I don't think they're "very specifically designed" to do that, I think that's just how he is, raw and unfiltered. He was a shitposter on Twitter too, that's why he was banned.
Except the only "evil" thing that Mueller did was investigate Trump after he bragged about firing James Comey for investigating a potential Russian interference in the 2016 election.
Moreover, I'm not sure it is right for the president to celebrate this; isn't part of the job of a president to be diplomatic? It's one thing when a nobody like me celebrates the death of someone bad, but I'm not the president, no one expects me to be diplomatic, and generally speaking no one actually cares what I think about anything.
Which is weird because the right explicitly called for violence against the left and transgender people in response but nothing ever happened to any of them.
That's a lot of words to say "I prefer to ignore the evil that men do if I find them entertaining enough, and I think it's silly that anyone does otherwise."
The Chuck Norris you admire is a figment of your imagination. He was a product created by capitalism. He never actually fought Bruce Lee. He was never really a Texas Ranger. He was never in the real Delta Force. Putting him on the same cultural level as actual leaders who at least fought for something in the real world is risible. Holding such deep admiration for the things he pretended to do that you feel compelled to insult someone's character and intelligence for judging him as a human being is a far less than admirable moral stance.
The reality of the person is not irrelevant, the reality of the person is all that matters at the end of the day.
Reading this thread has definitely sheared off a few of my brain cells seeing people so collectively deluded about Chuck Norris. As you said he was a totality of capitalism, a product wrapped in human skin. He's only truly notable for the jokes people made (myself included) at the dawn of the early internet. As a person, what he actually accomplished is nothing at best and at worst actively damaging to multiple groups that didn't deserve the heat.
The only good thing out of this mess is that the universe felt cosmically aligned to have his death occur on the same day as Mr. Rogers birthday, someone who genuinely did fight for a better world.
>He's only truly notable for the jokes people made (myself included) at the dawn of the early internet. As a person, what he actually accomplished is nothing at best
Not even every important influential person in tech gets the black bar. You think an actor who is mostly known for low-effort internet memes and pretending to be a cowboy on tv deserves it?
>He was a typical pro-gun anti-abortion homophobic and racist MAGA Christian conservative.
Sure, but let's be real: people here are hardly mourning the man himself, so much as a few ideas of him from media they loved, and the cultural impact of Chuck Norris memes from their childhood and such.
He's not around anymore to bolster any hateful messages. Let people have a moment of nostalgia for memories watching him roundhouse kick bad guys with their grandma, or dumb Chuck Norris memes on the playground. That's what people remember.
Hacker News is designed under the assumption that the quality of a discussion decreases and the likelihood of arguments/flamewars increases over time, and as the ratio of comments to upvotes increases.
If you aren't willing to to put in the effort of checking for responses to your comments, chances are you have nothing of value to contribute. That it takes more effort to do so over time is a feature, not a bug.
Just do what most people here do and cease to care about any conversation once if falls off your threads page.
Wouldn't the people receiving responses to their comments be the ones with value to contribute? If you don't add value, you're likely not getting replies anyway, so this isn't an issue.
Thanks for confirming that most people are just refreshing their threads page. I was hoping for a better solution, but it is what it is.
Because people in the former group don't criticize those countries, they criticize Islam, and tend to categorize all Muslims (specifically Muslim immigrants) as ontologically evil.
Meanwhile people in the latter group tend to be very specific that their criticism is of a state and its policies, rather than the religion of Judaism or Jews in general, even though their efforts tend to fall on deaf ears.
>Observing Islam does not make one Islamic. Observing ontological evil does not make one ontological evil.
No, by your own words, "People who believe in ontological[sic] evil are ontologically evil people"
If you believe that Islam is ontologically evil, you believe in ontological evil.
Ipso facto you are an ontologically evil person.
This is basic kindergarten logic if it doesn't get through to you I don't know what to say.
"Observing Islam does not make one Islamic" is not an equivalent statement. You did not make a subjective statement about observation, you made an objective statement about belief.
>Dumb flex but OK.
I agree. It was dumb - "only Sith deal in absolutes" level stupid, and I don't know why you came back to double down on it.
>No, by your own words, "People who believe in ontological[sic] evil are ontologically evil people"
Yes, people who believe in ontologically evil beliefs (such as Islam) are ontologically evil people. Not belief in the concept of ontologically, this is a misattribution error on your part.
>If you believe that Islam is ontologically evil, you believe in ontological evil.
Islam is an ontologically evil as I stated above. I believe in ontological evil as a concept, but that does not make me ontologically evil.
Ipso facto you are misattributing this to ontologically evil as a concept. This is basic kindergarten logic and contextual understanding if it doesn't get through to you I don't know what to say.
QED.
>"Observing Islam does not make one Islamic" is not an equivalent statement
Yes it as, as the first sentence was "Islam is [an] ontologically evil [religion]."
>I agree. It was dumb
Glad you agree your flex was dumb, "ackchyually" level stupid, then you came back to triple down on it.
Maybe you're right though, no chance "The Religion of Peace" could be unpeaceful.
Indeed, it both feels like the same type of pro-theocratic propaganda. Its a way to disingenuously claim "you hate everyone of our group", when thats demonstrably not true. You likely hate the actions a country masquerading as the group inflicts against others.
My disdain is for all theocratic countries. I dont particularly care for any religion that takes over a government.
And I do include the USA in that, as theocratic fundamentalist christanity. Ive done so since changing the pledge of allegience and adding "in god we trust" on the currency.
reply