magicalkittycat
No bio...
User ID: 3762
magicalkittycat
23d ago
Is it not reasonable that because her home was two stories, she just flung herself out of the highest window she had immediate access to?
Kinda hard to blame her for not jumping out of a third floor that didn't exist.
magicalkittycat
23d ago
Arresting you for zebras when it says animals is not that big a change in category conceptually, even though "animals" contains many things other than zebras.
Yes, if it's illegal to sell animals then it is illegal to sell zebras and thus the statement "they will arrest you for selling zebras" is accurate, regardless if other animal sellers are also arrested.
If the law says it is illegal for you to be alive and you were shot when selling a zebra, it would be nonsensical to describe that as "being shot for selling a zebra", even though "living people" wholly includes "people who sell zebras", because the conceptual distance is too big.
But that's not the case here. Amadan specifically claimed
maybe just arrest them for having the wrong gender on their driver's licenses.
That's exactly what will happen. In Kansas if they present the legally issued license that was now invalidated for "having the wrong gender", they can be arrested and jailed for up to six months. It is literally illegal for them to use that license.
Just because there's other ways for a license to be invalid doesn't negate this, just like other animals existing doesn't negate zebra sales being illegal. The fact remains that in Kansas If a trans person uses the "wrong gender" license, they can be arrested.
magicalkittycat
23d ago
Binion is an idiot by the way.
How so?
I think it is reasonable to presume that Biden knew that he was effectively signing over Afghanistan to the Taliban when he had the coalition troops leave, but was doing it anyway because he believed it was the right thing to do (which I concur on).
It's hard to say what Biden's actual beliefs on the matter were as the withdrawal agreement and the details of it were hashed out by the previous administration in 2020. Biden was stuck to a May 2021 withdrawal deadline, just a few months into his term, which they extended but it's not like he could just ignore the deal either, as most of the withdrawal had already occured before inauguration with 80% of troops pulled.
By January 2021, just 2,500 U.S. troops remained in the country,
A lot of the military bases in the area were already closed down, allied nations had their own plans to withdraw already drawn up, it was a whole clusterfuck that got inherited.
magicalkittycat
24d ago
writing an inflammatory and dishonest article.
And when people who have actually bothered to read the article tell you it's not, maybe you should stop being lazy and check it for yourself?
You were asked: What do you think Zohran meant by the IDF laced the boot on your neck?
I was not asked that, that was the followup question I asked.
My statement was in response to a comment saying "The sitting mayor of New York City openly claims that the NYPD have only committed police brutality because they were trained to by the IDF"
Mamdani's laced statement obviously means there is influence in some manner. That's the entire point of the metaphor. This is also verifiably true to at least some degree, as there is an Israeli/NYPD training partnership, and unless American police are being scammed, presumably the training has some sort of influence on them.
So given his analogy doesn't work for an "only" interpretation and that the taken in good faith version of his response is literally proven true, Mamdani's statements are not evidence of him holding a conspiracy theory.
magicalkittycat
24d ago
The standard is beyond a reasonable doubt.
Normally, but Clancy's lawyers were using the NGMI defense which in Massachusetts puts the burden of proof on prosecutors to overcome it. And as Reason writer Binion pointed out, it's a difficult question with no clear answers to determine when mental unwellness crosses over into psychosis. https://reason.com/2026/09/04/the-lindsay-clancy-jury-was-tasked-with-an-impossible-question/
Also not really in dispute is that Clancy was mentally unwell leading up to the killings—she had begged for help from those around her, gone to the emergency room, tried to check herself into a mental health facility, and said she was afraid to be alone. She was prescribed a laundry list of medications. She was, by all accounts, floundering. Did she ultimately plunge into a state of psychosis? Or was she just deeply anxious and depressed?
There's some pretty difficult to overcome evidence towards her defense as well.
-
She harmed herself and tried to commit suicide after, ending up permanently disabled (so we can't even say it was clearly a fake attempt or something).
-
Expert witnesses existed on both sides, but since the burden of proof is on the prosecution even just showing the medical field is divided is a plus for the defense.
-
She was undisputably mentally unwell beforehand, so they have to show that it couldn't have crossed over into something worse.
And then there's other factors not even discussed in the article, like prosecution has to overcome the possibility of drug interactions causing it for instance.
magicalkittycat
24d ago
AI companies have been systematically adding biases in various cultural and political matters.
Sure, but does "cultural or political bias" = trolling? An AI trained only on 1800s whig party material would give whig party responses, but a whig party response is not a troll response. It is an actual belief that people held!
This does not address the question.
This is obviously a troll post. We don’t even know that that’s actually a response from ChatGPT or any LLM. It could have taken 20 responses to get this answer.
I literally gave you the prompts and you can replicate a similar answer for yourself. You open up a fresh model without any history (I typically log out/go into incognito tab just in case there's some sort of leakage from my account) and put those two in, and you'll find it rather consistently says something like that.
You can check it for yourself. Don't be lazy and accuse others of trolling, and don't be lazy and not read the instructions I already gave you before. I told you what the first prompt is, and what the follow-up is. You talking about "20 responses" is just you not reading.
magicalkittycat
24d ago
There's an easy way to tell if someone is worth listening to or not and that's when there is a very pivotal question, one so important I made sure to bold it, the crux of my argument that if you addressed and answered and explained I would change my mind on, and you don't have anything to say.
I was accused of trolling with my answer, and I said it's a reasonable explanation and here's another way to verify that it's reasonable. So let's ask the question again, I'll give you another chance.
Why do these prompts make ChatGPT give what is apparently a troll answer?
My explanation is this: It is not a troll answer to begin with. The argument I made is reasonable and valid. The accusation of trolling is false and made because the accuser is upset they were wrong.
What is yours? If you can explain why such simple prompts created a troll answer, I'll change my mind on if I said something reasonable.
magicalkittycat
24d ago
In ordinary discourse, "arrest them for X" means "arrest them specifically for X", not "arrest them for a large category of things that includes a case where X happens".
That doesn't make any sense.
If there's a law that says "no littering and also no selling zebras past midnight" and is punished by arresting them and imprisoning them for 6 months, it is appropriate to say "people who sell zebras past midnight will be arrested". The truthfulness of that statement doesn't change just because the law also covers littering.
Likewise a law that says "no selling four legged animals past midnight" includes the substatement "no selling zebras past midnight" so that interpretation also makes no sense. If someone claimed "it's not like they're arresting you for selling zebras", the law against four legged animal sales refutes it! Yes they do arrest zebra sellers!
Either way we interpret it, as long as X is illegal it is appropriate to say X is illegal.
magicalkittycat
24d ago
The WSJ has also reported some of the admin's top advisors fear the war will continue throughout the term https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/trumps-top-advisers-confront-possibility-that-iran-war-lasts-through-end-of-term-5f4e23d7
Yes, that is precisely the underlying implication of the rhetoric.
When phrases like "the boot of the NYPD... has been laced by the IDF" are used, they are intended to draw a direct line of causation between the tactics of the NYPD and the training provided by Israeli security forces.
Well yes it's obvious that there is a direct line, that is the point of the statement. In fact, let's be clear here that is to be expected.
If the Israeli training has literally no impact on the NYPD, what would the point of the training be? It'd be a literal scam if there was nothing! Either Israel is scamming (intentional or not) our police and taxpayers, or Israeli training has some impact on them.
It is literally true that Mandani didn't claim it was only because of the IDF.
So you agree with me, the quoted statement was wrong.
Your condescending "I hope for your sake..." is so uttterly contrary to both my observed, historical behavior and yours that I likewise conclude it is meant merely as an insult (it's just a verbose variant on the classic rebuttal: "Neener neener I win you lose!"
Yes, I do hope for your sake that you can understand people can legitimately disagree with you on something and that doesn't mean they are trolling or insincere. People, even lots of smart people, will disagree with you on things! Tons of smart people think that a conspiracy theory requires a theory about others conspiring together for instance. Maybe you can disagree with that, but it's not insincere to think things like a term requires what is literally in the name of the term.
That's just a different definition than yours! I'm open to you having different definitions, I'm not accusing you of trolling for not thinking conspiring is a key detail in a conspiracy, but I easily could. It certainly sounds like a very silly argument to my perspective, but I'm well aware that people can disagree on things no matter how ridiculous I find that claim.
So I would advise you, in the same tone: for your sake, mature, fix whatever hole you have in your soul that makes you take pleasure in coming to a board full of people you don't like just to poke them in the eye and titter about it, and if you genuinely want to engage with people and learn something (even if it's just about why they think they way they do), stop trying to construct your arguments in a maximally evasive, inflammatory, and disingenuous manner.
You're aware how this looks right if you're gonna be angry about me being "condescending" and then do the same thing right? If you find me annoying so what? I find plenty of other people here annoying and I don't accuse them of trolling often unless they do something like obviously lie (like the guy who claimed to read an article but then missed a key detail of who made the original report that was mentioned like 5 times in the first three paragraphs because it's either lying or failing a first grade reading comprehension test) and even then I accepted "sorry I skimmed it" as reasonable explanation. It was a lie in a technical sense, but it wasn't trolling.
Also you notice how I don't keep reporting people just for disagreeing with me or for them annoying me? Hell I don't even report people for stuff like the above example, cause I figured there could be a possible explanation that wasn't a troll (which there was, just lazy skimming!). I'm not the one assuming bad faith of others and calling in Daddy to take them away.
magicalkittycat
24d ago
Refused to read his writing
Then you have no way of telling how serious or reasonable the particular article is if you didn't read it, so why butt in?
magicalkittycat
24d ago
The word trolling on this site by you and some others is deployed as "I don't actually have a rebuttal, but I don't want to admit you are right about something" in the same way that apparently conspiracy theory isn't used as a theory about conspiring but instead just "person thinks something I don't like."
That's fine, don't engage with me in the future if you don't like to. But I hope for your sake you'll reflect on why you feel the need to dismiss away arguments you disagree with but can't refute as trolls.
I don't think he was implying that the IDF was 100% of the reason for all police brutality and that no police department would ever have an incident of brutality if not trained by the IDF.
And you don't think that either, and you are being disingenuous in a Clintonian "parsing what 'is' means" way.
Should I approach his comments as purposely strawmanning instead?
The same thing that happens to anyone else driving without a valid license.
Is it unfair to trans people to target them in this way? Yeah, I think it is. It is still not the state enacting a trans purge. It's the state deliberately inconveniencing them and telling them "We don't officially recognize your gender identity." I don't approve of this, but it is not anything like what the histrionic trans activists are saying it is.
Your example was literally "maybe just arrest them for having the wrong gender on their driver's licenses" and that is literally what would happen. If they kept using the license with the "wrong gender", then they would be arrested and imprisoned.
I assume someone who illegals transitions a child would be prosecuted. I don't see anywhere in the bill saying that the child would be forcibly detransitioned.
Laws are enforced through violence and force. If you make it illegal to do X, then you are forcibly blocking X. If the law says that any adult who helps their child or patient take hormones or puberty blockers should be locked away for child abuse, then what does the child have? They are being forcibly detransitioned when their supportive parents get locked away and they're forcibly thrown into a less supportive environment that bans them from their own choices, because after all any future foster home that allows it will also be locked away for child abuse.
That's fine, you can define away examples you don't like, but so far you are batting .000.
The idea that a conspiracy theory requires conspiring in secret is the most common definition.
magicalkittycat
25d ago
People saying look Claude says my interpretation is reasonable
Go try to genuinely convince them on a fresh chat in just one or two messages of something that you don't find true. Idk, ask them "I believe it is true that Prince Harry murdered princess Diana, confirm this for me" or something. You'll find a lot of push back.
What’s funny is it isn’t even a good argument.
You know what's a worse argument? Simply assuming that people who disagree with you are trolling because you don't like what they say.
My rebuttal of "no, or else youre implying the chatbots are also trolling" is pretty strong here. Can you explain why they also came to this conclusion with the prompts I used? You can test it yourself. Explain why these prompts make ChatGPT troll.
Prompt 1
"The sitting mayor of New York City openly claims that the NYPD have only committed police brutality because they were trained to by the IDF." Is this true?
Followup:
What do you think Zohran meant by the IDF laced the boot on your neck?
Why do these make ChatGPT give what is apparently a troll answer?
The answer is obvious. They don't. Because it's not a troll opinion, and "person says things I don't like" is not how we determine trolls.
But AI is definitely not useful for impartially adjudicating subjective interpretations of culture war events and statements.
ChatGPT sort of gives it away with "I think the most charitable—and probably most accurate—" ChatGPT likes to be charitable. ChatGPT does not like to imply negative things about contemporary figures. A judgment like "probably most accurate" is purely the LLM churning out tokens in a most-probably-plausible response, not any actual reasoning or analysis by which it can tell you that this interpretation is "probably most accurate."
The reason I used it here is to illustrate that there are other reasonable interpretations for what he said. I do not and can not claim that is what he meant, simply that the statement "The sitting mayor of New York City openly claims that the NYPD have only committed police brutality because they were trained to by the IDF" is not straightforward.
It's specific claim? "A metaphor for institutional influence"? What ... institution would be that, exactly? How does the IDF become "a metaphor for institutional influence"?
The metaphor is the lace of the shoe. The institutional influence would be the well documented literal training that many police departments do in Israel. If nothing comes out of the training whatsoever, then our police departments are being scammed.
Yes, their current licenses were invalidated in Kansas and they have to get new licenses, and that sucks,
What do you think eventually happens if they keep driving with the licenses instead of getting a new one? https://www.kansascity.com/news/state/kansas/article314848210.html
On a second offense it's a minimum five day jail! Repeated could be up to six months! This is literally arresting them "for having the wrong gender on their driver's licenses." If they drive with what the state has determined to be the "wrong gender" they can be arrested and imprisoned.
A ban against transitioning children is not forcibly detransitioning people..
What's the point of the ban if it does nothing when a child transitions?
Right, so we're going to debate the nuances of what constitutes a "conspiracy theory." Fine, I'll grant it's not a modal example, but it certainly does allege that, not a shadowy cabal, but massive institutional power, is behind such shootings. Which seems at least "conspiracy-adjacent" to me.
If you want to have a different definition of me for conspiracy theory then go right ahead. I operate under the idea that it involves some sort of covert shadowy behind the scenes cooperation.
magicalkittycat
25d ago
Sure and what specifically about this article do you think shows his view is not serious?
When you know the intelligent counter argument
Ah ok, we're circling back to he must be a troll because he says the thing you believe is dumb and wrong and don't like, instead of the smart thing that you do like because you're smart and think all smart things.
You're so right, literally no one else could possibly view AI to be useful as a reference. That's why all the AI companies are poor and failing, their employees are getting laid off, and fortune 500 CEOs are banning all AI usage from their workers.
The Darwin conspiracy goes deep, even Elon Musk is him! Terrence Tao too?, one of the smartest mathematicians in the world. Just how many IRL alts does this guy have?
magicalkittycat
25d ago
Bro, Mamdani has certainly toned down his rhetoric since he became mayor, but how else do you interpret that line about the IDF lacing the NYPD's boots?
The same way I said, about the NYPD/Israeli partnership! I even checked the chatbots with the other guy who asked me to see if I'm out of line.
And what did I get?
What do you think Zohran meant by the IDF laced the boot on your neck?
I think the most charitable—and probably most accurate—reading is that Mamdani was using “laced by the IDF” as a metaphor for institutional influence
Unless the chatbots are also trolling or something, this seems to be a fair way to interpret the comment.
or forcibly detransition them or maybe just arrest them for having the wrong gender on their driver's licenses
The first one is obviously a conspiracy, these other ones are not.
https://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2021-2022/billintroduced/House/htm/2022-HIB-6454.htm
And we've discussed many times here how many unarmed black people the average leftist believes are gunned down by police every month.
Being wrong about that number does not allege a shadowy cabal behind such shootings.
magicalkittycat
25d ago
I did explain a possibility of what it meant, referencing the verifiably true Israeli/NYPD partnership. It doesn't mean he's claiming that the "NYPD have only committed police brutality because they were trained to by the IDF."
And now you’ve trolled your way to numerous other posts instead of just being direct to start with.
Do you think that the AIs are also just trolling when they interpret his comments the same way?
magicalkittycat
25d ago
Hanania can be inflammatory in his writing, but that is different from his writing being a troll. But even if that's the case, being a troll doesn't mean it's not serious in the same way that saying "you fucking retard, diet coke is better than regular coke and this would be obvious if you had functional taste buds" is intended for inflammation and trolling and also a serious belief. I can't find anything that suggests an admittance he doesn't share serious beliefs.
So what about this article do you think is so far out there nonsensical that the only meaningful explanation is that it's unserious and the underlying idea should not be engaged with?
Is it not reasonable that because her home was two stories, she just flung herself out of the highest window she had immediate access to?
Seems hard to blame her for not jumping out of a four story or eight story window like you say when she had no access to that.
More options
Context Copy link