimate or illegitimate. You assigned your own presumptions to what I said.
Ironically the Democrats deserve much more benefit of the doubt when it comes to election fraud and interference given the glut of evidence of such on the other side of the aisle.
To others who read the comment above, we know that this administration has done many illegal actions. Lying about elections and causing an attack on the capitol, then further pardoning the attack is a blatant example of this.
The comment above is frankly disingenuous and disguises blatant strawman fallacy with an air of moral superiority
> It’s possible to simultaneously believe that ICE has a clear and ethical mandate while also believing that they are going about fulfilling that mandate via bad methods that need to change.
Yes, that it is a set of things that it is possible one could believe.
That is not an argument for it being a set of things that one ought to believe, as opposed to that ICE has a legal mandate that it isn't actually pursuing, and the mandate which it is pursuing is both intentionally murky, unethical to the extent that evidence suggests what it is, and also pursued by methods that are illegal and inhumane even irrespective of the bad ends that they are directed at.
> It’s possible to simultaneously believe that people shouldn’t be marked as intrinsically “illegal” while also believing that an immigration queue should exist and skipping it is immoral and should be illegal.
Again, that it is certainly a set of things it is possible to believe, but it seems pretty silly to believe. A queue is at best an undesirable consequences of particular choices about how to manage concerns about quantitative levels of immigration and particular impacts those levels might have, not an ideal to be pursued.
> Nuance is possible.
“X is possible” is not an argument is that X is, factually or morally as appropriate to the shape of the proposition at issue, justified. And an extended argument that sets of beliefs are possible is something people only engage in when they recognize that they are unable to make the case that they are justified, but nevertheless want to suggest that people are bad for failing to adopt them.
A queue is at best an undesirable consequences of particular choices about how to manage concerns about quantitative levels of immigration and particular impacts those levels might have, not an ideal to be pursued.
"The queue is a thing that tends to happen when you're trying to design policy with the aim of limiting/regulating immigration to amounts that wouldn't be problematic or unmanageable in some way, but the queue itself shouldn't be a goal"
> believing that an immigration queue should exist and skipping it is immoral and should be illegal.
Honestly, There is no queue for poor people, this is their only way, most of these people aren't even eligible for farm worker temp visa. US has created bureaucracy over the years in such a way that these people can never become legal. They are not skipping the line and taking some tech worker's spot or anything.
They're still illegal. You can and should defend yourself from poor strangers who view their circumstances as justification to infringe upon you. You can and should enforce your border.
Borders are an imaginary concept made-up by nation-states, which only serves the people in power.
Or how are people fleeing from prosecution, looking for a better life, or just feeling like living somewhere else exactly hurting you? It's really a human right to move to another place, without reason required.
If you're thinking about jobs, skilled workers immigrating will compete with you much more than less-privileged people. And "we cannot pay for them" is BS made up the system as well. It is possible to pay for social security for everyone, but not if all profits go to shareholders of course.
Could it just be that people with views at each end of spectrum see posts this like as part of a battleground, and everyone else stays clear of battlegrounds?
Another nuance I would like to add, being an immigrant myself, not in the US. There should be more discussion about fixing the source of the migrants, the countries people are running away from. What is it that makes people leave their families behind and how can it be fixed. I know it isn't up to the US to fix other countries but it should be a point of nuanced discussion. We cannot all end up in the US.
> It’s possible to simultaneously believe that ICE has a clear and ethical mandate
... "We" (a lot of people, not everyone who posts here) don't believe that. Lots of people disagree with immigration control as a concept period.
The existence of that app is an abomination; the fact tax payer money is being allocated to it is tragicomic. Not spending it and just giving it as tax returns to the population would be so much better than kidnapping people over being born in the wrong place.
> ... "We" (a lot of people, not everyone who posts here) don't believe that. Lots of people disagree with immigration control as a concept period.
I mean sure but you have to acknowledge that is an extremely fringe belief that basically no one in the USA supports. The debate is on "how" it's being done not that we shouldn't have immigration control.
> that is an extremely fringe belief that basically no one in the USA supports
Clearly is it not a belief that no one in the USA supports, as seem in the discourse against ICE and immigration contrl.
> The debate is on "how" it's being done not that we shouldn't have immigration control.
Not necessarily, no. "The debate" is too vague to elaborate in favor or against what you're saying.
But yes, there are people against immigration control period, and period in favor of reforms to make immigration easier for workers, not harder. But propaganda will keep putting workers against each other, instead of companies lobbying against workers.
All of this misses the point of the moment, which is that the federal government is completely lawless and is incapable of responding to democratic or popular will. There is no debate happening. It does not matter which ordinary people "support" which position. Any political project (other than the current regime) in the USA in 2026 must contend with the fact that just establishing a democracy must be our first step. This is as true for Socialists as it is for non-regime-approved stripes of Fascist. It's the same for Chamber of Commerce Republicans and ex-hippie boomer liberals. Any talk of what we will do with a democracy once we have it is premature, because at the moment it simply does not matter what the opinions of the citizenry are.
Why is this being downvoted? The primary reason Trump was able to win is because Biden waited until it was far too late to address the surge of illegal immigration at the southern border. We don't have to wonder or argue about whether Americans support open borders, we already had something mildly in that direction (that still didn't remotely approach the idea of "no immigration control, period"), and in response Americans voted into office Donald Trump.
Because the use of ICE and its actions has become so extreme that it can’t be simply “moderated”. The Trump Admin is pushing it to extreme action. So unless that is removed the only possible response is a strong reaction. ICE gutted its own nuance.
I feel that the mob doesn't understand nuance and right now that mob is fighting for control for definitions of words and what is moral and ethical without giving you the freedom to choose for yourself and accepting it without malice. It's vicious and tiring and definitly not productive.
I'm neutral here, but I think the person you're replying to already covered your points when they wrote
> It’s possible to simultaneously believe that ICE has a clear and ethical mandate while also believing that they are going about fulfilling that mandate via bad methods that need to change.
That isn't written in good faith, though. It's a "both sides" argument that's clearly written from a particular side.
> ICE has a clear and ethical mandate
It doesn't, given the current administration. It's somewhat questionable in general, given that being in the country illegally isn't a felony (or criminal) in itself. We have local law enforcement that can handle cases of illegal actions, regardless of immigration status, and actual crimes can and do lead to deportation.
The vast majority of people being targeted, via mandate, are not criminals. The mandate of the current administration also includes protestors, regardless of citizenship status.
So, no, that person didn't cover the points, and your neutrality here is also written in a way that backs up that person, so that's also somewhat questionable.
The point here is that the people currently in charge hold 100% of the power, and they're misusing it. You don't have any power, nor do I, nor do the poor American citizens who may or may not be executed.
They, the people in power, do not require your good will or help. They're already maxed out. They are already 100% legitimate and in control. While it might be nuanced to argue ICE as an institution is one which should exist, it's also just doing more harm.
For someone that complains a lot about people lacking 'nuance', your post history is guilty of the exact same crime you complain about. So it's doubly clear that you're not actually arguing with good intention.
Then stop hiding behind "nuance" and be more explicit about how you support what's going on. Everyone who disagrees with the ongoing blatant fascist police state activity do not lack nuance, they lack your ability to suppress empathy.
I blame infiltration by bots slowly shifting the Overton window. Did this site not get "weird" in the last few years?
Not to think to highly of ourselves, I for one am a genuine idiot, but the crowed here likely has more influence than a lot of other online forums. Making it a worthwhile target, especially on the AI front. Plus the site is an easy to integrate into a bots with the minimal website and all.
It's because there is extremism both on the left and right: the left thinks that the right wants a power grab to stop left from coming back, and the right thinks that if they don't keep their power now, the left will take it and keep it using immigrants.
Both of them are right: unless there's a civil war or moderate president (which probably needs ranked choice voting) the most probable scenario is that one of the 2 extremes succeeds.
I also miss the old HN btw and wish that there wouldn't be any right/left politics, just the old classic libertarian property/privacy/opennes right debates, but it looks like those days are gone.
It's quite simple, some states want to allow voting without identity cards that prove that they are citizens of the country.
I don't know of any other country that would allow it, but I know other countries where people in power used other ,,tricks'' to increase the chance of being reelected
You changed what I wrote: it's not about non-citizens voting or not, it's about requiring identification by law at polling, which is required in every other democratic country.
As an example in in late 2024 in California Governor Newsom signed SB 1174, which explicitly prohibits local governments (like cities or counties) from passing their own laws to require voter ID.
I mean, it’s quite obviously not to anyone with even a tiny modicum of common sense, and I say this as a trans person (although not a furry).
Modern psychology has built up an incredible memeplex that is accepted unquestioningly despite being an enormous load of bullshit / giant house of cards.
All relativist extremists fall back on it and use it to justify their detachments from and disdain for the shared reality we all inhabit together. Sad to witness, and only growing stronger, it seems.
reply