Comment by sorcerer-mar
1 day ago
Palantir's role or non-role aside, the idea that we're even looking into whether people wrote about a student protest is absurd. The "combating antisemitism" cover story for all of this is incredibly cynical.
1 day ago
Palantir's role or non-role aside, the idea that we're even looking into whether people wrote about a student protest is absurd. The "combating antisemitism" cover story for all of this is incredibly cynical.
They were looking in my spam folder and giving me a hard time for what they ‘found’ there, absolutely bonkers
Was this in customs? Are you an American? Just curious.
Based on a previous post of his, I believe he was traveling here from China.
While that may help explain the unproductive, unconstitutional behavior he experienced (now normalized at our borders), it does not excuse it.
1 reply →
Cynical? No my friend, it's what authoritarian dictatorships such as Russia and the US have been doing for years, it's their default! [1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disinformation_in_the_Russian_...
All it takes is a quick observation that the literal swastika swinging Nazis are all on Trump’s side to see the truth.
[flagged]
It’s terrifying that anyone would not only accept forbidding travel to critics, but also thinks it’s normal. From de Toqueville and Dickens to de Beauvoir to Žižek, the US used to welcome and embrace criticism.
Have we really become as thin-skinned as North Korea?
You're free to have an opinion but not from the consequences of that opinion. Sound familiar?
1 reply →
Under a normal administration that actually would be unexpected, yes.
Well, I'm not from the US and am just observing it from quite a distance, but a good comeback to you would be that the normal administration you wish for was good at letting people in, yes.
55 replies →
I can't imagine how insecure and fragile a country must be to be afraid of checks notes opinions on substack.
He also partook in protests in Columbia University last year, so in that sense he's a little more than person writing on the internet.
35 replies →
Does anyone anywhere qualify in this if your understanding? What does it mean to live here and not have an effect on on US politics? Can we use this same rationale to deny folks with dual citizenship office if they seek it?
Freedom of speech is not a right bestowed on citizens but an encumbrance on the government. They cannot set policy based on protected speech.
Nor is there any definition of journalist that precludes having a point of view.
This person continues to be able to speak freely.
He also took part in the protests of Columbia University and by the looks of it wants to continue his political agenda in a foreign country. If this happened at scale then then foreigners could come (perhaps even be imported to the US, if this were a known-to-be-usable loophole) and steer the politics of a country in some other direction. It looks like the government is trying to avoid that and, if I were a citizen, it's what I would expect it to do.
4 replies →
Do you think journalists don't have sides and don't have effects on politics?
Riddle me this: why do you think journalism is protected in this country if it is definitionally politically inert?
This person is from another country and is rather an activist than a journalist, and he also can continue to express his views to this day.
Does it not make sense to you that a country (i.e, its citizens) don't actually want foreign activists to come and steer its politics? Sounds like a recipe for country take-over if done at scale.
4 replies →
The founders were proto-shitposters who ran a psyop on the public with the same technology used to print the daily paper. They knew what they were doing.
I agree with you, by the way. To a certain reading, this guy is creating a valuable resource in the attention economy: controversy. Give them a medal and a journalism grant.
It shows how quickly the far left abandons its charity cases once it finds greener pastures. Remember all the "end ___ hate" campaigns? Not when there's a new group to manipulate for votes.
I've responded now to several of your comments, but this is a common enough sign of miseducation among the terminally online that I'll respond again here:
The far left is within their First Amendment rights to create "all the 'end ___ hate' campaigns" they want. The far right is within their First Amendment rights to create all the "hate _____" campaigns they want.
Bystanders, commercial entities, private schools, your friends and family are allowed to be friendly with you or disown you per their own preference for which side you take. They're even allowed to call you mean names like "ignorant fascist incel" if they want. And you're allowed to call them mean names too!
The government is not allowed to utilize state power to suppress either side of the hate or not-hate debate. It is not allowed to utilize state power to compel the "end hate" crowd to be nice to, give jobs to, maintain platforms for, or educate the "hate" crowd, nor vice versa.
> this is a common enough sign of miseducation among the terminally online
"anyone who disagrees with you is obviously ill"
1 reply →