Jugglewhoa

The shills always conveniently forget to mention AIPAC.

Firefox has burned enough goodwill with me over the years. Them putting ads in the URL bar was the last straw and I switched to LibreWolf. Haven't looked back since, its basically a drop in replacement and works with all my previous container/add on workflows. May need to mess with fonts, but that's it.

So i wonder why he people of the city would act the same way as a group being invaded by a hostile force? Just like the Middle east its the people being invaded, they are the problem, not the invaders.

Yes because the US was famously the good guy in its forays into the middle east.

I love this example because it demonstrates like 5 different levels of ignorance about American politics and foreign relations, plus a good helping of propaganda.

This is a lost cause. The person you're replying to does nothing but make comments about how evil Republicans are. Hence why your comment will be lost on them and mentioning things like Clinton making the first attempt at internet censorship, or Obama supressing whistleblowers, tracking journalists, or him legalizing propaganda by intelligence agencies will be completely ignored.

No idea why they'd be on hackernews when they just sound like a run of the mill reddit bot.

Is the phrase "as a European" ever followed by something that isn't condescending?

Lol you know at times like this I have to remember the words of my great great grandmother: "Never argue with a swiftie, because they're fucking insane and too dumb to know it"

You keep attacking me thinking I'm a) a man and b) am the the "boogy" kind of man that fits the target of all this overeactive nonsense where having arguments about free speech somehow brings up rape. Hence the word "psychotic" not feeling out of place.

But just as well, while we're making unfounded assumptions: you should show this exchange to the only woman in your life. You could tweet it to her and show her how you so valiently defended her honor and solidified how important you are to her. Of course she would never see it and never care because that's how parasocial relationships work. No amount of hystrionics and virtue signaling will ever get her attention or her validation or the supplanted parental love that arguments like this suggest you desperately need.

Drawing a line from posting an AI generated image to being okay with rape is psychotic and certainly not the moral high ground you think it is. Nor is defending doxxing because of an unhealthy attachment with a celebrity who you feel insulted personally on their behalf.

Good to know doxxing is okay so long as it's against someone you don't like because they insulted a celebrity people have an unhealthy attachment to.

Hard to see how this isn't "rules for thee but not for me" just applied to an act that ruins people's lives. But hey, they typed in a sentence or two into a chat prompt and posted the resulting image, they must deserve it.

It's quite alarmist to suggest altered images the most popular woman in the world are classified as "revenge porn."

People in popular culture have been used by artists to their liking since the beginning of art. Don't compare this to someone posting naked pictures of an ex who has a completely private life and doesn't spend their entire being trying to be in front of every camera possible, usually in outfits that make it quite easy for the imagination to extrapolate into the pornographic.

Does everything need to be boiled down to a consent argument now? When an artist uses his imagination to make a political cartoon about a senator is that a violation of the senators consent? Is this any different than an artist depicting a person in a way they see fit?

Your comment would suggest any use of imagination to make a thing that doesn't get written approval by all parties even thought of is also a consent issue: if you fantasize about a crush you are violating them, and any type of parody whatsoever is too.

>Sit this one out. It's not a discussion for you.

While being incredibly condescending, you neglected to ask for consent to think about this person's ability to participate in the conversation, maybe this isn't a discussion for you either.

I've had very good luck interviewing but when I was looking for jobs in college I bombed not necessarily from the technical portion but from the soft skills.

Was interviewing at a super friendly seeming company that happened to also do a ton of government and security work. They asked me how I've dealt with someone on a team I didn't work well with and I mentioned someone from a senior project who wasn't pulling their weights. I basically said pulled up his slack and moved on but then "destroyed him during reviews." I didn't realize how much of a faux pas this was for this type of interview and was told I didn't get the job because of issues working with others.

Having conducted hundreds of interviews now I realize the error of my ways but I still maintain writing a bad review of someone is not that bad when compared to the other unhealthy ways to handle it.

In the end I lucked out because that would have put me in the world of high clearance government worked that I've grown to hate these days, they may have been able to Stockholm syndrome me into liking that kind of work.