abduhl

Are we reading different articles? The headline says immigrant visas. The first paragraph says immigrant visas.

“The Trump administration has paused processing of immigrant visas, which allow recipients to move permanently to the U.S., to train visa officers on new guidance ensuring that applicants have enough financial means to support themselves after they arrive.”

First they came for those that were far away from me and I did not speak out because… I didn’t know them?

Whoever explained this to you has done you a terrible disservice. The border is the border - on one side you are in the USA and on the other side you are outside it.

If there was a strip of land where you are not in a country then how can CBP assert any authority? No, you must be in America. There is no "no man's land," and there is no such thing as "international land" at America's borders where no law exists.

I’m saying local officials are the ones where your vote counts the most.

Comments like this are even more tiring. Everyone knows that there are moneyed interests in politics. But decisions on these issues are made at a local level and so are the most addressable by local political actions.

Do you need apples to turn on your lights? Was there a sudden new influx of pie makers? Is growing apples a government granted monopoly business?

If the answer to these questions was yes, yes, and yes then I think you would grumble.

Is the child of a diplomat a US citizen if they are born during a diplomat’s commercial activities?

I think our disagreement is with respect to what it means to "claim" to be following a principle. Most people do not say "my principle is X," they just make statements that hint at a core principle. In many cases this is willful, as you aptly point out for corporations, and it is specifically for the reason you are articulating now: if you never state a core principle you can always back into one later that is not hypocritical. I reject your framework where a principle must be explicitly articulated and cannot be inferred by statements/actions.

>> Mn-based passivation is a counter-intuitive discovery, which cannot be explained by current knowledge in corrosion science.

This statement sounds like the type of language one uses when trying to get a patent.

This is shifting the principle/value discussion up to a level where it's meaningless. Let's use a different example.

Old value: Returning value to shareholders.

How to do it? Treat your employees like family and don't be evil.

New value: Returning value to shareholders.

How to do it? Treat your employees like human resources and get away with what you can get away with.

Is this hypocritical? Most people would say yes, but in your framing it's not because we've backed up to the least specific articulation of an underlying principle. It's a species of the motte and bailey fallacy.

Agents may be changing the game for how software gets produced, but all it's really done is switch software developers from being managed to being managers. And software developers trying to square their historic value/principle that management tasks are useless, easy, and ceremonial (to borrow GP's word) tasks that should take a back seat to ~flow state coding~ with their new view that management is an integral, difficult, and requisite part of writing code reeks of hypocrisy.

Well it is hypocritical. Hypocrisy is an action or statement that is contrary to a stated value or principle. Just because your values or principles changed doesn’t make you a suddenly no longer a hypocrite, it just admits that your former opinions are no longer tenable.

I’ve noticed this push to try to clothe hypocrisy in made up virtues like intellectual curiosity and mental plasticity a lot lately. All I can think is that it’s some kind of ego satisfaction play people make when their place in the world is threatened.