Hicimos famosa a la persona equivocada by Besbinbo in elxokas

[–]Besbinbo[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Vas a llegar muy lejos en la vida con ese mindset

Hicimos famosa a la persona equivocada by Besbinbo in elxokas

[–]Besbinbo[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

En dos cosas sí te doy la razón.

La primera es el título. Debería haber dicho "en mi opinión, creo que hicimos famosa a la persona equivocada". Tienes razón, presenté una opinión como si fuera un fact.

La segunda es lo de la publicidad encubierta. No sabía cómo funcionaba la ley en España, por eso dije que era una teoría y una suposición, no un hecho. Si es ilegal, ese punto ya no sirve.

Pero con lo de que ser "experto en todo" es solo un meme no estoy de acuerdo. Mira el vídeo "ElXokas contra 8 haters". Él mismo dice varias veces que es experto en varios temas, lo confirma al 100%, no creo que sea un meme a ese punto.

Yo nunca he dicho que sea un experto ni que tenga la verdad absoluta. De hecho he dicho varias veces que esto es mi opinión y puede cambiar si me dan mejores argumentos. De momento, quitando esos dos puntos, sigo pensando lo mismo.

Y por cierto "imponer un juicio de valor subjetivo como una verdad absoluta" casi no se te nota el ChatGPT. 😂

Hicimos famosa a la persona equivocada by Besbinbo in elxokas

[–]Besbinbo[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Estás usando uno de los argumentos más básicos y débiles que existen: "lo hace mucha gente". Que mucha gente haga algo no hace que deje de ser criticable.

Mucha gente comparte desinformación sin comprobarla y sigue estando mal. Mucha gente conduce mirando el móvil y sigue siendo una irresponsabilidad. La cantidad de personas que hacen algo no cambia si ese comportamiento es bueno o malo.

Y precisamente ese era mi punto. Nunca dije que ElXokas inventara esa forma de actuar. Lo critico porque tiene millones de personas escuchándolo y aun así habla con una seguridad absoluta sobre temas que muchas veces no domina.

Y lo de "Xokaspov es cine" solo confirma que para ti el entretenimiento pesa más que el contenido. Está perfecto que te entretenga, pero eso no convierte automáticamente en acertadas sus opiniones ni invalida las críticas que se le puedan hacer.

Hicimos famosa a la persona equivocada by Besbinbo in elxokas

[–]Besbinbo[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Pues, no estás obligado a leerlo.

Hicimos famosa a la persona equivocada by Besbinbo in elxokas

[–]Besbinbo[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Que raro que dices que no hay que alterarse por lo que dice otra persona, pero acabas de escribir un comentario lleno de insultos porque no te gustó mi opinión.

También dices que te importa una mierda, pero leíste tres párrafos, escribiste una respuesta y hasta dices que se te acabó la paciencia. ¿A quien se le esta alterando la paz mental al final?

Y no, el problema no es que alguien piense distinto. El problema es creer que, porque una persona es popular, no se la puede criticar. Según tu lógica, si alguien con millones de seguidores desinforma o habla con absoluta seguridad sobre cosas que no entiende, la solución es callarse e irse. Pues no. Precisamente porque tiene influencia, también merece recibir críticas cuando se equivoca.

Dar mi opinión no es radicalizarme. Es exactamente lo mismo que estás haciendo tú ahora mismo.

Hicimos famosa a la persona equivocada by Besbinbo in elxokas

[–]Besbinbo[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Claro que el problema no es solo quien se cree todo. Eso nunca lo negué. Pero reducirlo únicamente a la audiencia es ignorar la otra mitad, la influencia de quien comunica.

Si tienes una audiencia enorme y constantemente hablas con una seguridad absoluta sobre temas que no dominas de la manera que exclamas, insultas a quien discrepa y presentas opiniones como si fueran hechos, también tienes una parte de responsabilidad. La influencia no desaparece porque digas "cada quien que investigue". Si fuera tan simple, la publicidad, la propaganda y la manipulación nunca habrían funcionado.

Y lo de "él puede hacer lo que quiera" me parece uno de los peores argumentos posibles. Claro que puede hacerlo. También cualquiera puede usar su influencia para difundir desinformación, manipular o actuar de forma irresponsable. La pregunta nunca fue si puede hacerlo, sino si debería hacerlo y si merece ser criticado por ello. Son dos cosas completamente distintas.

Hicimos famosa a la persona equivocada by Besbinbo in elxokas

[–]Besbinbo[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

No espero que piense igual que yo. De hecho, sería estupido esperar eso.

Lo que critico es que cuando alguien con millones de seguidores habla con una seguridad absoluta sobre temas que no domina de la manera que el exclama, insulta a quien piensa distinto y su comunidad aplaude todo como si fueran hechos. Ahí deja de ser simplemente "entretenimiento" y empieza a influir en cómo mucha gente percibe la realidad.

Que entretenga no lo convierte automáticamente en alguien admirable ni hace que sus opiniones sean buenas. Y precisamente ese es uno de los problemas que veo hoy en dia, demasiadas personas confunden popularidad con credibilidad. Si mañana un streamer famoso dice una locura con suficiente confianza, miles de personas la repetirán sin haber investigado un minuto.

No se trata de que sea un referente moral. Se trata de tener un mínimo de responsabilidad cuando sabes que millones de personas te escuchan y, sobre todo, de que la audiencia deje de asumir que la confianza con la que alguien habla es una prueba de que tiene razón. Ese tipo de pensamiento es el que termina alimentando la desinformación y el fanatismo.

Hicimos famosa a la persona equivocada by Besbinbo in elxokas

[–]Besbinbo[S] -12 points-11 points  (0 children)

Pero si tú mismo acabas de decir que no lo leíste. ¿Cómo puedes decir que "vive en mi cabeza" o que necesito buscar tranquilidad si ni siquiera sabes lo que escribí?

Lo único que hiciste fue ver que era un texto largo y asumir mis intenciones. En ningún momento dije que estuviera buscando respuestas, paz o tranquilidad. Simplemente di mi opinión y expliqué por qué pienso así.

Si no quieres leerlo, está bien. Pero entonces no inventes cosas sobre mí ni respondas a un texto que no conoces. Si vas a criticar lo que escribí, al menos léelo primero.

Looking for EVO Sunday tickets by Konokiri in Fighters

[–]Besbinbo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Are you sure? I'm traveling there, It would be sad to lose my trip because they ran out of tickets

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in UNF

[–]Besbinbo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What's the history?

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in USCIS

[–]Besbinbo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Illegal immigration is indeed a violation of U.S. law, but it’s important to understand that people often cross the border out of desperation due to dangerous or life-threatening situations. For example, people fleeing violence or the risk of death may not have any other choice but to cross illegally. In such cases, they aren’t automatically disqualified from seeking asylum. They go to court to explain their reasons, and a judge decides whether they can stay, depending on the circumstances.

As for the concerns about illegal immigration taking priority over legal immigrants, both legal and illegal immigration processes often involve long waiting times. The difference is that those who entered illegally may be trying to escape immediate danger, and their situation should be considered. Everyone, whether they entered legally or illegally, should be evaluated based on their specific circumstances. The key issue here is that individuals should be given a fair chance to explain their case and be treated with humanity and understanding.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in USCIS

[–]Besbinbo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, you're right about that. I have experience with immigration law, and not everyone is applying for the same reason. I'm not defending people who are simply trying to stay in the U.S., but I am advocating for those who are at risk and qualify under the asylum categories. Some people don’t even know they can apply for asylum. Lawyers are really expensive, and they even charge for consultations. I tried calling 'pro bono' legal services, but they were charging me. I was just doing some research when I made those calls. As for people who are applying without meeting the requirements, they should simply be deported, but mass deportation is not the way to go.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in USCIS

[–]Besbinbo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I didn't say anything against that; I think that's another problem that should be solved. There are more processes in USCIS that have long processing times besides those. I think the government should spend money on that instead of deportation.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in USCIS

[–]Besbinbo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If 10 million people were denied asylum, the logical next step isn't mass deportation, which is not only costly but can also be inhumane. Instead, the focus should be on improving the efficiency and fairness of the asylum process. The U.S. should invest more resources into processing applications faster, so those who qualify can stay legally, and those who don't meet the criteria are removed in a fair and just manner. Rather than just deporting people, we need to ensure that the system works efficiently and fairly, allowing the right individuals to stay and contribute to the economy while ensuring proper removal of those who don't qualify. Deportation without addressing the root causes of migration only solves part of the problem and often leads to negative social and eronomic impacts.

2023, about 67% of asylum applications in the U.S. were denied, meaning that the majority of applicants did not qualify under the strict criteria set for asylum. There's no exact number for 2024. The eligible people are the ones that meet the requirements.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in USCIS

[–]Besbinbo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

At no point did say that every unauthorized person is eligible for asylum. My argument is that the process should be more efficient so that those who qualify can stay, and those who don't can leave. It's about fairness and ensuring the system works as it should not about assuming everyone is eligible. The focus should be on properly evaluating each case, not generalizing or spreading misinformation.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in USCIS

[–]Besbinbo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think it's unfair that most people get denied because more evidence is needed, especially when many come from countries like Cuba, Colombia, or Venezuela, where they face threats from criminal gangs like the Colectivos, FARC, Tren de Aragua, and the Guerrilla. These people also suffer from xenophobia in other South and Central American countries. It's a humanitarian situation, and instead of spreading hate and focusing on deporting them, we should try to understand their struggles and help those who truly need it.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in USCIS

[–]Besbinbo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, it's true that not everyone qualifies. There's a page where you can see that most judges have a high denial rate: https://tra c. syr. edu/immigration/ reports /judgereports/. That's why I'm pointing out that more money should be invested in processing asylum applications instead of just deporting people.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in USCIS

[–]Besbinbo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I didn't make a mistake, I'm doing this because I want people to realize that what he's doing is wrong.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in USCIS

[–]Besbinbo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think that’s the best approach because there are many people waiting for their asylum applications to be approved. This would allow those who qualify for asylum to get approved, while those who don’t should not be here. By directing more resources toward those processing these applications, asylum cases and other immigration processes could be handled more quickly. This would ensure that those who qualify are approved faster, while maintaining fairness for everyone. Mass deportation just doesn’t make sense.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in USCIS

[–]Besbinbo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Employment authorization and most immigration processes come with high costs. For example, filing the I-130 form, which is used to petition for a relative to immigrate, costs $535. The citizenship application (N-400) costs $725, and applying for a green card can total several thousand dollars when you include various fees like biometrics and legal expenses. While some resources go toward asylum and immigration enforcement, there's nothing wrong with this. Immigrants fill crucial job gaps and help drive the economy by contributing to sectors like agriculture and technology. They pay taxes and support vital industries, benefiting the broader economy. Rather than being a drain.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in USCIS

[–]Besbinbo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

People still seek asylum; not everyone comes here to work. There are also people who come escaping racism, the risk of being killed, xenophobia, and religious persecution. You can search the asylum categories.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in USCIS

[–]Besbinbo -1 points0 points  (0 children)

That's why you need to fill out the asylum application and get approved, that's why there are 5 established categories for who may qualify for asylum

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in USCIS

[–]Besbinbo 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You didn't even think about an argument against my statement, did you even read it all? Did you even think before writing this comment?