tjs8rj

I know you receive citizenship with birth on US soil, but that wasn’t implemented because the state has some obligation to someone simply due to the dirt above which they were born.

The reason that law was implemented was to recognize the states duty to the offspring of the people of the nation. Do you really think the framers of the 14th amendment would agree with loopholes like “anchor babies”? Of course not, because while they were born here, the intent behind the 14th was to grant immediate citizenship to the offspring of the people who built the country. This is what I mean. Anchor babies were an unforeseen flaw.

It’s not arbitrary. You think it’s arbitrary because you have the impression that the US is just some economic zone with a basket of benefits. ITS NOT. We’re a nation of people. The nation and its people have no obligation to you or any other non member of the people. YOU ARE NOT ENTITLED TO IT. Why do you think you deserve citizenship? You think so because it would benefit you, not thinking for a second whether you’d benefit the nation or it’s people.

Given that you view the country this way, you don’t deserve it either. We’re not a basket of benefits to be plundered by the whole world.

The duty of the nation is to its people and them alone. Immigrants come only if they are a benefit to the people and the people want them. The state acts on behalf of the people in this mission.

The immigration system has a duty to the citizens, not to the immigrants - except as far as it preserves human rights and serves the citizens.

You’re not entitled to citizenship. We didn’t get it by birth alone, we got it because our lineage dedicated their life to building this country into what it is and passed it on to their children.

That you have this entitlement towards US citizenship means you don’t deserve it at all.

Did you read the article? There are no laws attacking accepted science, there are laws pushing back on ideological capture.

That the country is “systemically racist” and that “men can be women” are not scientific facts. These are increasingly less prominent interpretations of various observed phenomena, and especially for a lot of the gender stuff: just preferred philosophy or cultural mindset. Because these areas both have political policy recommendations, they are just politics by definition.

In short, this is a shortage of politically motivated academics who bias their research and teaching towards political ends rather than the truth. Purging the university of these kinds is a major win.

In that case we should thank our stars it’s not a public company. Musk taking over twitter has done more to expose corruption and hypocrisy than almost anything else. The Twitter Leaks, balancing the algorithms, and even biasing them against the same people they used to be biased for (all while the same people that defended censorship now whine about it) pulled the masks off many in power.

Sure he might just drive it all into the ground, but the interim piloting has created so much good (whether some acknowledge it or not).

That's exactly it. You're not interested in America's interests, and in this case that means you're putting the designs of an adversary first. Consequently when it comes to matters of American interests and national security, your desired outcome here aligns exactly with a terrible man like Putin.

And to be clear, even from a globalist perspective, undermining the US to the benefit of China doesn't seem like a great ends for the US.

I'm convinced half the comments are just Chinese bots. It's all the same talking points about how "we totally can't ban these tool developed by our adversary because they would just be so hypocritical!".

Regardless of how you spin it, you're putting foreign corporate interests above US national interests, and so you deserve as much stock in your opinion as what Putin thinks America should do.

A foreign adversary injected a toxic application into our country, but because "people really like it" the government has no right to stop it? This is 21st century opium wars. Leaving the addicts to decide policies based on "let people be addicted" isn't a valid point.

Why did the "coup" fail? We've all seen the videos, police never really showed up in force, army never showed up, national guard never showed up. It ended because...people went home. If it were actually an attempted coup, why didn't they dig in? Why didn't a single politician back them?

You just seem convinced of a coup and nothing will shake you. What did they do that was wholly different from a regular riot? Even on the inside they're just taking photos and walking around.

The difference is I'm of the somehow-rare (on Twitter at least) opinion that ALL racism is a problem.

A lot more overt racism? You could always search "white people" and find plenty of dark and nasty things, including from very public people who get plenty of praise for it. Overt and celebrated racism has always had a home on Twitter, and if anything there seems to be somewhat less of it.

How is the coup narrative so pervasive? There was no institutional support, nobody got killed except for a rioter, they all cleared out promptly by curfew. By all indications it was a riot and a pretty mild one at that given the previous summer. How is that a coup?

We know what rioters are capable of when they actually want to overthrow govt: look at the autonomous zones and capitals that got ransacked in the upper north west (Seattle, Portland, etc). Those were over weeks where cops weren't allowed into entire city blogs, they declared themselves autonomous, and people were killed to that ends. They also received tons of institutional support from media, politicians, and wealthy people.

I don't get how any honest assessment takes the actions by the partisans in DC as a coup. At LEAST the other riots were coups too, or more truly, only the leftist partisan riots can be considered attempted local coups given their stated goals and actions.

If you remember how the narrative evolved in real-time: in the preceding months the talking point was "only leftists riot", then on the capital riot and following days, the dominant narrative was "SEE! right wing people ALSO riot". Only days after that did the language start to coalesce around "actually this was was a COUP", and even then it was seen as hyperbolic even on reddit. Now it's been repeated so many times it's just taken as fact.

Maybe you're overreacting a little bit? This is an automated poop emoji email response from a social media site and you've quickly translated that into "poop emoji = BS = fake news = a tacit endorsement of raw power of the strong over the weak = a public square has been destroyed = we are all in serious trouble".

This isn't DEFCON 2, this isn't our generation's Cuban Missile Crisis, this is a dumb thing that affects nobody and will be forgotten 24hrs from now.

For a while, declining fertility rates were de facto considered a good sign in the demographic transition model. Usually experts would say "declining fertility is because people are chasing more fulfilling things! Our societies are so good that there is so much more to enjoy than children!". This always felt wrong. Why would the happiest society be the one that turns off it's natural processes? Is there any instance in nature where a declining birth rate is a sign of good things for a species?

Glad the tide is finally turning to recognize the obvious truth: declining birth rates is a sign of distress in a society.

It's not exactly a both-sides thing. I don't have a strong opinion on the topic, but the side with the gun is the AI art generator side (not the artists).

The artists are saying "stop" and the AI side is saying "you can't make me". One side would love a pause to have a productive discussion, and the other side doesn't want a pause at all.

It's in US airspace with no apology or intention by the Chinese to remove it. Shooting it down is totally reasonable

They claimed to not moderate on the basis of political opinion but recent leaks reveal that's false.

This was EXACTLY the same case against Twitter though: they are obviously politically bent, but they market themselves as the public square. They pitch over and over that they absolutely don't moderate on the basis of politics. If they simply admitted they're politically-bent, that'd be fine, but they don't. That's what Elon is doing now, that's what Twitter did then.

To be clear I'm not a fan of what Elon is doing either (because he's doing the exact same thing Twitter did: posture as unbiased while obviously being biased), but I also recognize the only thing that's changed here is the direction of the bend.

Skipping all the baggage that's formed around the TikTok ban/no-ban, do you think nothing should be done about a powerful foreign country with ill-will having direct access to an incredible amount of US citizen data? Even if you don't think a ban is reasonable, the current state of affairs in this regard can't continue, or do you think otherwise?

Based on what? I’m close with a few higher levels at different strategy consulting firms, and most of their work at these firms we’ve talked about has been serious: how to respond to a firm you’ve heard of receiving backlash over a botched vaccine, balancing a pivot in their product line with their existing customer base, etc

Problems that will screw you royally (speaking of the firm here) if you get them wrong, so you bring in outside perspective that can pattern match your problem to real world examples (and get in the room with others who’ve navigated a similar problem) to make sure you take the best trajectory.

At worst, consulting is exactly what you say. Large firms, being so large, cover the gamut in their services (and so surely get some exposure to these more flippant projects). The bread and butter of consulting though is solving real problems.

From here, this perspective you have about consulting looks a lot like the mindset some people have around VC: “they just come in to pump companies and dump them in the public market / make an exit before the music stops and everyone realizes it’s bullshit”. Of course there’s some of that in VC, but by and large it’s legitimate and serious work, focused on legitimate outcomes, and done all around by genuine people looking to do a good job - all while creating real value for everyone involved.

Do it on the side, focus on finding a burning problem/serious pull from the market. Once you have it, raise money (at least enough that you can pay yourself comfortably), then go full time. Starting a company in your 30s has many benefits, primarily that you’re much more experienced and skilled than your 20s, but you still have the energy to push hard. Good luck

This is often touted as a good thing, but the more I think of it it just seems like it isn’t “having such a good life in a developed economy” that makes people have fewer kids.

It seems more and more clear that increasingly competitive economic conditions are the reason people in the developed world have fewer kids.

Everyone said the reverse of this when the polling failed in 2016 - that Republicans were afraid to share their political affiliation for fear of being cancelled etc

OP said “if a company would never offer a dividend, an investor would never buy it”

They'll inevitably come back. Right now you can advertise to more people, more engaged people, and at a discount given these conditions. Why would an advertiser not immediately return as soon as the vitriol dies down?

Why would they never buy it? Art, crypto, NFTs, etc never pay dividends and have markets for them

I said explicitly in my comment that if he’s just doing it for his own enjoyment that’s completely fine, I agree that he does t have to grind endlessly

What does scale is his skills. If he’s able to pull off what he’s already done, get investors and do it on a larger scale.

Why is he driving a hotel shuttle? Unless he’s just retired and looking for something engaging to do, that’s a horrible waste of his clear talent for building wealth

I’m sorry, this post just sounds like the scribblings of an insane man by the end of it. George is obviously very intelligent and I like his other posts, but I think like many successful people he’s become lifted into a bubble of rarefied air where the stuff he’s saying becomes so abstract and meaningless that I’m convinced he’s just high.

Bluntly, that’s just the cost of freedom. How many people get punched in the face for saying something unsavory, yet there is no national conversation about curtailing speech?

Why didn’t we have that conversation after the Dallas police shooting shortly after Obama talking about police violence? Or the mass riots spurred on by democrat politicians? Or the Jan 6th riots following trumps speech (actually, he got deplatformed everywhere following that). Or the congressional baseball shooting following Bernie Sander’s calling Republicans hateful for not passing healthcare bills?

Obviously this attack is unacceptable, but if these other instances didn’t move people to curtail speech, the fact that this relatively minor event does tells me this is more about pushing an agenda and putting politicians ahead of freedoms.

As far as I’m concerned in the conversation about the limits of free speech, Pelosi is nobody special. Would we curtail speech because some random person in Ohio got assaulted for saying mean words? Of course not, so why would we do it for some powerful politician, who’s used speech in just as inciting ways as well no less?

To put it plainly: should we curtail freedoms because somebody attacked Pelosi? The answer to that is the same as the answer to “should we curtail freedoms because speech makes people mad sometimes”. The way we’ve answered that as a society in all other instances is “no”, so the answer remains the same.