snowflake_ptr
My experience has been with people who don't think that education is bad, but modern universities. I know many people who are smart, self-driven, industrious people who like learning things - who aren't interested in going to a public university. (they're more than happy to avail themselves of YouTube videos, Coursera courses, GitHub projects, work on things with friends, and so on)
Given the state of modern universities, with so many of them pushing the murderous ideology that is neo-Marxism, I can't blame them. A few more generations of this and we'll have our own Cultural Revolution, except with even more than the tens of millions of deaths that China did with theirs.
Why would you not want to debate that? If it's not true, or there's no evidence for it, then you have an actual argument for fighting people who believe in it. If it's true, then you have a new societal issue to discuss. Either way, you win.
You seem to be making a case against scientific inquiry and intellectual discussion.
> However, it's slightly alarming to hear that Altman defends the promulgation of such ideas because "people need a forum to debate ideas". Too many of these ideas seep into the discussions even here on Hacker News.
This is anti-intellectualism. What possible reason would there be to not debate ideas, of any kind? Bad ideas get analyzed, exposed, and proponents of such are forced to either change their position or be exposed as dogmatic.
This is disgusting - it implies that you should pick and choose your friends based on political affiliation, which not only is extremely (and intentionally) divisive, but also provides no room for guiding these individuals back to a more moderate political stance.
Without being friends (or at least interacting with) with those who have been ostracized by society, how, exactly, do you propose to try to get them to change their minds?
I'm also curious as to how they plan to enforce this constraint - Cabal appears to be completely decentralized, correct?
Objectively false - you didn't read the article again. It says "In Louisville, Kentucky, early Monday, a man was shot dead during a protest against the death of Breonna Taylor." right in the middle.
Other HN commenters who are acting in good faith: I invite you to click the article and C-f for that text. Yes, not all of the deaths were at the protests - my apologies for not reading carefully - but the claim that none of them are is factually incorrect.
> puppet
You've been continually resorting to ad-hominems and content-less fallacies, labels, and accusations. This is anti-intellectual.
I challenge you to provide any concrete evidence for this claim - in particular, that (1) the majority of their speech specifically consists of calls to violence (not just "violent" because that term has been twisted recently to mean a wide range of things that a certain political party disagrees with) (2) that the behavior of the tens of millions of people in this political party are at all correlated with the several hundred people who stormed the capitol and (3) that this was significantly worse than the Antifa and BLM riots that we had throughout the entirety of 2020.
This is false. You need to also look up the definition of "liar" - it exclusively refers to intentional deception. I did not intentionally deceive you - I just thought that they were hidden when they were not.
You're zero for two while acting in the most malicious way possible. Perhaps try taking a step back and not only looking up words before you use them, but stop assuming the worst about people who disagree with you.
You didn't read the other sources I linked, which contain sworn statements from two observers, as well as articles published by several news stations stating that observers (and news) were told to go home because they were done for the night. Resuming counting after observers and news have left is intentionally deceitful, and no rational person actually interested in a fair democratic system would claim otherwise.
> liar
Assuming ill intent. You aren't interested in holding a dicussion, just labelling. Typical anti-intellectualism coming from the political party that won the election.
> seditionist
Look up the definiton of that word before using it: "Overt conduct, such as speech and organization, that tends toward rebellion against the established order." Mind-blowingly false - I neither said nor implied any sort of rebellion. You're literally just using the worst labels you can think of, without any truth to them whatsoever, to avoid actual conversation.
The article you linked says that the ballots were processed "legally". I explicitly said that they were probably processed legally, but intentionally deceitfully.
The article says that a claim that was debunked was that the ballots were kept in "suitcases". I never claimed that they were - nor does my argument rest on that claim.
The article says that an Richard Barron claims that "No announcement was ever made to leave, for anyone to leave", which was not a sworn statement, and is directly contradicted by the sources I already linked: two sworn statements, and (at least) two articles by independent news stations, including 11Alive, which is one of the stations mentioned in the article you linked, and ABC News[1] - meaning that the Fulton County elections director straight-up lied - at which point, why should we trust anything else coming from the Fulton County elections team?
[1] https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/pipe-bursts-atlanta-arena-ca...