Anyone debating or analyzing Kilmar Abrego Garcia's life or record is doing a grave disservice.

He could be El Chapo. He could be Charles Manson. He could be the Dalai Lama.

It doesn't matter. What has happened to him and others is clearly a violation of America's core laws and principles.

He is that guy, yes.

You should be able to provide a broad map of related concepts within the definition of offensive object, in addition to a basic one. Only then would you be able to identify the logical steps to counteract it, instead of transposing your political grievances on top of it.

I gave it a skim, and you could really use some in-depth examples of what policing language looks like. Most of your sentence constructions are 'it's not [blank], it's [blank]' in describing the definition of concepts, which is unhelpful in a context of real-world applications.

Not particularly, Das. I think my critical reasoning is wired as well anyone else's. I am informing you based on my experience that you are building a hierarchy of information control based on your experiences, and that seems to upset your dogmatic framework of your worldview.

Das, your article is titled 'how to believe in god.' If that was your intent, a more appropriate title would be 'my perspectives on belief in consciousness.'

Don't lie to me here.

Oh, that's sweet. Your wrote a rant about our interactions.

Are you asserting yourself as an authority on talking to god?

That seems to go against your claim of knowing nothing.

I agree, it would be great if you observed humility as a virtue.

I'm glad at least to see you're using seem instead of blanket accusations, that's an improvement.

This is where we get to the source of information. Claiming this knowledge is yours alone is no different claiming to know the voice of god. It's too difficult to prove something only you have access to, and thus impossible to take seriously as an argument.

The only way to meaningfully quantify your worldliness is to acknowledge how you attained your knowledge. Even your proficiency in English is owed to your parents and teachers who took the time to impart it. So why is that so difficult to acknowledge as part of your identity?

Well that's a shame, because I did try to introduce what I feel are unique perspectives to your expansive but ultimately dogmatic worldview. You may think you're smarter, and that's wonderful, but with no meaningful connections you're limited to your biases and immediate preconceptions.

Correct - which is why I find your claims to understand the Truth so unnerving. How can you honestly seek the truth of the universe if you are so convinced to be an authority on what is true and correct?

Is that what I'm doing? I don't believe I'm uniting with any other experts on this topic. It feels like an assertion you're making without evidence - something you seem to be good at.

Is it really your pyramid if the bricks are copied and the maker's marks are filed off? This is a ship of Theseus question, so I expect sources.

Frankly, it feels as though you are more concerned with the appearance of winning and characterizing me as the enemy of knowledge and debate rather than considering my points honestly.

Likewise! But claiming to be honest and actually being honest in your responses is the critical difference here, and you have spent three responses attempting to dunk me for a grievance that is not particularly relevant to what we're talking about.

That's the thing - history is NOT a line of progress. It's a pyramid. We have to double back and refurbish the foundations to include the breadth of knowledge missed by our preconceptions. In my field, historiography, this is called 'subaltern studies.'

You pay a monthly fee to host a website to tell people what you believe. You host a patreon to support your finances, including the website and your card shop. You do take this seriously. Seriously enough to spend money to keep it publicly visible.

This isn't about impressing people, Das. It's about expanding your knowledge beyond the limits of your immediate perception. Even Kant understood this. If you can't recognize the validity and importance of other perspectives in a concrete sense like a citation, then what are you doing?

The alternative is what exactly? That we atomize our responses to cultural until they're effectively irrelevant? We subsume our identities into a singular movement with no clear focus? Academic rigor is the way we've done this for *thousands* of years, and has proven to be effective.

Your personal philosophy is only as meaningful as the conversations you're having with other philosophers my guy. If that doesn't make sense to you, if you can't show who you're talking to and why you come to your ideas, then you don't know how to do philosophy. I'm sorry.

My man, why are you attempting to characterize a misunderstanding as a narrative about your clear superiority over my inferiority? It feels like gaslighting to try to assert this when you've been struggling to understand my claims.

I tend to think life is much harder than can be communicated in 280 characters. That's why I'm trying to communicate to you, is that academic rigor and personal philosophy is much deeper than the bongcloud defense of 'if you just agreed with me, we'd be done.'

Again, using 'you' as a j'accuse line. Am I personally offending you somehow by disagreeing with you?

All that I have to work with is your responses and your static blog without meaningful interactivity, which is what a bibliography is for. To know that you are talking to other philosophers instead of appropriating their ideas for your own ego project.

Yes, your work - but your work isn't recognized anywhere. You don't have any open comments section. Your work is isolated to this point in the internet with no connections, positive or negative, to the rest of the world, and in that sense, you are not conversation with anyone.

The history of knowledge is a pyramid reaching into the sky, assembled by thousands of years of peer review and disseminated research. It is a monolith of finding better solutions than the ones that existed before, not about being wrong, and far from social authoritarianism.

Most of the philosophy majors I consider colleagues include bibliographies for their published works on logic out of habit, like other academics, unless you're willing to discount academic philosophers for non-academic ones for some reason.