alxjrvs

Fwiw, the examples don't do a great job of that, imo. One of those descriptions is factually true, whereas the other contains mostly juicy propaganda talking points.

(And, as I pointed out, some real ones!)

But, to put a fine point on it, literally zero children are being mutilated (in the context this statement is typically brought about, "children being forcibly transitioned against their will by their parents, including surgery", which is deeply false), but there are white supremacists in the government, without room for equivocation or debate. Even in the context of absurdity, they are not equally absurd claims. You took an accurate portrayal of the right in America (perhaps assuming it was absurd?) and compared it against...the right's propaganda view of the "left". This is why it was not "Obvious".

And, to be clear; conservatives are already saying that! Your average trump voter thinks that there are litter boxes in schools! They literally think that! I'm not going to be nice and lie about their capacity for goodness while they seek to eliminate me and my pals (or, at best, casually don't care about voting for the folks who want to eliminate me and my pals, which, you know? Fuck em.)

Sorry, let me spell it out for you;

I refer to this incident colloquially as "The time trump told us to inject bleach", which would be more accurately described as "The time the president of america was so balls-on stupid that he rambled for five minutes about doctors using bleach and UV disinfectant to fight Covid, a ramble so incoherent that the CDC had to issue a warning to ignore what it appeared he was suggesting."

I have no desire to treat the "intelligence" behind that statement - or those with full throated support of his incredible genius - with any authority.

The "White Power" was the evil (though, quite stupid in its own right) part. The "Bleach" was the "stupid" part of my comment, and I stand by it.

> “We tested bleach,” he said at one point. “I can tell you that bleach will kill the virus in five minutes.”

> “A question that probably some of you are thinking of if you’re totally into that world,” Trump began, clearly thinking the question himself, “So, supposing we hit the body with a tremendous — whether it’s ultraviolet or just very powerful light — and I think you said that that hasn’t been checked, but you’re going to test it. And then I said, supposing you brought the light inside the body, which you can do either through the skin or in some other way, and I think you said you’re going to test that, too. It sounds interesting. And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in a minute. One minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning. Because you see it gets in the lungs, and it does a tremendous number on the lungs. So it would be interesting to check that.”

To read this in any other way than "The president suggested we blast people with UV rays or inject them with disinfectant - such as bleach, the disinfectant he just mentioned as being effective" feels like a tremendous amount of mental gymnastics, bordering on willful ignorance. Cross your eyes and maybe I'm being flippant about "bleach", wherein he only merely suggested injecting "disinfectant", which renders him a genius, I imagine?

He ranted about two common disinfectant strategies for inorganic materials and suggested they use them on people, because he's not particularly bright.

Edit: Also worth mentioning that the following day when asked what he meant by that, he did not say "I did not ask about injecting bleach", he said "I asked about that sarcastically".

> I was asking a question sarcastically to reporters like you just to see what would happen … I was asking a sarcastic, and a very sarcastic, question to the reporters in the room about disinfectant on the inside. But it does kill it, and it would kill it on the hands and that would make things much better. That was done in the form of a sarcastic question to the reporters.

So it would appear not even Mr. Trump agrees with your statement.

Because I'm annoyed when people get it wrong

- Children aren't being mutilated and anyone who believes this is a willing mark or has a toddlers understanding of science

- the concept of "Gender" is actually very important to a lot of trans folks, as it turns out. My "Sex" is about as relevant to my day to day as my blood type, and I think people who obsess about my chromosomes are fucking weird

- We should abolish all the police - got me there.

- White people don't exist as a racial category with any meaningful definition except as a catch-all for groups meant to exclude. It's not a race, it's a country club with a pantone guide.

Hope that helps, and I hope you find whatever it is you are looking for.

It would be a lot easier if they weren't so god-dammned stupid and plausibly evil.

I do not feel the need to compromise with "White Power" or "We need to find a way to safely inject bleach".

Can't agree harder. The idea that it is un-masculine to have friends is such a mental virus. A lot of people are going to miss everything cool and die angry.

> And the WaPo management fears Bezos

Both can be true. I also consider it a failure of regulation and humanity that a billionaire can just own a newspaper and nix stories for clout.

Not the poster, but I don't think a newspaper pulling an endorsement out of fear of reprisal is a great sign of a free press (or, to the poster's point, a press you care to pay for.)

Every accusation is a confession from the Red Hat crowd.

> Their cause is to universally redefine "woman" to include men who desire to be women, and "man" to include women who want to be men.

This is a reductive view that presupposes gender as a pre-existing discernable static fact of a person's biology as opposed to an apparently extant human phenomena. The idea that they are the same is a profoundly simplistic view of the issue, one not supported by modern psychology or human archaeology, littered with happy societies full of folks we would now consider "gender non conforming". It's not a new cause, nor is it attempting to "redefine" anything.

> We can already see the effects and they're not good

People living authentically is great, actually. Respecting others and their preferences, also good. It genuinely doesn't hurt anyone. The effects to my life are roughly equivalent to my friend Phillip telling me he prefers Phil.

> harmful to women and girls in particular.

In very hypothetical, "just asking questions" ways that have yet to be borne out in any sensible reality. What has happened many times is cis and trans women being harassed for baseless, paranoid reasons. It's especially repugnant a defense when you consider that trans folk - trans women in particular!- are among the most vulnerable to attack and abuse.

If we were worried about harm to women and girls in a tangible, meaningful sense, we would be quick to punish actual perpetrators of verifiable assault than play feminist only when we find a more vulnerable throat to crush.

I disagree, and I find an even more vocal, even smaller group seems very invested in making sure people know who exactly we need to throw to the fascists to make them finally stop being fascists.

I'm sorry you experienced that, and that kind of hate has not been my experience - though that kind of negativity in other online cultures certainly has been.

Trans people behaving badly does not make me want them to cease existing, or make me feel less for their cause. "Trans people want hate spewn at them to justify their worldview" feels like a hilariously backwards belief outside of a few professional activists, who I am not particularly inclined in listening to in the first place.

If support of trans folk is "Too far" for someone, they were already running towards fascism. There's nothing progressive about denying folks their gender identity, and to the extent that "Progressivism" is a force in America, it is better off without the Anti-trans contingent.

But certainly not because they are a man, you understand? To claim that the "Class" in "Second Class Citizen" is "Men" - that the set of "Classes that do not contain men" constitute a "First Class" - is hilariously out of depth and not worth taking seriously as an idea. This is the idea treating men as a single group, "Men are second class citizens".

A man can be disadvantaged. And there are some areas of life where, as you say, men are put at a disadvantage due to the actions of other men. This is not because "Men are second class citizens", it is a systemic issue of gendered preference that disadvantages men and women but has traditionally been a system set up to benefit men.

There are injustices in the world that are unique to men, and deserving of correction and justice. That is not in question. What is in question is looking at the state of the world and saying "You know who really has it tough? Men."

Yes, there are many problems that are unique to men that society does not address. I would not say that is because men are not adequately represented in the halls of power, or because society does not adequately cater to men's needs. "Second class citizen" is patently absurd.

No, only the men using them as props to prove men are "second class citizens".

Sure, and to call men second class citizens under any definition is absurd.

This is why I frame it as a "snippets" plugin, rather than a Code generation tool.

I would be very confused if someone told me that they uncritically used the generated code from a snippet program with no manual input or understanding, and I feel the same with Copilot. At best, it suggests an auto-complete that I read and interpret before accepting.

The closest I come to "code generation" is during test writing, where occasionally I will let the description generate some setup, but only in tests where there are a broad number of examples to follow, and I am still going to end up re-writing a decent chunk of it based on personal example. I would not "let it write the test suite for me" and then trust the green, and I suspect that would easily fail code review (though it would be an interesting experiment...).

Obviously your comment as a good goof and well made, but it does speak to a little bit of the disconnect between what is being touted as an "AI coding tool" and how I, a person who makes react native apps to pay my rent, actually use the dang thing (i.e., "A pretty good snippets plugin"). Is My code 'AI generated'? I wouldn't call it that, but who can say definitively? We're in a fun new semantic world now.

In my day to day, this still remains the main way I interact with AI coding tools.

I regularly describe it as "The best snippet tool I've ever used (because it plays horseshoes)".

To be fair, a (stable, used by many for many years) mile-long pedestrian bridge constructed out of popsicle sticks and chewing gum would be a fairly impressive feat.

While I agree that the giant metal spikes we put on all the cars aren't the exclusive reason that cars are lethal, I would hope we both agree that cars are less lethal when we don't cover them in giant metal spikes.

Wholeheartedly agreed!

Please don't mistake my post as an endorsement of the tobacco industry - I was only saying that while we do not have extensive proof of the dangers of social AI, wink-and-nodding at the audience about AI intimacy (sexual or otherwise) strikes me as irresponsible, and so I thought the tobacco comparison was apt.

Playing devils advocate for a moment - have you ever had a cigarette? It does plenty of good for the user. In fact, I think we do make this risk calculation that you describe in the exact same way - there are plenty of substances that are so toxic to humanity that we make them illegal to own or consume or produce, and the presence of these in your body can sometimes even risk employment, let alone death.

We know the risks from cigarettes, but it offers tangible benefits to its users, so they continue to use the product. So too cars and emotionally manipulative AI's, I imagine.

(None of this negates your overall point, but I do think the initial tobacco comparison is very apt.)

Sure, but that is denying the reality of the moment / endorsing the fantasies of the past. I fail to see how pointing out the actual reality of hiring statistics correlates at all the fascist conspiracy theory. This is not "hating men".

Also co-signing, though it involved choosing my friends over the course of the last decade and making an effort to stay in touch, my friend circle has a fair amount of parents and non-parents. Paradoxically, I talk to one of my oldest pals more frequently now, because he logs on to a game after his kids go to sleep and is always happy to party up. We are also pretty distanced from one another, but make the effort to check in with each other so we stay close.

Not saying it isn't hard, and not saying it isn't a challenge at times (I certainly don't see my friends in person as much!) but the idea that having kids forces you to be friendless is absurd.

Well, don't you think it's a little cruel to scare the children just because the house is burning down around them? /s

There are, in the same way that there are infinity pools and private planes.

> None of this has been include in NBC or anyone else’s reports, except Kiwi Farms and one radical feminist blog.

Interesting sources, there.

You don't have to Archive those. I can link to them right here:

https://diyhrt.wiki/

If anyone out there is in need of HRT but does not have access to it - or can not get access to it - please check out that link.

To be clear, "Drug Distribution Website" is a common resources list for sourcing HRT when you do not have supporting medical access to it. This is a far reach from "Distributing Drugs".

That would be good. You know how we get to that universe? Having more queer people around.

You know how we do that?