I think you've missed the entire point of the structure of the poem - the backward reading (ie, immigrants may share my home and food) is as "tame" as the forward reading.
>That means you must also oppose empathetic messages in release notes, to be consistent.
Yes. It will be interesting reading these cultural artifacts after 50 further years of geo-political development.
I’m not sure; an unbalanced opinion is obviously unbalanced, and it’s easier to see it as not being the whole picture. But a seemingly reasonable opinion combined with a straw man of an opposing view, is harder to unlearn.
That is true enough. In this case, I think a useful learning outcome is that the backwards reading is, in theory and ignoring the emotional word choices, as politically extreme as the forwards reading. However, I doubt most will see it this way.
Not really, it's more of a 'construct-a-box-to-have-an-argument-in' approach. E.g. one could go off laterally in many directions. We could say, 'easy immigration policy is a neoliberal plot to drive down wages in the USA to ensure that current wealth inequality is maintained' or we could say 'immigration is wonderful because it brings in highly skilled people with unique talents and perspectives that are of great benefit to the US economy', and so on. It's a complex topic with a lot of historical context and there are at least half a dozen ways to analyze it from a cause-and-effect perspective - just the kind of discussion that social media can't handle well.
The reversibility trick is kind of cute - but can anyone write a legitimate Python code statement that also works in reverse? I sort of doubt it, the function declaration has to come first.
I've succesfully rolled out a (IMHO) better version of the "Freedom" app, that comes with a load of other benefits like being cheaper and even more effective. My phone can only make calls and texts because it's a dumb phone, and I have to go to my computer if I want to waste time on the internet.
Rejecting "technology" is, IMHO, a perfectly rational response to the typical layers of consultants, sales teams, and general lack of knowledge of the fundamentals of tech that result in the isses described above. You can't win.
I've had an intuition that much recent ouroboric "technology for technology's" sake is actually more pernicious that it appears to be (at first glance).
Reading that essay helped crystallize the "why" behind that feeling.
Have you ever tried making this complaint? In the context of OP's comment about schools and technology, you will only ever get told "well, everyone else wants this". Sadly, this is true.
>That means you must also oppose empathetic messages in release notes, to be consistent.
Yes. It will be interesting reading these cultural artifacts after 50 further years of geo-political development.