3 ms·

Yeah, it seems like a lot of hot air to prop up a false equivalency.

by sjsdaiuasgdia 1y ago

tptacek 1y ago
I suggest not asking questions you don't want the answers to.
- sjsdaiuasgdia 1y ago
  I suggest not normalizing Trump's behaviors by creating false equivalencies.
  - tptacek 1y ago
    I'm interested in what's actually happening, not how it feeds the narrative about Trump. We saw the same thing yesterday with a dozen people on HN het up about how the Library of Congress Annotated Constitution had removed Habeas from its online copy of the Constitution (along with the Navy, letters of marque and reprisal, and the No Favored Ports clause) and people said the same thing there: stop claiming this was just a website fuckup and normalizing Trump!
    - sjsdaiuasgdia 1y ago
      Yes, what actually happened is important. In that Constitution story, a government website that has the Constitution's text was updated in a peculiar way. It could be interpreted as having been related to habeas corpus rights, as that was in the middle of the removal. It could also be interpreted as unintentional, as the deletion started in the middle of Article I Section 8. You'd think a targeted deletion wouldn't include so much unrelated text. Then again, you could say that it's just an incompetently done targeted deletion. It's debatable! Maybe it was intentional and maybe the order came from the top. Or maybe it was just a run of the mill tech SNAFU. In this situation, Trump, on Trump's social media platform, posted that he wants this CEO to resign. That's not debatable, it's verifiable fact. It happened. We know the man at the top is saying this. So yeah, stop with the false equivalencies and pay attention to what's actually happening.
      - tptacek 1y ago
        Just so we're clear that you apparently still think it's possible that an order came down from the top to delete Congress's authorization to form a Navy from the Library of Congress's online annotated Constitution, which isn't even in the first SERP for me on Google for "online constitution", but I guess you've gotta start somewhere.
        fzeroracer 1y ago
        [flagged]
        tptacek 1y ago
        It's exactly because I think this is the most dangerous President in American history that I find these kinds of claims so risible and worth knocking down.
        fzeroracer 1y ago
        And in doing so you are inadvertently providing cover for their actions. The constitution fuck up was likely a mistake, but at the same time you should be reacting like the way others did because it sends a clear, strong message that people are watching. And in this scenario your counterargument is so incredibly weak that you're not knocking down anyone's claims, you're just weakening your own position.
        tptacek 1y ago
        Ridiculous. The LOC thing doesn't even make sense as a movie plot. I'm not going to pretend it does just so I can keep the same polarity as you. It probably just doesn't make sense for us to keep talking about this.
        fzeroracer 1y ago
        You started the tangent with the Library of Congress thing and then demand people stop talking about it when they push back against your staked out position. I'm not sure what you expect other than it seems you've consistently ignored the point of people's posts here in favor of extrapolating something completely different.
- antonvs 1y ago
  People are interested in valid answers, not gaslighting.

Yeah, it seems like a lot of hot air to prop up a false equivalency.

tptacek 1y ago

I suggest not asking questions you don't want the answers to.

sjsdaiuasgdia 1y ago
I suggest not normalizing Trump's behaviors by creating false equivalencies.
- tptacek 1y ago
  I'm interested in what's actually happening, not how it feeds the narrative about Trump. We saw the same thing yesterday with a dozen people on HN het up about how the Library of Congress Annotated Constitution had removed Habeas from its online copy of the Constitution (along with the Navy, letters of marque and reprisal, and the No Favored Ports clause) and people said the same thing there: stop claiming this was just a website fuckup and normalizing Trump!
  - sjsdaiuasgdia 1y ago
    Yes, what actually happened is important. In that Constitution story, a government website that has the Constitution's text was updated in a peculiar way. It could be interpreted as having been related to habeas corpus rights, as that was in the middle of the removal. It could also be interpreted as unintentional, as the deletion started in the middle of Article I Section 8. You'd think a targeted deletion wouldn't include so much unrelated text. Then again, you could say that it's just an incompetently done targeted deletion. It's debatable! Maybe it was intentional and maybe the order came from the top. Or maybe it was just a run of the mill tech SNAFU. In this situation, Trump, on Trump's social media platform, posted that he wants this CEO to resign. That's not debatable, it's verifiable fact. It happened. We know the man at the top is saying this. So yeah, stop with the false equivalencies and pay attention to what's actually happening.
    - tptacek 1y ago
      Just so we're clear that you apparently still think it's possible that an order came down from the top to delete Congress's authorization to form a Navy from the Library of Congress's online annotated Constitution, which isn't even in the first SERP for me on Google for "online constitution", but I guess you've gotta start somewhere.
      - fzeroracer 1y ago
        [flagged]
        tptacek 1y ago
        It's exactly because I think this is the most dangerous President in American history that I find these kinds of claims so risible and worth knocking down.
        fzeroracer 1y ago
        And in doing so you are inadvertently providing cover for their actions. The constitution fuck up was likely a mistake, but at the same time you should be reacting like the way others did because it sends a clear, strong message that people are watching. And in this scenario your counterargument is so incredibly weak that you're not knocking down anyone's claims, you're just weakening your own position.
        tptacek 1y ago
        Ridiculous. The LOC thing doesn't even make sense as a movie plot. I'm not going to pretend it does just so I can keep the same polarity as you. It probably just doesn't make sense for us to keep talking about this.
        fzeroracer 1y ago
        You started the tangent with the Library of Congress thing and then demand people stop talking about it when they push back against your staked out position. I'm not sure what you expect other than it seems you've consistently ignored the point of people's posts here in favor of extrapolating something completely different.
antonvs 1y ago
People are interested in valid answers, not gaslighting.