u/ryes13

Reading his account of it was less an impressive feat of engineering than it was a feat of endurance in the face of pure misery. That flight sounded awful.

From the Rwandan genocide, RTLM radio:
“They insisted that not just the freedom and prosperity of Hutu were at risk but their very lives.… By December 1990, Kangura had begun charging that the Tutsi had prepared a war that “would leave no survivors.”

From the Bosnian Genocide, Radio Prijedor
“After the takeover, Radio Prijedor propagated Serb nationalistic ideas characterizing prominent non-Serbs as criminals and extremists who should be punished for their
behaviour. One example of such propaganda was the derogatory language used for
referring to non-Serbs such as mujahedin, Ustasa or Green Berets”

From the Rohingya Genocide, Facebook posts
“Actors linked to the Myanmar military and radical Buddhist nationalist groups flooded the platform with anti-Muslim content, posting disinformation claiming there was going to be an impending Muslim takeover, and portraying the Rohingya as “invaders”.

And ““Dr. Tun Lwin, a well-known meteorologist with over 1.5 million followers on Facebook, called on the Myanmar people to be united to secure the “west gate” and to be alert “now that there is a common enemy”. He further stated that Myanmar does not tolerate invaders”

From the Holocaust, Nuremberg trials:
“Ohlendorf argument was that killings by the Einsatzgruppen were in self-defense. According to Hitler’s reasoning, with which Ohlendoirf agreed, Germany was threatened by Communism. Jews were known to be bearers of Bolshevism, and Gypsies could not be trusted. Both groups posed a potential threat to the security of the German State. It followed, logically, that all such opponents had to be destroyed.…

Ohlendorf argued that even if Hitler was mistaken in his belief that the Bolsheviks, Jews, Gypsies, and others posed a mortal threat to Germany, the “executive measures” by the Einsatzgruppen were justified as anticipatory self-defense.”

This all sounds very similar to saying an entire people are complicit criminals who all raise their children to become violent threats. Thus any violence against them, and any of them, is justified self defense. Almost every genocide has used this language you’re using. I’m not even arguing that Israel is committing genocide or saying who is in the right or wrong.

What I am saying is that the language you are using calling an entire people complicit in crimes is the language of genocide because it can justify any violence necessary against the people you have labeled enemies.

lol, you’re just repeating the bad faith interpretation of what I said in more words.

If you can’t see the conflict of interest inherent in using say Grok for research when it’s controlled by the richest man in the world who literally also tried to give money away for votes at the last election, I don’t know what to say.

I can see you’re not convinced and some people here aren’t convinced.

But it honestly doesn’t seem like you want to be convinced since all your analysis of my words is just to boil them down to child like statements. That is also not of substance nor in good faith.

The bad faith interpretation of your comments would be “Anti-AI OP stupid and paranoid.”

I think you should have AI analyze your responses in this thread

I don’t think I’m gonna do that

so that maybe you can see that most of your criticism applies more appropriately to yourself,

The dude I was replying to in this specific thread just called me paranoid over and over again and then used a typo to suggest that I’m stupid. I haven’t attacked anyone personally

and that the people who chose to engage with you were far more gracious and patient than you deserved, and that you did not make great points or compelling arguments, while others did actually bother to but thought behind their posts.

I also put thought into my replies. Whether or not you specifically agree with my points, it doesnt mean I should shut up about them.

This point is underscored by the fact that you tried to post this to r/fuckai, again with zero effort or arguments, and were completely ignored. lol

Cross-posting isn’t not allowed. I wanted to see what people of the anti-AI community also thought about this. Especially since it seems overwhelming pro-AI.

As evidenced by your reply suggesting that having AI analyze my conversations is a good use of anyone’s time.

Out of a risk of violating the rules of assuming good will and avoiding meta commentary, it really seems likely to me, u/awaythrowawaying, that you are generating low effort AI responses to avoid rule 2 violations. While these seem to follow the letter of the rule, they really seem to violate the intent as these comments don’t make any sense and don’t further any discussion and in fact are just rather bizarre.

Edit: lol, I’m getting banned for pointing out that this is clearly AI generated content. The user had his posts taken down multiple times for not engaging and then only started engaging with comments that are nonsensical and clearly AI generated. This sub is a joke.

Not an attack but just a serious question: was that an AI generated response?

It’s a very short article and they only directly quote Obama twice, so not sure why you leave out the very first quote:

“Morally, ethically speaking, it is an atrocity that in a country that’s wealthy, we have people just on the streets, and we should insist on policies that recognize their full humanity,"

But once again you aren’t going to reply to any comment

Even accounting for interest rates, monthly mortgage payments have risen as a percentage of income, getting particularly bad since 2020.

So homes were cheaper to own back in the 70s and 80s.

And housing is a huge exception, since it’s every normal Americans largest expenditure.

It makes you feel worthless that you haven’t overthrown a government and become tyrant?

The answer is… you can’t really. For a fascinating exploration of the concept of money and how it has evolved, read “Debt: the First 5000 Years” by David Graeber. Essentially money, in the form of currency, is just a physical expression of the concept of debt. Before widespread physical currency existed, most economies ran on principles of debt and credit. You sold me a pair of shoes on Monday and I had nothing to give at the time so I “owed” you for it. Instead I gave you eggs from my chickens over the next several days until that debt is “paid” off. Money was basically invented as a way to quantify these debts and make them exchangeable between third parties.

So what does this mean for comparing “money” between different time periods? It’s really difficult. Since it’s a just way to quantify debt and make exchanging goods easier, outside of the context of the goods in that specific time period someone’s wealth almost becomes meaningless. When you start comparing different goods that can be bought by that money, you see how it breaks down quickly.

For example, one way to compare wealth / cost is by seeing how much it costs to support a person. Essentially, what are survival wages and how much larger is the number you are comparing. For example, an ancient Greek trireme cost 2 talents to make. How much is that in modern terms? A talent is a weight of silver equivalent to 36,000 Obloi. It takes roughly 2 obloi to feed a person a day. So the cost of a trireme could feed 36,000 people for a day. If we assume that a person in modern America could be provisioned at a cost of $15 a day, a trireme is roughly half a million dollars. Coincidentally, that’s about what it cost to build Olympias, a modern replica of an ancient trireme. Seems like a good comparison, right?

But….. the relative cost of food has plummeted in the modern world while the relative costs of modern warships has not. In ancient times, a trireme was a state of the art warship capable of all sorts of missions. The replica of the Olympias cannot fulfill those functions. If we’re comparing relative capability, a modern warship is tens of millions of dollars, not hundreds of thousands.

People comparing wealth between ages usually go off of the reported weight of precious metals that an ancient rich person supposedly had. However precious metals are a good just like any other. Their value relative to other goods changes over time. Even their value relative to the currency they are used for fluctuates.

Long story short: it’s pretty meaningless to compare wealth between two people who lived a thousand years apart. Their money represented different things and the market it existed in has completely different goods.

Good. It’ll be fun to see who has the cultist collectible.

Edit: Wow. Thats a personal attack? Posting in this subreddit is like walking on egg shells.

Just to give some context to this great comment, the South lived in great fear of a slave rebellion similar to that in Haiti. This is evident in the words of commissioners sent by seceding states trying to convince other southern states to secede during the secession winter of 1861. All the below quotations are from Apostles of Disunion by Charles Dew:

Andrew Calhoun, son of John C. Calhoun, one week after Lincoln’s election, spoke to a crowd outside South Carolina state capitol. Drew describes his speech as follows: “Calhoun drew a chilling parallel between the impact of Republican abolitionist propaganda on the slaves of the South and the effect that French Revolutionary rhetoric—specifically the slogan “liberty, equality and fraternity”—had had on the slave population of Haiti. “Well, the [Haitian] negro heard the ill omened words, and he, born in Africa, the slave, whose head was always in danger, perhaps to repair some skull-built wall of a kinky-headed chief, who, hunted down, captured, famished in his native land, could only view his change as a blessed one—he, too, arose, with all the fury of the beast, and scenes were then enacted over a comparatively few planters, that the white fiends [of the North] would delight to see re-enacted now with us.” Pg. 48

“William Cooper, a prominent lawyer from Tuscumbia and commissioner to Missouri, told that state’s legislature that “under the policy of the Republican party, the time would arrive when the scenes of San Domingo and Hayti, with all their attendant horrors, would be enacted in the slaveholding States.”” Pg 65

Fulton Anderson of Mississippi, sent to convince Virginia to secede used John Brown’s raid to stoke insurrection fears. He stated that the purpose of it had been “to light up the fires of a servile insurrection, and to give your dwellings to the torch of the incendiary, and your wives and children to the knives of assassins,” Pg. 71

This hopefully gives you an idea of why the south was considered an “armed society.” Similar to the ancient Spartans, the aristocracy of the South lived a life of leisure because of their slaves. However, because they were far outnumbered by their slaves, as the Spartans were by their helots, they also lived in perpetual fear of an uprising. Thus a portion of their leisure time was also taken up with martial pursuits. Slavery both enabled their focus on martial preparation and demanded that focus.

He sounds very similar to Elon Musk. Just all over the place with his beliefs and personal practices.

Don’t engage with u/Sam_Cobra_Forever. I also fell for this trap. They aren’t talking in good faith. They just want to shout and be snarky at somebody online.

It’s worthless to ask to stop with “whataboutism.” They support having federal military occupy American cities against the will of local governments. Bringing up insults against Mitt Romney from ten years ago is just to have something else to talk about.

Edit: the poster is right the two have nothing to do with each other. But yet there’s long diatribes on this post about democrats being too mean to Republicans on a post about armed forces in cities

Just say you like the president sending in armed forces to places he doesn’t like.

Trying to play the victim constantly to justify policies is getting really old

Edit: Apparently pointing out the jarringness of a long series of comments about Republican victimhood in a post about occupying American cities with our military is just more unfairness

I responded to what you said.

1. He already showed that there was divided union loyalty by showing up at the Republican convention. Especially, when he himself said that he was just going to give the same speech. It would defy logic to give him equal speaking time with other union leaders who are actually going to give a supportive speech. One campaign stood more to gain by inviting him.

2. So aside from the flip flop of months, he gave an endorsement at the DNC last year. Maybe stating that he would give the same speech at both conventions is a good indication that he WASN’T going to endorse regardless and all this is just retcon. Once again, why would you have someone speak at your convention without endorsing you. Unless you stood to gain something like appearing to split your opponents base. That defies logic. Thats not how conventions work. Speakers are almost always endorsers.

3. They’re no longer relevant even though they’re the most recent and important because they weren’t the “first movers”? So tell me where does this original sin of social issues go back to? Is it allowing gays in the military in the 90s? Getting rid of anti-sodomy laws in the 80s? Interracial marriage and legal contraception in the 60s / 70s? What’s the “prime mover” here that sets the benchmark for where it’s okay to rollback to?

4. I’m sure hyperbolic rhetoric about reparations did enter some voter’s mind. But we even get to debate the actual merits of the policy because NO policy was ever implemented by this task force. And that’s one of your prime examples to me. A task force that did nothing.

5. Using execution hyperbole and comparing it to non-judicial processes is also cute wording, but also inaccurate. There’s lots of processes that happen outside the unanimous jury construct. Processes which have real effects on people’s lives. So just because an opinion maker from FIRE says it violates due process, doesn’t make it so.

6. Is that a first mover when Republicans had been attacking trans students since 2016? You have a very convenient definition of first mover which seems to always be “the last thing a democrat did that I didn’t like”. Another problem with your first mover construct is that, much like what I’ve seen with a lot of disingenuous both-sideism, it gives all the initiative to the left. The right is just a force of nature reacting to the unnatural left. Nevermind that if you read the article I sent earlier, you’d see this was an on-going anti-trans campaign since the first failed bathroom attempt. A campaign that was making laws having successes by 2020. Maybe that’s why the Biden administration felt the need to put those policies in place.

7. Lawmaking and policy is the only win that really matters at the end of the day. Everyone can say they’re fine with “the gays.” Doesn’t make your life much easier if they can fire you for being gay and you can marry the person you love. Laws are real force in people’s lives.

8. I am well aware of the places the democrats have failed workers and lower class (even though lowest income Americans do still prefer democrats). I don’t think that failures comes from having not been mean enough to trans people or gay people, which is what social issues usually boil down to.

1 and 2. Oh I understand the point of the article. It’s why he titled his article “Is Gaza Starving?” and then goes into a whole lot of complexities without answering the question in the title. It’s to make you think “maybe hunger in Gaza ain’t so bad!” I see no other purpose.

1. So all international organizations are unreliable, gotcha. Also Doctors Without Borders and CARE are private organizations saying the same thing. You don’t seem to have a problem with them. They’re saying the same things as UNRWA and WHO.

2. Reporting has shown that the for-profit GHF has failed to distribute food adequately.

I’m not gonna argue with you how lbs of food are lost or sent because chances are you and I don’t know.

But the fact of the matter is there IS starvation in Gaza. Saying “this is too complex” is a radical centrists way of saying “I don’t want to look at the problem”. But maybe someone who subscribers to the sub r/PalestinianCrimes doesn’t much care about Palestinian starvation.

I now have zero sympathy for you. I am not sure how you got to the point where your ego was so paper thin that you feel this incredible need to defend this book you like by calling people liars

That is the quote from the first edition of the book that I read.

Congrats that you found an updated quote from a revised edition on Google books.

I hope you felt a huge swell of pride calling me a liar after trying to engage with you and getting owned by everyone on this thread.

I’m not the only one to remember this being written

so yeah it’s not a lie

oh look another source that remembers him saying tailwind

Get fucked

Several users in this thread have expressed the same opinion as you while linking to surveys that show the exact opposite

u/Scribe625 described PBS nowadays as “pretty biased” but posted a link to https://adfontesmedia.com/pbs-bias-and-reliability/. Their scale goes from -42 to +42, and PBS is rated as -3. So “pretty biased” doesn’t make sense.

u/airforceCOT described NPR as “unabashed fully fledged, progressive propaganda” and posted a link: https://www.allsides.com/news-source/npr-media-bias. Allsides gives them a -1.88 out of a scale that goes from -9 to +9 and describes them as “lean left.”

So even from people in this thread who are trying to say like you that they are the “literal opposite of neutral and unbiased”, they’re having a hard time finding sources that actually say that.

I know this is in danger of being a meta-comment but several users have posted comments complaining about significant public media bias while posting sources that show the opposite.

u/Scribe625 described PBS nowadays as “pretty biased” but posted a link to https://adfontesmedia.com/pbs-bias-and-reliability/. Their scale goes from -42 to +42, and PBS is rated as -3. So “pretty biased” doesn’t make sense.

u/airforceCOT described NPR as “unabashed fully fledged, progressive propaganda” and posted a link: https://www.allsides.com/news-source/npr-media-bias. Allsides gives them a -1.88 out of a scale that goes from -9 to +9 and describes them as “lean left.”

I say this all is not a metacomment, but to push back on this narrative. Everyone has been saying how biased public media is while not showing that. So it appears that the real criteria they want is a news source that is right in the middle of everyone’s opinions at all times. Otherwise, having publicly funded media is not worth it.

The point of public media isn’t to be in the exact middle. It’s to provide a news source that’s not distorted by profit motive. And in a world where our attention is gobbled up by mega corporations for their own profit, that is important now more than ever.

That also shows the stupidity of even having the interview in the first place. Talking economic policy with someone who won’t even concede that tariffs are taxes is like talking space flight with someone who doesn’t believe we landed on the moon.

It has in fact been proven that the Times changes stories based off payments from companies. Basically disguised advertising. When they did this for “Orange is the New Black” they released several articles about women’s prisons.

Okay so there’s a lot to unpack here. First of all, this is basically an opinion column published by Unherd, a British “news site” founded by hedge fund manager and conservative activist.

Second of all, campus activism dropped? Yeah, there’s been an active campaign to suppress campus protests and speech aggressively promoted by this administration. Including attempting to deport a permanent resident because they didn’t like his speech.

Lastly, your last paragraph is just straight up jarring false. Trump did not win the under 26 vote.

Edit: removed meta-commentary to comply with the rules

This is an awful interview. It’s so sycophant that I could gag.

Nowhere does Ross Douthat actually question or push Marc Andressen on his claims. Or the fact that he states up front that his whole reason for switching parties was that he believed they had a deal where he would get insanely rich by whatever means, give money to charity, and not only receive no criticism but unending praise. Like, a real interviewer would push back on something so self serving.