No, those don't count, you stupid tankie!
Since you refuse to be an adult and back your accusations I will do it for you. Here was my final take on that thread:
https://lemmy.ml/comment/445935
100% the other person should have backed down and apologized pretty much after the first comment or two. But people do also need to consider that language means different things to people in different areas of the world, and my guess was that (before the person got really defensive) he meant no offense. Calling someone "buddy" for a large portion of the population carries no ill intent in most contexts.
If that offends you, then that's too bad. I'm not calling anyone a snowflake, and I don't knowingly misgender people. You really will have to point out to me where that other person did however, because if I saw that I wouldn't have defended it.
(edit) - As another example, it's a normal phrase where I'm from to call a group of people consisting of any gender (or even all women) "guys", as in "hey guys, let's go do something". If that's something that you would take offense at, then I'm sorry but that's life and you do just have to acknowledge that language means different things to different people in different contexts and different places of the world.
No, you've made the accusation, you provide the evidence. I absolutely stopped reading every reply in that thread once it was clearly devolving into a shitshow, so if you'd like to point out where I was defending someone misgendering someone else I'm all ears. But you can't, because I didn't, and you're just trying to start shit.
"Just search it up bro." Okay.
I've not once used the word snowflake here on Lemmy (and I've only ever used it to describe Republicans), and I don't recall having defended someone who misgendered anyone. Put up or shut up with a link to what you're accusing me of.
Oh no! Anyway...
Deleted
Permanently Deleted
Jump
You're 100% on the mark. Unfortunately the next automation revolution will come whether society wants it to or not. Just as soon as it's cheaper and as effective to have machines do the work of humans, corporations will choose to go that route. We've seen a few instances where corporations are going against this in the short term, but it never works out for us humans in the long run. We know that corporate culture only has eyes for next quarter's profit, humanity's future be damned.
I'm going to drop this here, you may have already seen it & know of CGP Grey on YouTube, but using this vid as a frame of reference: Humans Need Not Apply
That video was made in 2014. We've known that an automation revolution is going to come along and make a good portion of the workforce obsolete (again) for a number of years (CGP Grey wasn't the first to put forth the idea by any means), and we're doing nothing to prepare for it. If we don't figure out how to institute some form of UBI... well, it won't be good.
Hanlon's Razor, but yes, I don't think I would attribute it to a conspiracy per se, rather that those people just want to hold on to power any way they can paired with the fact that the system is inherently rigged against any third party from establishing itself.
I believe that absolutely none of that can come about until we enact ranked choice or another voting system to allow people to vote for other parties without fear of throwing away their vote.
Deleted
Permanently Deleted
Jump
True enough, but I'd counter that the person who uses 'yellow' as the answer to the square root of 100 is a moron, and the person who accepts it doubly so.
A better example IMO would be using ChatGPT to write code via pseudocode. Sure it'll spit out something for you, but you'll still need to verify those results using your own knowledge, and test it before putting it into production.
Another, different, example would be using it to write up proposals, project plans, etc. - if it was so easy that an AI could do it, maybe we need to take a good hard look at whether it needed doing in the first place, or examine how we're going about it.
It is a tool, albeit a smarter one than we've previously had. Like any tool, it can be used for good, evil, or moronic results.
I guess you'll need to define "in favor of".
I won’t argue that the leadership and majority of the Democratic party are neoconservative “”“centrists”“” - in other words, they’re conservative Democrats. There is a minority segment of the party that is progressive however, and once in a while they do something that is truly beneficial for everyone. The same can never be said about the GOP.
(edit) - Basically our political party makeup in this country in 2023 is the following:
- Progressive Democrats (minority)
- Conservative Democrats (majority)
- Conservative Republicans (minority)
- Fascist Republicans (majority)
(/e)
Do I vote for Democrats? Yes. Do I wish that they would be more progressive and fight back against the fascist Republicans more? Yes. Do I have any illusions that they don't fight back more because a portion of them are no different than the Republicans? No.
However, given that those are our only real options in the U.S. as long as we have a first-past-the-post, winner take all voting system (unless or until we institute ranked choice or some other alternative voting system), then the Democrats are the only one of those two parties that at least takes some actions and speaks words in support of the poor and middle classes. If you look at their actions, anyone who is not ultra rich should be voting for Democrats over Republicans unquestionably.
And what with the FPTP voting and all, not voting for Democrats is no different than voting for the GOP, which is only going to take us further down the path of fascism.
I do wish that we would adopt ranked choice voting, so that more parties would have a chance to take hold. Until then, you're right, we have a very low level of meaningful democratic interaction in our country.
Also FWIW, my original comment about 'being glad someone was calling out people' wasn't directed at you. I don't recall previous interaction with you and haven't seen your post history. There are plenty of people on here however that believe that anyone who isn't calling for a violent overthrow of the U.S. government isn't on the political left, which is abso-fucking-lutely absurd, and as @GuyDudeman@lemmy.ml said those people are usually in favor of countries that are examples of extreme authoritarian leftism, which I see as being not much different than fascism or other far right ideologies.
Sure, you don't have to tell me about the right wing media machine. Most people I knew growing up got sucked into it and are beyond any rational thought now.
For the difference between Dems and the GOP on economic policy, I won't argue that the leadership and majority of the Democratic party are neoconservative """centrists""" - in other words, they're conservative Democrats. There is a minority segment of the party that is progressive however, and once in a while they do something that is truly beneficial for everyone. The same can never be said about the GOP.
Ah, glad I'm being told what my political leaning is by an internet stranger from the other side of the globe with no involvement in U.S. politics and certainly no clue as to what it's like to live in the middle of GOP fascism land like I do.
As long as we're making baseless assertions, you're not a leftist.
I'm not saying that's wrong, but it's also more complex than that. It's not only the ultra rich supporting them. Take it from someone who lives amongst them.
Is there a massive corporate / monied influence behind the GOP? Sure, but that's true of the Democrats too. Given that that's our only options as long as we have a first-past-the-post, winner take all voting system (unless or until we institute ranked choice or some other alternative voting system), then the Democrats are the only one of those two parties that at least takes some actions and speaks words in support of the poor and middle classes. If you look at their actions, anyone who is not ultra rich should be voting for Democrats over Republicans unquestionably.
However, we have about 48% of our citizens in any given class that aren't the ultra rich who will vote Republican until their dying breath. In my state in particular, about 60% of the population votes Republican, despite being next to dirt poor.
We'll even vote for progressive policies - we legalized weed, voted for Medicare expansion, turned down """Right to Work""" laws multiple times, etc. - and then our own legislature that these assholes voted in will work to undo those measures that passed a popular vote however they can. They keep trying to reintroduce RtW laws every handful of years, they defunded the Medicare expansion. If they fail to stop the progressive policies, then they turn to profiting off of them through crony capitalism like they did with the cannabis industry by only giving out manufacturing and dispensary licenses to a small pool of people, and their cronies of course got first dibs.
So don't have any illusions - poor people vote Republican. In droves. It's due to ignorance, and bigotry, and racism, and a disregard for their own interest, but they do.
That doesn't entirely discount the theory being proposed in your OP article, but it doesn't explain Republican voting blocs everywhere. It just might explain Florida however.
Deleted
Permanently Deleted
Jump
I would say that if a thing can be destroyed by ChatGPT then it probably needed to be destroyed, or at least reworked to meet the times. It's not a lot different than people saying that calculators would destroy kids' ability to do math, or that Wikipedia would ruin people's ability to do research. It's a tool, with its strengths and limitations, and should be used as such.
It's not a modern concept, but that is certainly what the modern christo-fascism movement wants people to believe so that they can assert their world view that "the U.S. is a christian nation".
Yes, the establishment clause is based in respect for religion and peoples' right to have whatever relationship with their god as they see fit. However, you would have to ignore everything that Jefferson and Madison wrote on the subject wholesale to come to the conclusion that you (e- and Mr. Hamburger) have.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States
Simply on the face of it the establishment clause states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". If the state funds a religious school, how is that not the state "establishing" - by the very definition of the word - a religion?
Regarding a U.S. state "historically" being able to buck the Constitution and establish a religion, you'll have to throw in ignoring the 14th amendment... unless to you "historically" & "modern" mean before & after the Civil War, in which case if you're saying that things were somehow better before the war then I've got really nothing else to say to that nonsense.
Oh god I'm glad someone's saying it. I'm a progressive person, have no problem with socialism or communism as a concept, but there's a large amount of people around here that are so "far left" that they've wrapped back around to the far right without realizing it. Literally, they're posting the same garbage I'd expect in r/conservative over on reddit.
I don't know, I think that trend analysis ignores the masses of ignorant poor people who think that Trump & the GOP are going to save them from whatever boogeyman the GOP has constructed for them today.
By the end of 2022 beneficiaries of the moratorium accumulated an additional $2,500 in student-loan debt and an additional $2,000 in credit-card, mortgage and car-loan debt, boosting total household indebtedness by 8%.
And I'm sure that's 100% attributable to having a break from student loan payments, and nothing to do with the massive amount of inflation that corporations have chosen to continue to inflict on us well beyond when prices were driven up during COVID.
Yep, nothing at all. /s
(e-) Oh, and don't forget that a good portion of those people were still in school for a few years during that period, which typically costs way more than $2,500. I suppose that has nothing to do with it, either.
Too christo-fascist for any sane person, not fascist enough for the MAGA movement. Too bad, Pence.
I'd say the sun beat them to it some billions of years ago. /s
Thanks, and yeah I realized pretty quick that things were getting out of hand there. I guess I can only say that I would never knowingly defend anything like that (misgendering, bigotry, etc.)