Uh, my argument was the reverse: That it is celebrity worship, and that celebrities have proven substantially more effective presidents. Reagan and Trump have easily been the most influential presidents since Truman, and only because Truman used the bomb.

My point was that the problem with celebrities in the White House has been their right-wing agendas, not their celebrity status. Their celebrity status enabled them to achieve their agendas in a way that the other, mediocre presidents couldn’t.

Why should we select yet another boring, ignoreable, mainstream, career politician instead?

Exactly. The role of the president is defined by the president. They have a cabinet for a reason; they don’t need to be experts in everything.

Presidents entering office with celebrity status have proven extraordinarily capable of pushing their agendas. The problem isn’t “celebrity”. The problem is that their agendas have sucked. Stewart’s agenda doesn’t suck.

Reagan and Trump have proven that actors and media personalities are extraordinarily good at pushing their agendas. The problem isn’t that they were/are celebrities. The problem is that their agendas suck.

Stewart has consistently demonstrated his agenda, on the air and as a lobbyist. His agenda doesn’t suck. His agenda is what this country has been looking for my entire lifetime.

Don’t cockblock my candidate.

I don’t think you understand my point: what part of your argument justifies ICE bringing harm to this woman? Do you support ICE actions? Do you support something these Nazis want to do?

I will allow you only those tools you give to the Nazis currently in charge. What are you going to let them use against us?

Do you truly believe that those calling for oppression

Whatever tool of oppression you are going to use is the exact same tool that will be used against you.

Paine’s message is “destroy those tools so nobody can use them”.

Popper’s message is “use these tools until you face no oppression”.

Popper was a fascist.

“Becoming her,” would be attacking her because of where she was born, or skin color, or religion, or sexuality. We should attack her intolerance.

Parent comment wasn’t attacking her intolerance. Parent comment was wishing her harm.

Furthermore: “Religion” should not be a protected class.

They deserve the ICE treatment.

As are you: You are wishing harm on her, not on her intolerance. This is the exact distinction I was trying to highlight.

Thomas Paine understood the problem.

He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.

Karl Popper’s philosophy calls for directly and actively suppressing the people you and I deem “intolerant”. The fundamental problem with his philosophy is that the Nazis are already in charge. Any method you use to suppress “the intolerant”, you give to the Nazis. It goes straight into their hands for them to use against the people they deem “intolerant”. Popper asks you to forge the tools of your own demise.

Thomas Paine’s philosophy breaks the cycle. He opposes fascism in general. When you instill Thomas Paine’s values in the general populace, you discredit yourself in their eyes as soon as you call for suppressing anyone.

Fascism that you happen to agree with is still fascism. Popper’s actual paradox is that he was a fascist.

Those who want to hurt others … deserve to be hurt themselves.

…

May she get [hurt].

…

Yes, I stripped out some very important words, but those words don’t actually change the underlying problem: we are each wishing harm befall other people.

She wants people hurt; we want people hurt. We’re all getting exactly what we say we want.

By all means, marvel at her stupidity and bigotry, but please stop short of becoming her.

Bigots getting what they deserve. Cry me a river.

Everyone is getting what this bigot deserves. Don’t gloat. Their misfortune is ours as well.

It’s not a survey. It’s an ad. It’s an ad for noai.duckduckgo.com. The fact that we’re thinking it and talking about it means it was a good ad. But it’s just an ad. The numbers are entirely meaningless.

Nothing about this ad says that they are scrapping AI. They aren’t. They still provide AI by default. This is a way for the end user to opt out of that default.

Their reply should be addressed to JD Vance, cc’d to every cabinet officer, and should consist of a copy of the 25th Amendment.

You can seem reasonable and rational when you distinguish between your opponent’s truths and your opponent’s lies. John McCain earned a lot of respect when he rejected an attack on Obama and pointed out that Obama was a decent person and family man who merely disagreed with McCain on some political issues.

If you don’t want your opponent to appear reasonable and rational, don’t give them opportunity. Lie about everything, all the time. Lie when the truth sounds better. Lie so much that they never have the opportunity to do anything except call you a liar. Lie so much that your opponent loses credibility every time they rebut one of your lies.

Related: Gish Gallop

The screws don’t even reach through the drywall?

“Come on, guys, you’re gonna pop the bubble.”

Well, we’re pissing off the right people.

Everyone forgets the next line:

But if you try sometime, you’ll find you get what you need.

It’s a little clunky, but KryptEY is an on screen keyboard that can encode/decode messages. The encoded messages can be transmitted over any service.

OP is asking how to prevent abusers from seeing OPs content.

“Blocking” the abuser prevents OP from seeing the abuser’s content. “Blocking” does not prevent the abuser from seeing and interacting with OP’s content.

“Blocking” does not achieve OP’s objective.

That would be terrible for their recruiting metrics.