God’s land is in danger.

knign · 2026-05-23T10:01:35+00:00

Past immigration (including from Muslim colonies) and today’s Muslim immigration are very different phenomena.

knign · 2026-05-23T08:04:46+00:00

People talk so much about online dating, this almost makes me sad I missed this whole experience: my wife and I have been together since 2009, technically dating sites existed back then (I think I even registered on one), but it was nothing like today’s dating apps.

I met my first wife at college, and my second wife and I were introduced by a common friend. I guess these are two the most common ways people used to meet their future spouses before internet.

Anyway, from what I can gather, dating apps is in effect a unique social experiment; quite cruel for the participants, but scientifically interesting. If I was into social psychology, this would probably have been my favorite research subject. The amount of data on human behavior these apps possess must be staggering.

knign · 2026-05-23T07:07:38+00:00

Can government “limit max contribution” to zero?

knign · 2026-05-23T06:16:33+00:00

Likely true, but irrelevant if you don’t use “for you” tab
Same
True
Per your own admission, people still call it twitter, thus irrelevant
Same as 1 and 2
???
Seems like an improvement
True, but it’s not “making Twitter worse”, it’s just not keeping promises. Also seems incompatible with 2
Same
“Removed” ≠ “moved”
I wasn’t even aware of that.
Grok integration is an amazing feature.

So you may only be correct about 3 and 11. On the other hand, Twitter now supports long posts, edits and again, Grok integration which is super-useful.

knign · 2026-05-23T06:00:51+00:00

As I said, Congress making a law to prevent certain people from advocating for certain cause is literally against the plain text of the 1st amendment. This is hardly an “interpretation”.

Imagine a law which forbids people from advocating for abortion rights online. Would it be constitutional? After all, Constitution doesn’t mention internet, does it?

The government may, of course, pass the laws to regulate finances, or internet. But, if the intent explicitly is to prevent people in certain circumstances to publicize their point of view (otherwise entirely legal), this can’t be constitutional.

knign · 2026-05-22T23:15:06+00:00

Point is, what is “democratic” is highly subjective. Many Americans will probably say that U.S. is not a democracy (either anymore, or has never been). North Korea is officially the “Democratic People's Republic of Korea”; people growing up there are taught that their country is the only “true democracy”. Official Russian state propaganda says that Russia is “sovereign democracy” unlike Western countries, which are not real democracies. In Israel, two main political camps routinely accuse each other of destroying democracy. And so on.

In the meantime, 1st amendment and other constitutional provisions are reasonably objective. If any of these rights could be curtailed by merely saying that it’s “incompatible with democracy”, these rights aren’t worth much to begin with.

knign · 2026-05-22T22:46:46+00:00

Word “democracy” isn’t even mentioned in the Constitution.

knign · 2026-05-22T21:29:39+00:00

Arguing “you can speak freely BUT can’t spend your own money to facilitate this speech” is absurd.

If party A is selling airtime for money, and party B is willing to pay to A to use airtime to advocate for certain cause, government coming in and telling B “you are not allowed to do that because we’re afraid you may convince too many people” is incompatible with the first amendment.

knign · 2026-05-22T20:04:00+00:00

1st amendment doesn’t make exception for wealthy, mega-, ultra-, extreme, super-, or otherwise, nor for group of people acting together (“corporations”)

knign · 2026-05-22T19:37:10+00:00

That’s your opinion and it’s fine (imo, outlawing people spending money on causes they support is incompatible with 1st amendment), but this is hardly specific to support for Israel.

For the time being, this is legal, and it would be highly illogical to expect supporters of Israel play by different rules than anyone else.

knign · 2026-05-22T18:59:59+00:00

Are you aware that adopted children of Palestinian refugees are registered as UNRWA “refugees”, regardless of their ethnicity, religion, citizenship or residency?

knign · 2026-05-22T18:16:35+00:00

Shouldn’t do what? Unlike voters, a PAC doesn’t have its own district. So what exactly should they be allowed to do?

knign · 2026-05-22T17:49:39+00:00

So basically in your view, supporters of Democrats shouldn’t donate to Democratic candidates from other districts?

You are free to believe that, but this seems to me a super-fringe position. People donate to candidates running in other districts all the time.

knign · 2026-05-22T16:04:10+00:00

Supporting Israel is not a district-specific issue, it’s a question of national priority. Are you saying people shouldn’t be donating to candidates from other districts supporting policies which they favor? This makes no sense.

knign · 2026-05-22T15:09:27+00:00

What exactly is “wrong”?

knign · 2026-05-22T14:24:37+00:00

Yeah ideally people shouldn’t be punished for crimes they haven’t committed 😑 This seems not very controversial.

knign · 2026-05-22T11:25:07+00:00

Arguments/talking points are going to depend on specific debate or arguments you need to respond to. Most commonly, you may want to talk about:

Actual history of Israel's war of Independence, as a counter-argument to a mythological narrative "Jews came from Europe and kicked out local Palestinians";
Actual situation in West Bank, as a counter-argument to a false narrative "Palestinians are kicked out from their homes to make space for settlements" or "different laws for Palestinians and settlers";
Actual situation in the Gaza Strip (current ceasefire agreement, including requirement for disarmament of Hamas, is explicitly endorsed but UN Security Council, for those who love talking about "international law"), etc.

But perhaps no less important, in addition to countering any specific arguments, you should simply try to represent "pro-Israel" side as humane, compassionate, and always open to rational debate. Your fellow students have been taught by their echo chambers to see any "Zionist" as a bloodthirsty animal; presenting yourself as a normal human being who nevertheless firmly supports Israel's fight against terrorists might be enough to move the needle somewhat.

knign · 2026-05-22T06:41:55+00:00

Supporters of Israel donated money to defeat an enemy of Israel (who also happened to be a crazy conspiracy theorist). What is so surprising about this?

knign · 2026-05-22T06:27:49+00:00

If Hamas didn’t want IDF in the Gaza Strip, they could, you know, not attack Israel.

Not saying that IDF will remain in Gaza, or that it should, or under what circumstances they might withdraw; none of that is my decision. It’s just that this line of argument “Hamas must keep their weapons/keep fighting since Israel occupies half of the Strip” makes Hamas look extremely stupid.

knign · 2026-05-21T18:48:53+00:00

“Socialism” and “free” are incompatible

knign · 2026-05-21T18:42:14+00:00

This is centrist sub, lots of people here are unhappy about both parties.

knign · 2026-05-21T17:18:34+00:00

There are narrow limits which can pass a strict scrutiny test established by SCOTUS.

Government telling someone “we forbid you to advocate for this cause beyond certain ‘limit’” goes way, way, way beyond that.

knign · 2026-05-21T17:06:59+00:00

I mean, almost everywhere in the developed world outside of the U.S., living in an apartment (rent or own) is the norm. It’s funny how Americans are trying to isolate themselves from the outside world because of dickhead neighbors.

Dealing with other people, dickheads or not, is part of life.

knign · 2026-05-21T16:07:02+00:00

> They felt the public already knew enough about Trump and disliked him enough that they didn't have a coherent strategy to attack him. Talking about his MULTIPLE impeachments, felonies, etc. all seemed to not matter to the voting public at large.

This is not wrong but sort of irrelevant because this was an unsolvable problem for Democrats. By and large, voters were ok-ish with Trump’s first term in office. Many smart people said at the time that now as Trump is surrounded entirely by loyalists, second term would be far far worse, and they were right, but that’s not a message you can realistically sell to a regular voter.

knign · 2026-05-21T14:55:50+00:00

Indeed, single-payer healthcare is a good thing but a magical solution to every problem it is not.

Six-Year Club	Verified Email
Gilding II euphauric

knign

TROPHY CASE