no good reason

We don’t accept states that are actively committing a genocide or that have leaders with active ICC warrants.

Oh you meant good reasons that can be stated by corpo politicians with a phobia of stating facts that may be interpreted as anything close to antizionism. Fair play

So we are cutting off military aid to Israel then, right? Right?

Not saying this is you, but for a very long time, the moderate argument is, “we can’t get a total victory here, so we shouldn’t bother resisting Republicans” and, frankly, I’m done with that line of thinking. If it makes Republicans life harder, it must be done. If they have to explain to their voting base why they aren’t willing to make ICE agents unmask in order to keep TSA staffed at airports, that is worth making them do. I don’t expect a miracle, I expect a spine

Jeffries’ best quality is that the two easiest people to compare him to are Chuck Schumer and Mike Johnson and that, despite his best efforts, even he fails to limbo under those bars on a regular basis

God, there’s so much wrong with the reality behind that headline. Megadonors shouldn’t be a thing. Donors with major business before the government should especially not be megasized because of the conflict of interest. Super PACs shouldn’t exist. The president should not have a Super PAC

That is what they mean by it, but the fact they chose to express it as “not tolerating discrimination” as opposed to “not discriminating” or “not engaging in discrimination” really highlights that they are engaging in the social contract of tolerance with entities that are explicitly breaking said contract. This kind of weak willed “inclusion” for the sake of virtue signalling/profit is part of what makes fascists think that the paradox of tolerance is some killer argument against empathy

We do not tolerate any form of discrimination apparently means We provide hospitality to the worst perpetrators of discrimination

Hyperbole. Yeah, that’s what that was. Totally. Just some overexaggeration for dramatic effect.

Alternative way to phrase it, we don’t train humans to be ego-satiating brown nosers, we train them to be (often poor) judges of character. AI would be just as nice to David Duke as it is to you. Also, “they” is anthropomorphizing LLM AI much more than it deserves, it’s not even a single identity, let alone a set of multiple identities. It is a bundle of hallucinations, loosely tied together by suggestions and patterns taken from stolen data