Well I remember being taught about the Kent State massacre in school and how it was a stain on our country, and that we were learning about it because things like that need to be remembered, not forgotten.
Compare that how Tiananmen Square massacre is taught in China.
I assume the outsized focus on it is somewhat related to the lack of contrition and accountability.
> Well I remember being taught about the Kent State massacre in school and how it was a stain on our country, and that we were learning about it because things like that need to be remembered, not forgotten.
School taught you the wrong lesson about it. ~Half the country (guess which half) supported it... And I've no doubt that they'd do so again.
What specifically is the wrong lesson that you've inferred school taught the original commenter about it? Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like you agree that it was "a stain on our country" and that it needs to be remembered.
The wrong lesson is that while the teacher may think it's a stain, and you and I think it's a stain and how any civilized person would think it's a stain, the country doesn't think it's a stain.
What's important about it isn't that it happened, or what we think about it. What's important is how many people didn't think it was a mistake - and wouldn't when it happens again.
I don't think that's right. I've never seen anyone claim that it was no big deal and doesn't reflect negatively on the politics of the 1970s.
There were people who argued that the shooting was the students' fault, certainly. But the students knew at the time that they were antagonizing people, and felt that it was worth the risk, predicting (correctly: https://emersoncollegepolling.com/50-years-after-kent-state-...) that future generations would see why their cause was worth fighting for. The only lesson I can see to take away from that is that violence is not the last word, and you should (as students at the time did) keep protesting even if people get shot for it.
I suppose there's also the lesson that de-escalation is an important tactical skill. But that's not controversial at all. Many recent National Guard deployments have been extremely conflicted (I'm still mad about them!), but both guard members and protestors have done a solid job at not needlessly antagonizing each other.
Based on personal experience with others, for some I think the diagnosis is a substitute for an identity that then brings belonging into a group, filling a need for them that has been otherwise unfilled.
He's not talking about other nations, he's talking about the US and saying if you are not a citizen of a nation, its a foreign nation to you and they have no obligation to let you in.
> Foreign countries have no obligation to admit you within their borders.
This is obviously a general statement about any nation, comparing the US to its peers.
In the context of the conversation it is clearly an argument that “we don’t have to let you in, we can require whatever we want, including trampling on your rights as an individual”, which is unamerican.
> Foreign countries have no obligation to admit you within their borders.
That doesn't sound relevant.
Nobody said that they were obliged to admit you, they complained that the reasons for declining admittance were unfair. Unless you think "no obligation to admit" means carte blanche to decline for any reason, and to treat you however they like?
If so, then that is unreasonable. It is a much stronger condition than "I don't have to let you in".
Yes, "no obligation to admit" means they don't have any obligation whatsoever, and that includes doing so for any reason they see fit and not having to disclose those reasons (if any) to you.
It is exactly the same as "I don't have to let you in".
For example, I do not have an obligation to let people into my house. I can choose to let them in or decline them entry. But there are certain preconditions I cannot apply. I cannot, for example, say "you may come into my house only if you murder my neighbour". That's because I'm legally bound not to induce people to commit murder. It would obviously be disingenuous to say this means I have an "obligation to admit" them.
It's the same with immigration. They actually are legally bound in certain ways - an immigration official can't assault you for instance. It's not hard to imagine them being legally bound not to search people's phones. That doesn't mean "they have to admit people".
You're confusing yourself with irrelevant analogies. You can say, "you may come into my house only if you give me your unlocked phone," and an immigration official can't assault you because there are certain protections granted to foreigners against being randomly assaulted. It's also not hard to imagine them NOT being legally bound not to search people's phones, and if you're trying to say someone's breaking the law here then it's your burden of proof.
Of course I can say that. I can say "you can't come into my house if you're black" too. The point is that it's unethical. It would be unethical for me to search your phone before you entered my house, too. This is not complicated, I'm not sure why you're having trouble understanding it.
The United States does have some rides about what border agents can and can not do. They can not sucker punch you, for example. They can request to see the contents of your phone and if you refuse they can choose to refuse you admittance into the country.
It’s not a question of fairness.
For what it’s worth I’m very much in favor of immigration and people visiting the United States, but this country and all others have the right to admit or not admit whomever they choose.
My point is that they're related. People who take pride in their work generally do better work and make more money. People who don't take pride in their work and often try to see how little work they can get away with while still remaining employed generally make less money.
If you can't find a better job, you should probably appreciate the one you have and not try to skate by with the bare minimum, if for no other reason than you're likely to miscalculate at some point.
Not GP but I’m trying to figure out what you’re insinuating.
> For tougher environments or deployments with poor indoor cellular coverage, the outdoor model maintains the same high performance cellular connectivity with improved antenna performance in a durable IP67 rated enclosure. It is built for rooftop installs, off site locations, and mobile deployments where reliability is critical. Just like its indoor counterpart, you can also connect it via any PoE port, anywhere on your network, greatly simplifying cabling requirements.
And the first image they show of the outdoor model is it installed in a fixed location on a rooftop.
Your quote lists mobile deployments, their bullet point also says:
>Built for rooftops, remote sites, and vehicle based setups
They are insinuating if you actually read their press release then you would not state it was targeted only at stationary deployments.
Based on the spec sheet 2 out of its 6 antennas are directional, this is probably a 4x4 modem so it must have some way to switch 2 antenna from directional to omni.
It’s the same BS when Meta and others say they can’t moderate posts because there’s too many.
reply