• 0 Posts
  • 218 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 17th, 2023

help-circle


  • It wasn’t to disrupt the vote. It was an arguably bad attempt to delay the vote so they could read it before voting. This is like getting angry and a starving kid stealing a loaf of bread. Is it illegal? Sure. Is it wrong? Absolutely debatable.

    And technically they can’t get arrested without getting impeached or expelled. Which you mentioned both consequences, but they need to be in that order. And it’d look really silly and likely not lead to expulsion without the Republicans looking bad. So they’ll just let their extremists whine loudly about it and submit bill ands the like that will go nowhere, but keeps it in the news so they can talk about it in sound bites.







  • The potential for AI to grow into something much more capable, unbiased and fair then any of is can be is obvious

    It absolutely is not obvious. AI, especially today, is usually either generative based on past examples or evolutionary based on given goals. Both of those come with obvious and extreme bias. Bias is actually an integral part of machine learning. It’s literally built into the system and is defined and controlled to achieve the results desired.

    AI is and always will be biased, moreso by its creators, but absolutely by the information and frameworks provided to it. We have absolutely no idea how to approach the concept of an unbiased AI, or even defining what unbiased would look like. It’s philosophically extremely difficult to define what an unbiased person would think or do.

    Edit: somehow I missed that last sentence fragment. I don’t think we’re in disagreement of the conclusion, but possibly just the details of how one arrives at it.


  • This is a ridiculous analogy. It’s also to the point of technically arguing one side while sarcastically supporting the other.

    And it also ignores my actual point and sets up a straw man anyway. All you’re doing is trying to claim I’m making a no true Scotsman fallacy. I am not. I never said every case of communism wasn’t communism. I even implicitly stated otherwise by saying communism hasn’t been attempted that many times for a statistical significant trend. I stated the failures mentioned were do to other problems. I’m not even claiming communism can or can’t work. Just that the arguments provided don’t support the conclusion. Being quippy doesn’t give a free pass to avoid using logic and reason. I’ve even made comments against people making bad arguments in support of communism. I just want to see real discussions about it and not folks repeating sound bites from their favorite talking heads.


  • You act as if it’s been tried any amount of time that would be statistically significant. Sometimes it’s not even communism other than in name and folks still count it.

    And it doesn’t devolve into it. It’s simply always been done at the same time. When you have essentially a dictatorship, absolute power will corrupt absolutely.

    A practical distinction historically speaking, but not philosophically speaking. If you’re unable to differentiate between concepts in history, I don’t know how you can ever effectively discuss them objectively. Though, this should have been evident with your comment initially. Communism doesn’t devolve into authoritarianism. They’re not even the same types of philosophies. One is about governing and one is about commerce. It’s like claiming capitalism devolves into a plutocracy. It does help to produce a plutocracy, but it didn’t devolve into one. They’re not the same thing.


  • Income share isn’t actually a good indicator of anything on its own. One would at the very least need to provide some sort of inflation chart and some sort of equivalent to a consumer price index. Like, it wouldn’t mean much if they all had the same income if that income couldn’t buy bread for example. not saying that was or was not the case, just using an example of how the given charts are meaningless on their own. That you provided them without even trying to provide context means you’re unaware of this and are ignorant to the issue or you’re actively misleading people.






  • never thought i’d see someone ignore a problem with trump because it involves someone that had worked for the government during the trump administration. if that was your best example, something he may not even had realized was fully going on at the time, than wow. sure, let trump get away with something because you hate trump. the damn logical inconsistency is astounding. you hate him so much (which is fine, i think he’s terrible too and should be in jail) that you’ve wrapped around and are now accidentally and implicitly defending him. its like you had a buffer overflow error.