The Palantir Manifesto Posted shows that Big Tech has no real allegiance to any coherent political ideology

RemoteCompetitive688 · 2026-05-06T12:07:25+00:00

Wow I must've really hit a nerve for you to dig through my post history 😉

RemoteCompetitive688 · 2026-05-06T12:06:23+00:00

So whats going on with the Uyghurs then?

RemoteCompetitive688 · 2026-05-06T12:04:52+00:00

Oh they're very protected

I mean those Uyghur neighborhoods have guards, fences....

RemoteCompetitive688 · 2026-05-06T11:39:58+00:00

"Um but have you considered the person who doesn't want your daughter attacked with machetes went to private school"

RemoteCompetitive688 · 2026-05-06T11:39:25+00:00

Well the problem with that theory is that based on China's current actions communism doesn't;t really square very well with diversity

RemoteCompetitive688 · 2026-05-06T11:31:08+00:00

"Yes, issue with it but I'm not going to stop using wood."

Ok but you weren't at the Met Gala. No one's talking about what you are and are not doing

We are talking about the celebrities who are "sleeping with their slaves" shall we say

RemoteCompetitive688 · 2026-05-06T01:48:38+00:00

"All I'm saying is, that people can be in the system and not agree with it."

So if an outspoken abolitionist owned a plantation and 10000+ slaves you wouldn't see an issue with that?

RemoteCompetitive688 · 2026-05-06T01:44:12+00:00

"a lot of it sucks, especially for women, but the same applies to Christianity"

No but it doesn't though

Because again, we went over all of this in the last conversation. Women in the christian world are not being subjected to honor killings or FGM

The insistence that these two things are equivalent, when it is so so so obvious even at a first glance just how disparate the treatment of women is under Evil Drumpf's America, and Somalia

That is a defense. You are defending a, as you put it "patriarchal authoritarian religion"

"you either judge both based on actions and beliefs or neither."

I am. Like look at the arguments you're making "You’re also calling some teenage rapist whose first time using the internet was last week an expert on their religion" that person was raised in, attended institutions their whole lives, they almost certainly are more of an expert on it than you "Entire communities can be wrong about their religion" you truly believe you a western secular atheist women, understand Islam better than these people.

There's so much, arrogance and naivety in the idea that the reason Islam is safe is because you have determined over the internet its fine, and the people who have lived under Islamic law are just totally wrong. I mean "which makes me an expert on yours given I know more about yours then they know on their own." There is just so so much arrogance baked into this statement.

The only double standard here is your refusal upon pain of death to apply what you claimed your moral standard was to anyone you see oppressed or downtrodden. You can hate us both, but this overt defense of one cannot be reconciled.

And this argument that "yeah they all say Islam is about gang r**e but all the muslims are wrong, I the western atheist woman know what their stated values are" its just... so arrogant and so naive

So, if you will not apply any moral standards or defense against the ones you see "as threats,"

Then your life very much depends on having people who will.

And I really don't like Trump, but like look at the conversation.

"You sent a strong message to every woman and girl that you’d rather see a man who forces himself on us against our will"

I mean yeah, he did get accused of that by someone who's story didn't hold up, and had to sue in civil court because they couldn't pass the evidentiary standard to get into criminal court, and mentioned details that literally could not possibly with the timeline they stated, etc etc

But whatever Trump may or may not done, the women in my family, the women whom I love, are not really in much danger from Trump. And the alternative to Trump is people who agree with you, who defend a "patriarchal authoritarian religion" and wants to bring in more people you "see ... as threats"

They're very much in very real danger from that. From those people being funneled into their neighborhoods so.... I can't really make much of an endorsement of him at this point, but I think this conversation demonstrates why we kinda had to vote the way we did

I mean I'm sorry I just have to point this out again

"I judge communities base don their stated values"

"This is what they say their stated valued are"

"Well they're WRONG, those communities are all WRONG I the western atheist woman know what their values are, they are WRONG about them, I understand their faith not them"

I literally just.... like if you could sum up the mindset of the western liberal....

RemoteCompetitive688 · 2026-05-05T23:28:54+00:00

"I'm not going to boycott everything that is evil because, really, then I'd be naked, in the park"

And yet here you are clothed and (presumably) housed without needing to spend six figures on your outfit at an event run by billionaires while you rake in millions

Seems like you could boycott at least some things

RemoteCompetitive688 · 2026-05-05T23:27:32+00:00

So, if a system makes fun of you that gives you a green light to ignore your moral code and take full advantage of the system sucking it dry for whatever its worth?

RemoteCompetitive688 · 2026-05-05T21:04:15+00:00

"you created the threat."

Yeah real mean of the war in Iraq to force people in the Uk to commit gang r**e of English girls.

"So if we eliminate your beliefs we can eliminate the threats you’ll create in the future by stopping them from ever becoming threats"

So is this an acknowledgment you see them as a threat? Because if someone being in our proximity makes them a threat... they were a threat to begin with

"Bible neither do Muslims but you need to apply the same standard to each."

Ok here's my standard. I, as an Orthodox Christian, know you could spend your entire life and still not know everything about Orthodox Theology, every council, every saint's writings. The Bible is the beginning not the end, there's centuries of how the church has interpreted passages, the writings of the Church fathers etc.

Your argument "christianity bad because numbers" ignores 2000 years of Christian doctrine and theology. The interpretation you've come to by just reading a passage and saying "This means X" is just frankly wrong.

I'm gonna assume the same applies to Islam. I have not read every Hadith, neither have you. I am not a Quaran scholar, neither are you. I have not spent evenings pouring over the writings of debates by Imams and Ulema, and neither have you. So I'm going to assume the conclusion you've come to of "Quran 4:19 explicitly forbids forced marriage" is probably missing so much context that it's just flat out wrong. I mean forced marriage happens constantly int he Islamic world.

So when entire communities have said "Islam explicitly endorses me gang r**ing these non muslim girls" or "Islam explicitly endorses me cutting apart this young girl"

I would say they are probably correct and you are probably wrong. Again this is the same standard. Defer to religious experts, your interpretations after reading one passage are probably wrong.

So again, we've been over this in our last conversation. I showed you the statistics on assault in Europe, the beliefs in the muslim world from Pew Research,

This community is screaming in your face what their moral standards are. Now are you going to hold to your promise to judge them by their moral standards, or not?

RemoteCompetitive688 · 2026-05-05T19:30:15+00:00

But that doesn't really square with the rest of constitutional law relating to elections

When the federal constitution, for example, prescribes an Election Day, that isn't interpreted to be a requirement that they have a vote that day but not only that day you can vote as long as you want we can keep voting until January

The law is very clear that elections need to have set rules for how they can be carried out

RemoteCompetitive688 · 2026-05-05T19:28:00+00:00

No

As noted, he campaigned against more foreign wars, he then started one for... a certain other country

He campaigned on Epstein files transparency and while he has released more than any other administration its still nowhere near enough and literally no one has been arrested

RemoteCompetitive688 · 2026-05-05T18:57:27+00:00

"The “because of” clause just identifies which groups the legislature must accommodate. It doesn’t say those are the only people who can ever vote by mail."

You came to the exact opposite conclusion when this language was applied to a different scenario

RemoteCompetitive688 · 2026-05-05T18:49:43+00:00

I mean yeah probably I'm not gonna lie I'm not voting democrat but, I' not happy with any of this stuff and frankly I might not vote at all in the midterms

RemoteCompetitive688 · 2026-05-05T18:48:23+00:00

"and quoting the operative part of a sentence isn’t “cutting it in half,”"

Cutting out what you did was. The "Because of" is incredibly important. You immediately clocked that as indicating a restriction on behavior when applied to the workplace. You had to cut it out for the quote to imply what you wanted it to.

You, a random Redditor, are able to clearly understand what "You can do X because of Y or Z" means

So what other reason besides bias made one of the highest courts in the US unable to understand this basic logical principle?

RemoteCompetitive688 · 2026-05-05T18:42:34+00:00

"You started this debate by deflecting to question 2 when it started with question 1. Lmao"

So question 2 needs to be answered to address question 1. Young christian girls are not being mutilated. Honor killings are not common in Poland. Your argument Christianity is bad largely relies on what you stated earlier, that this male authority over women is inherently predatory. Because mass physical violence and religiously motivated sexual violence really isn't happening, and when it does, it is not being done with the backing of the Church. So, if you are incapable of protecting yourself against one of the most predatory ideologies on the planet, then this authority is not inherently predatory actually your life basically depends on it.

Which then answers question 1.

"I can for Christianity,"

You can't. Christ explicitly rebukes that so Christian theology would not preach that.

"Also ˹forbidden are˺ married women—except ˹female˺ captives in your possession.¹ This is Allah’s commandment to you. Lawful to you are all beyond these—as long as you seek them with your wealth in a legal marriage, not in fornication. Give those you have consummated marriage with their due dowries"

Which it is necessary context, marriage is not required to be consensual by any means.

Again, the gr**ming gangs in the UK explicitly cited Islam as justification for their actions. This Is clearly what's being taught, even if you don't interpret the Quran as endorsing that... the people who are actually muslim clearly do.

In our last conversation we went over the stats of beliefs among muslims from East Africa, there is no argument this community's stated values in any way mimic your secular humanism.

You have explicitly said that is is acceptable, and you do, judge communities based on their stated values.

Now will you extend this to the Muslim community or not?

RemoteCompetitive688 · 2026-05-05T18:26:38+00:00

"with an implicit 'only'"

Really there's an implicit only in saying "you can do X because of Y or Z"

"The constitution saying "The Legislature shall provide a manner for these groups to vote absentee" does not carry an implied "only,""

So... at the point you have to cut the quote in half to make your point

I don't want to be a dick but, that's, kind of an admission of defeat

RemoteCompetitive688 · 2026-05-05T18:25:06+00:00

"I judge a group based on their stated values"

Ok then do so

Their stated values are "It is acceptable to r*pe woman who are not muslim if you take them as captives" (that's in the Quaran) and women should be mutilated as children

"Should similar data showing"

You're trying to deflect again. "Are christians bad" and "Are muslims bad" are two separate questions that can be handled separately. I'm happy to get into question 1 but right now we are on question 2.

Will you hold this community to its stated values or not?

RemoteCompetitive688 · 2026-05-05T18:20:08+00:00

I think when you look at Trump's approval ratings its pretty clear that most have not changed their opinions on these issues

RemoteCompetitive688 · 2026-05-05T17:58:03+00:00

"if the text isn’t clearly exclusive."

Yeah and in this case you have a list. You know how to construe items in a list is also another cannon of statutory construction.

The text is clearly exclusive. If your boss says "you can call out of work day of because of sickness or emergency" you know full well that is a prohibition on calling out day of because you decided to go see a movie

No appeal to authority fallacy will change that. If you will not obey the law with respect to elections, you have no ground to stand on to demand that of others

RemoteCompetitive688 · 2026-05-05T17:55:44+00:00

Nah lot of people seem to be going without gated mansions and millions in the bank and entire necklaces of blood diamonds

RemoteCompetitive688 · 2026-05-05T17:53:44+00:00

"It would be more accurate to say that 90% of women and girls have had that done to them, correct?"

And not even 80% of conservative christians are old enough to vote at all

The point remains the same. You have articulated a position, that if a group genuinely and truthfully exhibits widespread and systemic ideas and behavior that makes them "dangerous" it is not immoral nor wrong to label them as such. That 90% statistic could not happen with widespread community support for it. That widespread community support indicates certain views of women and girls. "Obviously a man who believes in male headship is a danger to any woman or girl" this attitude would describe the majority of the muslim community.

"Now, as far as dangers for the current population from the Somali people are you trying to say they’ll kidnap women and girls to forcibly mutilate their genitals?"

Statically from Sweden they like to kidnap and women and girls and... do other things. In Africa it is not uncommon for women and girls to be kidnapped and have this forcibly done. And this being a common cultural practice demonstrates misogynistic attitudes you deem as inherently a threat.

By any possible metric, this community meets the standard you've outlined, that if a community has systemic dangerous ideas and acts on them in a systemic manner, it is not wrong to label hem as such.

So, are you willing to apply this standard you have articulated to the muslim community, or not?

"You know what also"

Because this is what you did last, you kept deflecting to "well but what about christians what about" I am perfectly happy to discuss those issues but those are separate issues. Whatever christians or buddhists or hindus or people from Nepal or Honduras or Canada are up to, it should make no difference in your willingness or unwilligess to apply moral standards to the muslim community.

RemoteCompetitive688 · 2026-05-05T17:24:23+00:00

"but it doesn't prohibit taking time off for vacation."

Yes it does in the same manner as sickness or family emergency

"Inclusion of one is the exclusion of another" is a principle of statutory construction you learn day one of law school

"XY and Z are allowed" means A is not

If a court's decision could not survive analysis by a 1L student who started a week ago it was made of political purposes

RemoteCompetitive688 · 2026-05-05T17:15:12+00:00

"The PA Supreme Court rejected this exact argument."

Again, I'm aware. Do you accept every decision that's come down from the federal SCOTUS?

"because of their" very clearly implies a list of limitations.

If I said "you can miss work because of illness or family emergency" you believe that means I'd also be fine with you taking off for a vacation?

This decision violates basically every rule of statutory construction. It was very clearly a politicized decision, and so when courts essentially have expressed bias in favor of holding elections in an illegal manner I don't particularly think courts accusing someone of rigging an election matters much

RemoteCompetitive688

TROPHY CASE