The United States has no motive in the constitution or otherwise to let anyone in who behaves in a hostile manner to the country, it's people, or its government.
It's basic rationality. To argue otherwise is to argue that the US has no right to defend itself against external hostile attackers. Utter absurdity. What's the point of a country if it must allow anyone and everyone to enter?
Criticizing the government is not hostility. Its wanting to move towards a better country. This is EXACTLY what the 1st amendment is intended to protect. Whether the legal system decides it applies here is one question, but there are heaps of documents and communications between founding fathers and other figures making this clear. Many of those folks were immigrants themselves. So the idea that it wouldn't apply to legal immigrants is wildly out of line with the founding ethos of the country.
I think on average, outside perspectives are less well-informed than inside ones. It's a decent first-pass filter for quality, despite its inaccuracy.
I see this frequently as an engineer: my pet peeve is the "can't we just..." from someone who has no idea how the system works. Occasionally they're correct that we could make a trivial change to make something work... But most times, that "just" is hand-waving away days/weeks of effort. On the other hand, when "can't we just ..." is uttered by someone else on the same team, they're usually correct that the change is indeed trivial.
In this case, "outside" vs "inside" is actually a good proxy for how informed or accurate the opinion actually is.
Another good example is the stereotypical "expert in a field who thinks their expertise trivially transfers to unrelated fields".
To put it more simply: the distinction exists because outsiders are very frequently blind to the internal complexity of something (a system, an idea, etc), but are still willing to confidently assert their ideas anyway, leading to a frequent association of "outsider" with "poorly-formed opinions".
>
The United States has no motive in the constitution or otherwise to let anyone in who behaves in a hostile manner to the country, it's people, or its government.
Here we are back at the same argument that I just brought:
The definition of what "hostile" is is very arbitrary and can be defined to suit your political agenda.
This is exactly the reason I used to be almost exclusively an r/all browser back when reddit was worth using. I didn't want a curated feed tailored to my beliefs. I wanted to know what was going on. Then in ~2015 free speech was killed, and it seemed like every new feature added was one that increased censorship. Like post locking wasn't a thing the petty tyrants could do. Now they lock posts and sticky their midwit opinion at the top of the thread, and ban whole communities with racist biases. So I strived to be less of a redditor and quit completely when they killed Apollo & third party apps. No use for the site anymore.
It completely took over twitter for like a week and it was endearing. I made this myself (with grok's help) to celebrate: https://i.imgur.com/MG9mUxW.jpeg
If you're rejecting X out of hate for Musk, you're simply missing out on some really cool stuff happening.
The BBQ thing a huge international thing. I learned that the Japanese have a term that translates as "food terrorism": pictures of mouthwatering food that you only get to look at, not eat.
It was a bigger deal than even I'm conveying and honestly heartwarming.
“If you reject the Nazi bar out of hate for Nazis, you’re simply missing out on some really cool stuff happening.”
Do you hear how ridiculous that sounds? I’m not going to grab a beer at the Nazi bar just because there are occasionally cool people there who aren’t Nazis.
> I made this myself (with grok's help) to celebrate:
No, a slop generator generated it for you. You did not make it yourself, in any sense of the phrase.
You can tell someone is having a very emotional response when they respond with a strawman fallacy like "a couple of people in Japan tried ranch for the first time"
And that's when you stop engaging with the bad-faith actor:
>Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.
Please take your own advice to follow the site's rules and stop being so quick to falsely accuse people of fallacies. Engage with their actual words instead. Ironically, when you post a reply like this, it is you who's committing an ad hominem fallacy (but as I mentioned in another thread, I'd much rather address your arguments than call that out).
Yes! urgently! Why wouldn't they? That's where (I assume) the most opposing people are. That should be the most important outreach. If they can get one person (from what I assume) is their most distant idealogue, then who couldn't they convince?
Disclaimer: I've literally never once used truth social.
X/twitter is #1. reddit is #4, NYT is #11, Fox is #16, AP is #18, CNN is #21.
That's not a dying platform as much as you clearly wish that were true. The question is why are you so hellbent on convincing people something that is clearly not dying; is dying?
If X is dying, CNN, AP, Fox and NYT are stone cold corpses with reddit having its last gasp.
Threads surpassed X in DAU only for mobile, with a slow decline shown in X (see plot), with "dying" being a misleading word. For web, X has 18x more DAU than threads [1].
Total daily active users (all access methods) is overwhelmingly for X. I can't find the trend for web. Please post the link you found.
reply