I think his point is that humans are meaningless little things made just to be in the image of "God" and should "get over themselves" since it's all about God and not at all about humanity.
Seemingly, that somehow doesn't apply to having him shut up and stop making it about himself.
Yeah, I came across some article he wrote. He basically said if he hates someone, they deserve it because god says so, and if anyone disagrees with him, they are making it about "them" and not Jesus.
He evidently (understandably) got blowback on Twitter back in the day, and wrote some word vomit that sums up to "No no, you don't understand, what I said is not as bad as you think it is (it's sooooo much worse)"
Notably, I don't think folks would consider Christian teaching would not explicitly declare that you should hate (that part is usually just implied).
Generally what they say is that while you shouldn't just yield and let "bad" people walk all over you and society, you shouldn't "hate" them either.
Yeah, glad to see the specific instance but after trying to search I see this seems to be a broader doctrine. That you would absolutely hate people who "deserve" to be hated, accordingly to the viewpoint of whoever is preaching regardless of whether that person's situation actually affects anyone other than themselves.
It's kind of like the evil twin of "be tolerant, except of intolerance": "be tolerant only of intolerance"
This thread has been inundated with links to the commenters. Maybe you could take umbridge with the use of the word "communist", but largely that's a label they assert for themselves, and most criticism of them ignores the communist part, since that doesn't even in theory align with Russia, and is beside the point even for China.
The comment said point blank that China does slavery and colonialism. For wars, they refer to recent history and that's largely accurate in recent history (at least directly, indirectly they supply and offset Russian military presence), they haven't used direct military force to get what they want yet. Largely because people would just give them pretty much whatever they wanted for economic considerations. Biggest potential place for things to boil over directly would be if they finally went into Taiwan.
Or you could just acquiesce to any demand when threatened.
But Europe knows that appeasement works against a violent invader. They proved that was a good strategy in the 1930s.
It was a call that plans may be required, and honestly that's probably a good idea. The administration has repeatedly declined to rule out violent invasion when explicitly asked about how far they would go for their stated aspirations for Panama, Greenland, and Canada.
If you have a neighbor that keeps talking about how they want your house and they need to give up your house to them, and they have a whole bunch of weapons that they keep waving at your property while saying that they'll do "whatever it takes" to have your land, then you don't just wag your finger at them and say that's bad and ignore the situation.
It's not saying EU needs to do first strike, but they need to be prepared to defend their interests from violence as seems possible to be started by the US, which is an insane prospect I never would have imagined being a real thing in my life.
It's theoretically possible that the code we are speculating on is more straightforward than we presume, but it's highly unlikely, particularly given how long lived there code is and, well, it's government and they rarely let things be simple.
The bigger question is what is the upside? This core system does the job. There's risk without any apparent benefit other than "this stuff seems old". Sure they can get away from IBM as the sole vendor of the hardware and software stack that can run it, but it's not with it.
This is awfully similar to how, upon getting control of PayPal, he declared they were going to modernize off of that old unix stuff onto slick new windows servers, and it was a disaster that had to be undone, among the various "leadership" moves that got him pulled from decision making at PayPal.
But then you need to buy into the conspiracy theory that the earth is round
Evidently the family had said she had a history, so they would have had to be playing a long game. I suppose they could have been opportunistic about her condition to make a plausible death, but a plausible death to someone no longer involved in any inconvenient cases doesn't help any such cases nor does it "send a message".
Sometimes things just happen.