I don't know why you have to be a dick in your response to me but I will return the favor in my response.
Well maybe you shouldn't assume someone doesn't know the history because you don't understand what they mean.
Some quick steps to understand subtext:
As it is obvious that a website can be used for anything, the description of wild is not actually describing the act.
If it is not describing the act, what is it describing? Clearly it is describing an ability. The ability of whom? As the "what" is already excluded as an option. The government's abilit to do that!
Obviously the government can do that though... so maybe the ability is not the ability to do it but the lack of consequences that one has to face when doing it.
consequences? From whom? The public.
So let's read it again, "it is wild that the public let the government publish obviously partisan propaganda over public channels like that".
But why would the author expect the public to show a reaction to this behaviour? Mhm maybe because he is aware of the history and he assumes that the general public has the vague understanding, due to history, that the government shouldn't be used to push partisan propaganda.
But please, be proud of how smart you are and how you know history while failing to understand the subtext of a simple sentence.
I am excited for this platform. It is the best way to show the last person that people don't want ai slop. Make it flop and every investor has to consider thia failure in their delusions.
I personally believe that in an AGI world, the rich will mistreat the former workers, that might work for a while but at some point, not only are the people fed up of the abuse but the "geniuses" who created their position of power are gone and the children or children's children will have the wealth and power. The rest of the world will realise that there is no merit to either of there position. And the blood of millions will soak the earth and if we are lucky, AGI survives and serves the collective well. If we aren't... oh well...
Well they are slightly vague terms, so please don't feel stupid. A shocking amount of people who think they know, don't know.
Left wing politics are generally about a rejection of hierarchy of people. Consequently, they tend to be interested in an international community because we are all the same and deserve the same. As freedom is something that everyone wants for themselves, the left tend to be in favor of an equally free community, e.g. freedom to love.
Right wing politica are generally about hierarchy of people. But not because the hierarchy is necessarily the point, but it tend to be in favor of maintaining the current state, Which just happens to be hierarchical. And usually everything get viewed from a hierarchical pov. E.g. nationalism is a hierarchical view of country and people, your country and its people above other country and their people.
Obviously you could point at the historical stance of us republicans that they want a small government and argue that a small government creates less of 2 class citizens, the law markers and the citizens. But the left would point out that a small government just enables the powerful people to exploit the weak people and create more 2 class citizens.
On the left: The strong hierarchy in the previous attempts of "communism" is the reason why some people will say that true communism was never tried. Other will argue that you need a little bit of authority to run a communustic state.
So the whole thing is a little more complex than "freedom" and "restrictions" and who supports what "restrictions" when.
You might be right but I think your chosen contrast is bad.
I could easily be a christian traditionalist, materialist and atheist. (I am not! But I could)
Whatever reason there is to oppose the claim that Harris is like peterson, whatever reason there is why Harris could never be a fascist, you aren't highlighting it with that contrast.
After hearing him speak about his belief, I wouldn't dare to make any claim about his religious beliefs beyond that he is very careful with saying absolutely nothing about it.
I don't care for Harris. So sure, he might is. And I know what it means.
I agree with your definition of christian traditionalist.
as you correctly described,
Being a christian traditionalist doesn't require the person to actually believe in a god.
Being a "atheist" is not in conflict with being a "theist"]
I think you'll find that they're polar opposites.
Is therefore a wrong conclusion.
Being an "atheist" is not in conflict with being someone who emphasises the importance of historical beliefs, practice's, and customs within Christianity, often adhering to teachings and rituals that predate modern changes in the faith.
Totally not directed to me but the reader.
Even to a reader, it is incredibly arrogant in tone.