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