Interesting. I’m pretty ignorant about the Zapatistas. Looking over the Wikipedia and they seem all right.

I don’t quite follow you. Do you mean like instead of winning the revolution. You take a chunk of the country create borders and install some kind of anarchy?

That’s fair. I think generally anarchists have good ideas. If there is a violent revolution, I would probably end up being your comrade in arms.

I don’t think we would win though. Most people think anarchism is a bad word right now. I can’t imagine recruiting fighters during the revolution under the banner of anarchism. Hell even progressivism isn’t very popular. As always, liberals are the problem.

We may have to have a revolution but I think it needs way more time to cook.

After reading a bit. It seems like a Democratic system. I didn’t get the details but assuming the people who are appointed to the councils are voted upon. And voting happens within the councils. Then I would say yeah the system is Democratic.

So you don’t feel safe answering my question. I won’t force an answer.

How do you feel about democracies? Like say it post collapse and revolution. You ended up on top. Would you create a democracy?

Just to be clear if you had a magic button that would result in guaranteed gradual reform if you pressed it. And not pressing it would result in collapse.

You would press the button, right?

I don’t think so, seems like I am a part of a rag-tag group of people who are doing “jobs” to get rich. I don’t think we have any formal government or organization backing.

I guess I don’t know the full story of everyone I am working with yet. So there could be a twist I am unaware of.

The Republicans should never have gone down this road in the first place.

I think this is the crutch of our disagreement. My question to you is why? The Republicans want power. They want to turn the US into a Free Market Theocracy. Why shouldn’t they do what they are doing? I personally think what they are doing is bad, but why should they care?

Getting mad at the Democrats for not being good enough to stop that is akin to victim blaming.

I am more interested in your response to my first point, but I couldn’t let this stand. It’s such a bad comparison. Both the Dems and Republicans are fighting for power, they are not a victim and an aggressor, they are both aggressors.

Do you blame the thief, or do you blame the homeowner for not having better locks?

I blame the police for not arresting the thief when they revealed their plans to rob my house before they robbed it.

I don’t think you understand. No reasonable person thinks that republicans are good or not to blame. Blaming the republicans won’t stop them from taking power. They have done and continue to do what they have said they will do and the Democratic party has done nothing to stop them.

It’s like your sky diving, and your parachute fails to open. Do you get upset at gravity or the guy who packed your parachute? Yeah, gravity is what is going to kill you, but it doesn’t care, that was the plan. The guy who packed the parachute is your only real way of controlling the situation.

The Democratic Party packed the parachute and it isn’t opening. Hopefully it does soon.

Yeah I was confused by the article when they said they would regret it. Yeah if they cared, but they don’t.

What price should cable be? Who gives a shit, 100 dollars. There I did, supreme Court’s justices can do it too.

I don’t get the “take off your shoes” part. Is this a meme I have missed?

As someone who doesn’t pay close attention to what Google does at the top of the page, this is not obvious to me. Glad it is a shit post and not something Google actually responded with.

I have used LLMs before and they are occasionally wrong, seems like you don’t disagree. I don’t see how someone who isn’t deeply familiar with LLMs would be obviously tipped off that this post is a shit post. As for the graphs, who knows, Google probably already has that working. I’ve seen LLMs make up songs before too.

AI would never write this.

Why not? I figure you could train an AI to write this. I could see a Google engineer messing up and producing a bad AI. GPT2 engineers has made this mistake before.

The fact that you are believing it doesn’t speak to the danger of AI as much as it speaks to the gullibility of people.

This is kind of like saying “the problem with nuclear bombs is that people are too easy to evaporate at high temperatures, not the bombs themselves”. Yeah, that is true, but it’s really hard to make people less gullible. I wouldn’t say LLM’s and AI are bad or we should stop using them. But I think people like you need to understand that the average person is not on your level, and you need to slow your roll.

If I said “obama made a law to put babies in woodchippers”…

I don’t think this is a good comparison, because Obama has been around for a while and most people believe Obama wouldn’t do that. Now if Obama went from being a nobody to president in a day and then someone told me the about the woodchipper law. I would be unsure and have to double check. It wouldn’t be obvious. Likewise, since LLMs are relatively new to most people, it’s going to take a while before most people figure out what is a normal mistake by an LLM vs an obviously faked mistake by a shit poster.

Ok, your not the original person. Is this an obvious shit post in your opinion?

Because if it isn’t obvious how am I supposed to know this is a shit post or not?

How is this an obvious shit post? I am here to learn.

Do you ever feel like we will be the last generation to know anything?

the context that lead to the statement being made in the first place.

But I don’t think that context is necessary to agree/disagree with the statement. What context could men’s feelings be more important that women’s safety?

i provided one in the above statement which was a very literal interpretation of that statement, which quite literally interprets the fact that your feelings sometimes provide negative influence to your perceived safety. To use a specific example here, you may have a fear of heights, which leads to you feeling “unsafe” at heights, even though it’s a psychological adaptation that you have causing it. Although in that case it’s pretty well understood to be a psychological adaptation of something, so that’s not a common thing.

Sorry, I was expecting something worded like “I feel less safe up high because I am afraid of heights so how can feelings be less important than safety”, so I didn’t catch your example.

Yeah, I think that someone could interpret it like that. But I feel like you could pretty easily explain that feeling safe and being actually safe are not the same things. Someone who is confused can easily be caught up and someone who is being malicious would have a hard time not looking silly. I feel like this level of confusion would have a pretty low occurrence count. So I feel like this specific confusion would be a reasonable risk.

If you say a statement and someone goes “yeah no i don’t get that”

My issue with this is that depends on the people joining the conversation. Also depends on how malicious they are. Like if someone didn’t know what “safety” meant. You can solve this by copy-pasting the dictionary definition of “safety”, but then then the next person who joins might not understand the concept of feelings, or not understand some of the words in the definition of “safety”. This is a never ending task.

I think a better way is to target a specific audience. You will lose people outside of that target, but that is unavoidable and will happen with any strategy. Hopefully some of them ask questions or for clarifications, so your message can spread to those groups. I think it is important to be as inclusive as you can be. But most people on here (including me) are doing this in their spare time. So it’s not like we have much flexibility to improve things.

That all being said, I think this meme was well targeted and effective. Did we solve the problem, no, that was never possible to begin with. But we did provide nice discussion about it. We let the extremists show off how silly they were. We let confused people ask questions and get answers. We gave the general public a good showing so they can decide what is right and wrong.

bringing it down to something like “safety is more important than feelings” is so inherently vague

In my mind this is as vague as the original post when it comes to the truth of the statement. The only difference is adding genders which doesn’t affect the meaning of the statement.

Thank you for explaining that.

i’ll make a mockery of it by misinterpreting the ever living shit out of it because i think it’s funny.

Hilarious, I do like a good trolling.

missing obvious context

Like what context specifically?

Which can lead to really funny misinterpretations of this statement specifically

Can you give me some specific examples? It would help me understand.

But hey look at that, i might be wrong and misunderstanding

Which is fine. English is a very imperfect language (most languages are, but that is the best we have). Most of the people are wrong most of the time, including me.

What is your threshold for vagueness here? You would need to have a programming language to remove vagueness down to 0% and encoding this meme perfectly would be 20 pages of code if not more.

I agree with most of what you’re saying.

You keep coming back to the vauge thing and I don’t understand how it’s vague.

If I didn’t know any current events, I would still agree with the statement. I might be curious as to why the statement needed to be made but that is something I could figure out later.

I mean, it also could be intentional. Some people really do hate women. So the first thing they did after the man/bear thought experiment was to say “Oh look women all think all men are rapists/bad. There is some kind of gender war going on here”. A lot of people I have talked to have chilled out after I ask “Who said that all men are rapists? No one is saying that.” They realize they might not have understood the original issue or have been mislead.

That’s what I like about this meme. The statement is fundamentally true. It is a sub-set of “Feelings are less important than safety”. Anyone who upset about it is either someone who is uninformed or mislead. Orrr someone who wants their to be drama, someone who wants women to be afraid or be victims and/or wants men to be hopeless and upset. If you are just uninformed a quick question can resolve the issue. If it is intentional, a discussion should ensue that make their ideas look a foolish or wacky.