Welcome to Incremental Social! Learn more about this project here!
Check out lemmyverse to find more communities to join from here!

Seasoned_Greetings

@Seasoned_Greetings@lemm.ee

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.

Seasoned_Greetings ,

Asserting this is obtusely ignoring the context that conservative voters have no qualms about voting for someone grossly immoral.

There aren't conservatives out there saying "Yeah well I was gonna vote for Trump but he supports genociding Palestinians".

The fact that conservatives don't have this problem and everyone else does means that, yes, you are enabling Trump by not voting Biden. The "logic" necessarily does not work the other way around, even if you say it like some sort of clever gotcha with a complex emoji.

Seasoned_Greetings ,

Why indeed? The fact is that not enough people vote for third parties for it to matter by an order of magnitude.

Conservatives don't vote third party. When we do, we split our own vote in the face of a party that has their base on lock.

Because that logic is abundantly obvious, people don't vote third party enough to make a difference. It's a self fulfilling prophecy. And it's so effective at actually splitting the vote that both parties have attempted running spoiler candidates in the past to do just that.

Why doesnt everyone just vote third party? Because enough people who could are afraid that it will mean degrading democracy by handing over the reigns if it doesn't work, thereby creating the very problem that they are afraid of.

Seasoned_Greetings ,

Only one explicitly right wing 3rd party was even an option in 2020, and Jorgensen ran libertarian, which is an ideology conservatives as a whole tend to reject. As evidenced by the ~1% of the vote she got.

this isn't true

Are you sure about that?

Seasoned_Greetings , (edited )

Yeah, about 1% of the voting body. The point that conservatives don't vote for a third party stands with a margin of error within 1%.

Contrast that to the 8 other independent or left leaning third parties on the ballot in 2020.

You're trying to shut down my original point with a counter point that is both moot and also trying really hard to be made on a technicality.

Seasoned_Greetings ,

One day you will get the point that the reality is that we as voters don't make the rules.

Yeah, you're right. We're boxed into this shitty ass system. Grandstanding about how shitty it is doesn't magically create a solution.

We vote for the least worst option and try to make progress towards a better situation in the future. It's either that or we fall to actual fascists who would rather take the vote away.

Seasoned_Greetings ,

What you said is technically correct, while ignoring the context.

Being technically correct about something that doesn't change the overall picture and hailing it as the end of an argument is petty and dishonest.

Seasoned_Greetings ,

Congratulations. You've proven me wrong that an inconsequential, literally marginal number of conservatives vote 3rd party.

That in itself doesn't change my original point.

Here's your award for being technically correct 🎖️

Seasoned_Greetings ,

Gee thanks officer. I stated something that was correct to within 99% of my claim and cited a source. Good thing you were there to correct the remaining 1% for the poor readers out there who might have mistaken that error as significant

Seasoned_Greetings ,

Yeah, I should have let it go about 3 comments back. I guess there's no better time than the present

Seasoned_Greetings ,

^ Someone who sees the problem and offers no solution, just like everyone else with their position

You can fly your pride flags all you want but you're throwing Palestinians under the bus to protect your warmongering corporatist status quo

There are no good guys. Only bad guys and much worse guys. Guess you want to virtue signal your way into the much worse guy so you can feel better? That's great, but maybe when we're lynching lgbtq folk as well as Palestinians you might consider looking in a mirror and wondering if your inaction made things worse.

Or, more likely, you'll complain about how doing something doesn't matter while the actual fascists you can't tell the difference between set their sights on another marginalized group.

Do something or join the people who are.

Seasoned_Greetings , (edited )

Ah yes, the old "my solutions are the only ones that work" Good luck with that.

By the way, deciding that everyone but you is a fascist is a great way to not have allies.

spread disinformation swearing up and down that leftists do nothing but tell people not to vote (which I've literally NEVER seen, by the way, not that fascists care about reality.)

Bro. Look around. There are people saying they won't vote democrat here in this comment section, much less the whole of leftist lemmy.

Block me, I don't care. There's no point in arguing with someone virtue signaling as hard as you are anyway.

Hope you don't mind being blocked back. I don't have time to argue with an idealist basement dweller about some imaginary solutions that make him feel better

Seasoned_Greetings ,

The beauty of being here on lemmy is that I genuinely can't tell whether you said this because you're far right or because you're far left

Stupid opinion either way. That Ai is going to catch its share of r/conservative idiots and be a nice blend of ignorance

Seasoned_Greetings ,

Evangelicals should be locked up in asylums. Nothing wrong with being religious if you interpret that by living your best life and helping people.

Seasoned_Greetings ,

Even in a country as obsessed with meat as America is this is simply totally unheard of.

Never heard of crab salad? Tuna salad? Chicken salad? All of these are mainly meat, lots of mayo, and sparce non-salad vegetables, and all things Americans buy at the supermarket.

Seasoned_Greetings ,

And if that person finds motivation in the possiblilty of something after death, and that brings a light to their life that they would otherwise succumb to existential dread over? Then they deserve to burn?

Seasoned_Greetings ,

That's not at all what I said. For some people, the thought of oblivion leads to existential dread. It's a belief in something more that keeps them going.

Are you saying that not being able to handle that makes you a bad person?

Seasoned_Greetings , (edited )

Ok, so the bad person here is you. Got it.

Seasoned_Greetings , (edited )

Your position in this argument sounds more like religion hurt you and you're lashing out than anything else.

If you can't morally allow religion to represent something positive for people, the problem is you, not religion.

Although I'm not religious myself, I'm capable of seeing how it affects positive change in some people. Deciding for them that they are childish/evil/stupid/whatever because you don't agree with their mode of motivation is frankly a lot more childish and petty than you're trying to paint them.

Anyway, thanks for showing us that you aren't a good person. It literally doesn't matter what you think about the subject.

Later

Seasoned_Greetings ,

This is incredibly disingenuous. The US might not be a true democracy, but it's not an authoritarian regime. Xi and putin disappear people who have an opinion on whether they should be forever-rulers.

The fact that independent parties exist and hold seats at all three levels of government mean you are fundamentally wrong in saying there are only two choices.

The US is a flawed democracy. That's still better than an authoritarian regime.

Seasoned_Greetings ,

If only they actually would die on that hill. They won't, because they've conditioned their base to support them no matter what. Instead, they'll rot the hill and move on to the next once the one they're on can't be salvaged.

nm , to Technology
@nm@veganism.social avatar

[Thread, post or comment was deleted by the author]

    •
    Seasoned_Greetings ,

    The paradox of tolerance applied to this situation suggests that in order to keep a community where choice is preserved, we need to be intolerant of bad actors with the ultimate goal of killing that choice.

    Meta absolutely is a bad actor looking to Embrace, Extend, Extinguish the fediverse.

    They're pivoting the overwhelming userbase of Facebook/Instagram into a sort of federated Twitter alternative that their users as a whole don't understand but do generate content for, in an attempt to steer the federation architecture into something they can control and make money off of. It's not subtle.

    Whether it will work or is even possible for meta to do remains to be seen.

    But, yes. To answer your question, we need to "deny the choice" of federating with what amounts to a wolf in sheep's clothing to preserve what we have, because that wolf is looking to destroy it.

    This post demonstrates that all of the major instances on lemmy but one understand this concept. If lemmy.world doesn't want to acknowledge what meta is doing, then they're also a bad actor in enabling meta to do it.

    Seasoned_Greetings , (edited )

    In addition to the other great points in this thread, Apple has a cost barrier that other operating systems don't.

    In an economic climate where everything is getting more expensive, a consumer isn't going to fork out $800+ on a MacBook or an iPhone without first actively wanting to be part of the ecosystem, especially if the hardware they have gets the job done.

    The reason Apple isn't growing as fast as it's competitors right now is exactly that. Apple is expensive to get into. No amount of enshitification on other OS's is going to change that.

    Seasoned_Greetings ,

    For people who consider this a sign of social status

    Ok well,

    1. Anyone who considers apple products a status symbol already has bought in and won't be swayed one way or the other by windows becoming worse.

    2. Anyone who actually understands technology knows that regardless of how many different apps or environments apple OS's provide, you are always operating in a closed system with the tools they allow. Whereas an operating system like android, or Linux, or (at least for now) windows, your options for the capability of a tool are limited only by what exists or what you have the capability to write.

    In short, apple isn't an OS that technologically literate people flock to as an exclusive option.

    Seasoned_Greetings ,

    Is this a game that really needs new quests? It's already so goddamn long if you're a completionist.

    Seasoned_Greetings ,

    No you see, that instruction "you are unbiased and impartial" is to relay to the prompter if it ever becomes relevant.

    Basically instructing the AI to lie about its biases, not actually instructing it to be unbiased and impartial

    Seasoned_Greetings ,

    So this might be the beginning of a conversation about how initial AI instructions need to start being legally visible right? Like using this as a prime example of how AI can be coerced into certain beliefs without the person prompting it even knowing

    Seasoned_Greetings ,

    In your analogy a proposed regulation would just be requiring the book in question to report that it's endorsed by a nazi. We may not be inclined to change our views because of an LLM like this but you have to consider a world in the future where these things are commonplace.

    There are certainly people out there dumb enough to adopt some views without considering the origins.

    Seasoned_Greetings ,

    And you don't think those people might be upset if they discovered something like this post was injected into their conversations before they have them and without their knowledge?

    Seasoned_Greetings ,

    You think this is confined to gab? You seem to be looking at this example and taking it for the only example capable of existing.

    Your argument that there's not anyone out there at all that can ever be offended or misled by something like this is both presumptuous and quite naive.

    What happens when LLMs become widespread enough that they're used in schools? We already have a problem, for instance, with young boys deciding to model themselves and their world view after figureheads like Andrew Tate.

    In any case, if the only thing you have to contribute to this discussion boils down to "nuh uh won't happen" then you've missed the point and I don't even know why I'm engaging you.

    Seasoned_Greetings , (edited )

    You have a very lofty misconception about people.

    I gave you reasoning and a real world example of a vulnerable demographic. You have given me an anecdote about your friends and a variation of "nuh uh" over and over.

    Seasoned_Greetings ,

    I start almost every comment I make on those instances with

    I know this will net me a ban

    to play a bit of reverse psychology with the mods there, who don't touch my comments when the denizens there inevitablely say

    Oh yeah you think you're so smart well we don't ban opposing opinions unlike some places

    And the mods there have their hands tied because banning me would prove their own guys wrong.

    It's worked pretty well so far.

    Seasoned_Greetings ,

    Well we know mayor Lewis is a slut

    Seasoned_Greetings ,

    We're gatekeeping hygiene now?

    Seasoned_Greetings , (edited )

    The bottom line is that hygiene is subjective. If a person feels that they need to shave because they come off as cleaner, that's all it takes to consider it hygiene.

    It's no different from shaving your legs or face.

    Seasoned_Greetings ,

    "Give me all of your money and god will cure your cancer!" obvious scam and a lie.

    "Give me all of your money and god will make your credit card debt vanish" is another thing I've seen mega-church types say.

    Incidentally, there's a conjecture around Christian circles I've seen that says these kinds of actions are what the phrase "thou shalt not take the lord's name in vain" actually warns against.

    Not cursing, as it has become commonly associated with, but the literal act of using the lord for vain purposes. Like saying "Give me your money and god will cure your cancer"

    Seasoned_Greetings ,

    As an American:

    I do try to avoid spaces with an over abundance of other Americans. Largely because I get way more than my share of American news pushed at me on all fronts every day and those people just tend to echo what CNN/Fox has to say about something over and over.

    But to other nationalities, any space with a US presence is regarded as "CIA controlled propaganda and those Americans are all slaves of their rich overlords and their capitalism is the singular reason the world is shit"

    Believe it or not, American media exists on a spectrum too, just like anywhere. Ironically, the people who spout this uninformed nonsense remind me of the lowest-common-denominator types of Americans who are afraid of Chinese immigrants and healthcare because "communism".

    Seasoned_Greetings ,

    Unpopular opinion incoming:

    I don't think we should ignore AI diagnosis just because they are wrong sometimes. The whole point of AI diagnosis is to catch things physicians don't. No AI diagnosis comes without a physician double checking anyway.

    For that reason, I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing that an AI got it wrong. Suspicion was still there and physicians double checked. To me, that means this tool is working as intended.

    If the patient was insistent enough that something was wrong, they would have had them double check or would have gotten a second opinion anyway.

    Flaming the AI for not being correct is missing the point of using it in the first place.

    Seasoned_Greetings ,

    Fair enough

    Seasoned_Greetings ,

    It's not fear porn. It's reality.

    If what you're saying is that people respond poorly in general to the news, then fine. But that's hardly the same thing as being negged into abusive relationships.

    Seasoned_Greetings ,

    I'm just going to leave the cdc report on sexual assault from 2010-2012 that says the same thing as my initial claim, with the same statistics in detail, for you to draw your own conclusions from. Check the tables from page 18 onward.

    My friend, statistics aren't sexist. They just are. I don't really have time to sit here and argue that women suffer more from sexual violence than men do. It's not really up for debate, and I've learned not to engage the people who think it is.

    If you're going to accuse me of misandry because I'm defending a woman's prerogative to feel safe, I'm just not going to fire back. Have fun with that.

    Seasoned_Greetings ,

    That's fair. I did misunderstand your point. It wasn't very clear just reading it back.

    Seasoned_Greetings ,

    You're treading a fine line with that logic claiming that news like this is designed to neg women into being constantly afraid.

    Seasoned_Greetings ,

    Page 25 and 32. Male perpetrators only statistic.

    It's not ambiguous.

    I didn't claim that the statistics I made were on rape or penetration or any specific form of sexual violence. Just that incidences are much higher in women being the victims and men being the perpetrators.

    Anyway, I'm not continuing this conversation further. It's completely ridiculous to look at these statistics and draw the conclusion that I must be misandrist for reading the numbers how they are, because your breakdown of the numbers don't exactly line up with mine but they still paint the same overall picture.

    Have a good night.

    Seasoned_Greetings ,

    Sure. But painting women as completely beholden to the news to the point that they're negged into paranoia and abusive relationships is blatantly over representing the problem.

    Seasoned_Greetings ,

    or is it intended to constantly neg you to the point you become a hollow shell of a woman, overly eager to please others out of fear for hypotheticals, no longer capable of recognizing good in others so you'll settle for the abusive relationships you've been conditioned to expect?

    I'm using your words, in your phrasing. If I'm misrepresenting what you said, then you might want to reexamine what you said.

    Seasoned_Greetings , (edited )

    Ok, and claiming that news pertaining to the rape and murder of women by men who were spurned is manipulative is better in what way?

    Painting news organizations as having the overall goal of negging women into paranoia and abusive relationships doesn't even make sense. If anything, their goal would be clicks, not sewing chaos in that way.

    And anyway, insinuating that the problem in the original post is the news fear mongering to condition women, and not the pervasive problem of violent men assaulting women, is itself insulting to women. Which is the point I was originally making.

    Seasoned_Greetings ,

    Women are physically inferior to men, and most men don't have a sense of romantic entitlement towards other men. I really can't believe I have to explain why the dynamic of men telling another man no is different from a woman doing the same.

    Seasoned_Greetings , (edited )

    Fear of demonstrably real repercussion. Not unwarranted fear.

    You're trying to state that the fear should be just the same, but the dynamic is not. Men don't tend to kill other men out of unrequited love. Trying to say that the difference lies purely in how the media portrays the problem is completely ignoring the context.

    It doesn't matter if the murder rate of men to women vs men is roughly the same if the causes are fundamentally different.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • incremental_games
  • meta
  • All magazines
    •