Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Ah… I think I see your problem now. You think nothing can happen unless the bourgeois will it. I, frankly, don’t agree with that. I think you think the world is a lot more chess-like when it’s really a lot more like poker with mostly idiots. That does explain why MLs want to go authoritarian to fix the problems, though.

Anyway, the reason why you’re a fucking biscuit is you don’t seem to be expressing ideas to convert liberals to your cause. You have written them off as unfixable, and, well, that sort of gives you fewer allies. How silly.

But that’s the thing. That isn’t the primary task. That’s your primary task. Some people just need to get out of their struggle before they can help others. And if you think that will create more enemies than allies to you, then… I think you are grossly misinformed or you are lying about what you actually want.

Like, you might as well say we shouldn’t have freed the slaves unless we destroyed the institutions that created slavery. Incremental progress is still good, even if it’s not preferred, and people’s lives benefit from it.

Is anybody an ally of you if they have other goals that are not yours???

So deep. Much thought. Philosopher. Wow.

Truly, you also participate in society, you fucking donut.

I think you mean Focus Band Endeavour Attack Rattata.

Actually, the Rs issue is funny because it WAS trained on that exact information which is why it says strawberry has two Rs, so it’s actually more proof that it only knows what it has been given data on. The thing is, when people misspelled strawberry as “strawbery”, then naturally, people respond, " Strawberry has two Rs." The problem is that LLM learning has no concept of context because it isn’t learning anything. The reinforcement mechanism is what the majority of its data tells it. It regurgitates that strawberry has two Rs because it has been reinforced by its dataset.

I don’t think this hits as hard as you want it to. “Natural” arguments are going to hit on their face because, well, animals eat other animals, and if you’re only not drinking an animal’s milk because it’s not natural, then are you okay eating one? No, obviously not. I like the arguments from a corporate farming standpoint that treats animals unethically, because it is factually true and morally justifiable from most, if not all, viewpoints. You should incorporate that in more, it’s hard to defend against, but don’t use “it’s natural” because that is not a good argument.

You are really upset that I called you pal and that you misread things. I am sorry for you.

You are really upset that I called you pal and that you misread things. I am sorry for you.

You either have an illegal but very popular activity run by “the black market”, or a legal but very popular activity run by the government and capitalists.

Right there.

Still didn’t answer mine yet, though. I apologize for being inconvenient and remembering things you don’t.

Please point out where I said it would stop black market gambling. Please do. I have unlimited time, and you have unlimited disappointment to give me.

I said that black market gambling is STILL A THING, so your point that making it legal is somehow stopping it is wrong, and obviously so because that’s how words work, pal. So, anyway, please feel free to revive my brain with your refutation because I so carelessly didn’t say the thing you said I said.

You know you can make gambling against the law by going after the brokers and not the betters, right? Gambling destroys lives and pretending that legalization is the only thing stopping black market gambling is brain dead.

It’s telling that you blame control for why more people are betting because anyone that studies addiction would tell you you’re a fucking moron, and I think you should remind yourself of that fact on an hourly basis, because you have only one idea for banning gambling. Consider that banning gambling by going after brokers is going after those that profit from the whole thing, and you’ll realize that, woah, it will have a positive effect.

If no one cares, why didn’t they disclose they used AI?

That doesn’t make any sense.

Paying workers more is fine, but you’re saying that the costs for reproduction should come from parents, and then you’re saying they should come from the rich. People without children should contribute to childcare costs, and they are incentivized to do so, too, because children are important to pretty much everything. By having the government fund childcare, the rich do contribute more.

Whatever you said is inconsistent.

I see where you are coming from. I also think you are wrong.

While there are sexual connotations behind naked ridership, there is also several other connotations involved that are meant through the scene. I see the scene as meant to demean and dehumanize the human being ridden, a literal replacement for an animal. Nakedness is often used in media to show vulnerability and, especially in this context, power differentials, and since the rider is clothed, viewing this as sexual doesn’t feel like a correct interpretation. Using a child as the rider might make sense in some contexts (say, as a metaphor for innocence when enjoying an activity through the suffering of the exploited), but I do kind of agree that the current scene doesn’t meaningfully change with aging the character up.

But if they strike, the poor workers won’t get paid!!! \s

I think that’s a fair stance to take. I just don’t believe that the state protects us from the wealthy, though I do think it could. But, I would rather dissipate the power the state holds so no one can use its mechanisms against the people, and whether that be by distributing power away from centralized sources or through some other means, such as periodic redistribution, I think they’re workable solutions.

But, I’ll admit my stance is a bit too rigid, but take that as my optimal solution, and not my only acceptable one.

Groups can organize without a leader. Rules can exist without rulers. It is silly to say the only thing protecting us from the wealthy is the state, when the wealthy are far more protected by the state.

But, I do understand what you’re saying. What happens when someone breaks the rules? Who enforces those rules? But when the wealthy capture the state (and that is ultimately the goal of the wealthy), the rules will still be unenforceable against them. So, I’d say it kinda fundamentally falls apart eventually.

But, that’s not an answer. The real answer is that it is on the citizens to topple corrupt states, but they don’t necessarily need a state to make that possible.

The rich didn’t create themselves, buddy.