@VelveteenAmbush's banner p

VelveteenAmbush

Prime Intellect did nothing wrong

5 followers   follows 1 user  
joined 2022 September 05 02:49:35 UTC

				

User ID: 411

VelveteenAmbush

Prime Intellect did nothing wrong

5 followers   follows 1 user   joined 2022 September 05 02:49:35 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 411

No one else has done anything comparable to January 6th

  • -16

I appreciate the thoroughness and earnestness of your list of stuff that presidents have done that you disapprove of, but none of those is worse than trying to overpower a presidential election after the fact with procedural trickery.

Anyway, come on. Trump is a shady guy. He always has been. Trump University was indefensible, and that's par for the course for him.

  • -11

urged on a rally by supporters

This is a ridiculous way to describe January 6

I agree that insurrection is not the right word, but neither is riot. The crowd was trying to stop the election certification, not just registering dissent.

I am mostly referring to his procedural attempt to overturn the election by having Pence refuse to certify the results. But yeah. Refusing to issue any kind of statement asking his supporters to stand down while they invaded the capitol was also indefensible.

I think that you need to qualify the first by a careful parsing of the facts, and the second by widening the aperture to an adjacent claim, really speaks to the core of the matter here.

"But what about all this other stuff that I really disagree with...!"

I accept your opinion that it is bad, but it is a different kind of thing than shadiness.

There were genuine issues at stake there. When the courts spoke, both sides accepted the result. Not even remotely comparable.

If Alex Jones defamed the parents, and harassment by unreasonable whackos was foreseeable and transpired as a result, then yes: they have suffered clear harm that was clearly the result of clear defamation.

The President does have significant executive authority, and it can be used to advance an agenda even in opposition to the legions of bureaucratic lifers in DC. DeSantis does this in Florida on the regular; it can be done, but it's hard, and Trump didn't do it.

Just to be clear: you claim that arguing that Rittenhouse murdered those two guys is on par with arguing that the Sandy Hook massacre never actually occurred and Sandy Hook parents are literally just acting?

Only if the speakers commit defamation.

Who knows, we could live long enough to see the full inversion: if we don't let her commit suicide, she might go trans!

Maybe that seems far-fetched, but we're already transing the gay kids. The LGBTQIA+++ revolution eventually eats its own. Only a matter of time till we add a D for death-inclined or something and tell the trans to check their privilege.

The threshold is defamation.

True, but it also doesn't mean the suffering is real, or at least that it is comparable to living with actual chronic pain.

You suggested that they'd control it directly, which is false

By giving it to the partisan opponent

No. The White House wouldn't run the algorithm. It would just need to be divested to a western acquirer. Didn't read the rest of your post since it started off on such an ignorant and/or dishonest foot.

It's not going to get you anywhere.

I don't need to go anywhere; my views already won. The legal outcome is what it is.

Contentions involving "reasonable belief of serious bodily injury" and similar legal distinctions are inherently more reasonable than denying that the Sandy Hook massacre even occurred. This isn't about left versus right, it's about Alex Jones being a uniquely clownish figure across both sides of the aisle, frequently telling lies that are absurd to a degree effectively unmatched in the world of US politics. I support gun rights too, for what it's worth. We don't actually have a difference of opinion on any of the related policy matters. The only difference between us here is the difference in depths that you and I are willing to stoop in defending ludicrous lies if they are directionally aligned with our policy preferences.

He should sue them. But I stand firm that factual errors of this nature are objectively less crazy than claiming that the Sandy Hook Massacre literally did not occur.

That question would come down to whether the claims constituted defamation -- a standard which was unambiguously met by his actual claims.

Or the triumph of the individual against an inhuman healthcare monstrosity to force the beast to do the one against its decrepit programming: allow the patient to die peacefully.

To force it? Only in the sense that, by placing an order and swiping your credit card, you force Starbucks to hand you a triple latte. Suicide is just one of these healthcare systems' products, and your last act is one of consumerism.

It takes enormous resources for society to raise an infant to the age of 18. If they follow the usual path, they will get a career and have a family. Income captures only part of the value that the person generates, and having children creates enormous positive externalities. If the state kills them, all of these benefits wither. And I do think that most depressed 23-year-olds will, if prevented from suicide, eventually recover and end up as EBITDA-positive capitalist productivity modules.

Well the idea is that they'd prevent you from killing yourself while you were committed, and once you were released, you'd no longer face that dilemma.

So why are they complaining about receiving a few tens of thousands more?