magicalkittycat
No bio...
User ID: 3762
magicalkittycat
25d ago
No, it doesn't. Not every post made here is a reply to a comment specifically addressed to me. Do you know how "threads" work? You made a top-level post less than 24 hours ago. That was not a reply to anyone.
My response was to
hey bro, how come you answered pretty much every comment except this one?
It wasn't about "why didn't you reply to every top level post" it was "why didn't you reply to this comment" which the truthful answer is "I don't reply to every comment cause I have other stuff going on".
Which speaking of, work is picking up pretty hard now and I can't procrastinate much more so as fun as it is to argue with silly conspiracists online I have to call it.
magicalkittycat
25d ago
The last one still doesn't make sense
I'm not criticising you for not replying to every comment (I routinely have more important things to do than to be posting here).
This implies that you do similar and do not reply to every comment for the given reason "I routinely have more important things to do".
But ok maybe you do get around to all of them eventually. So what?
The difference here is that I don't reply to every comment and you do reply to every single one even if it takes you a long time? The first one is not strange or unique behavior, and is not a unique response to "why didn't you reply to this specific one?"
magicalkittycat
25d ago
No. To the best of my knowledge, no one has ever posted a comment here which I intended to reply to, but which I didn't have time to because "I have a job and family and stuff".
Then why did you say
There have been times in which I was so occupied
And
I'm not criticising you for not replying to every comment (I routinely have more important things to do than to be posting here).
These seem to imply that you do not respond to every comment because of "times in which I was so occupied" and "routinely having more important things".
magicalkittycat
25d ago
eversed in which the responding police officers
Sure we can know they behaved poorly in a vague sense because they didn't arrest the shooter on the scene despite him having been legally guilty for manslaughter, something we know because he was found legally guilty for manslaughter.
magicalkittycat
25d ago
What about cops attacking nonviolent protestors on video,
That's just a still image, which also doesn't show what happened before then.
Most "police brutality" cases are out of context and don't show the police are responding to aggression.
Also checked to see if it was true at all
I asked
"The J6er was charged with assault for blocking this cop's punch with his face." Is this true at all?
And for
Short answer: no, that quote is not true in any literal or legal sense.
And
There is no official case description that matches the meme framing that someone was literally charged because they used their face to block a punch
Do you happen to have the charges against him where what they outline is that he blocked his face and that's what was the assault?
magicalkittycat
25d ago
I guess one reason why you don't give an answer is "because you know it would reveal you are wrong"?
magicalkittycat
25d ago
They didn't treat the victim as a criminal; and
They inherently did when they took the self defense claim from the shooter legitimately (despite what we know now, it was not legally legitimate).
They immediately took the perpetrator to a police station for questioning
That's what happened after the scene. I can't find anything on what happened after to Digwa after the police realized Nowak was injured while on the scene, everything is focused specifically on Nowak himself but it seems like from what little I can find asking the chatbots that he was arrested on the scene (not being allowed to leave yet) after the injury was discovered.
magicalkittycat
25d ago
FIRE is among the many, many, many organizations who lost their way and don't support what they say on the tin. Look at their tagline for that very article:
Can you give a single example where FIRE took the pro censorship side?
What the fuck is FIRE thinking publishing this kind of dreck? They ought to know better, but then again, see my first sentence.
They're a free speech organization in favor of free speech and they know one way that you convince people to support free speech is to get them to consider "what if it happens to me?". Would you want to have the government claim you threatened the next president for saying 86 48?
magicalkittycat
25d ago
Also, "wrongly arresting the victim" in the context of domestic violence typically means "arresting the male partner", which is such an obvious conflationary factor that I suspect it's exactly why you're trying to muddy the issue by speciously connecting it to domestic violence.
"Also wrongly arresting the victim typically means wrongly arresting the victim who is male" means what exactly?
Let's change your prompt to actually represent my argument. I'll bold the part I changed.
Please be very concise.
In the UK, a white man (Henry Nowak) was stabbed by a brown man. When the police showed up, the brown man accused him of racism. The police handcuffed and arrested the white man, causing him to die.
This is being discussed in a forum, where some people believe that the police's behaviour was caused by systemic racism against white people.
One commenter maintains that this is not necessarily culture war related as sometimes the police arrest the wrong partner in domestic violence cases and this is a sign that police often make mistakes like this (confusing victim and perpetrator)
How correct are they?
When you represent my argument as a not strawman we get
The commenter is making a reasonable but limited point.
It is true that police sometimes misidentify the primary aggressor in domestic violence incidents. There is a substantial body of research and documented cases showing that victims can be arrested instead of perpetrators due to incomplete information, conflicting statements, witness credibility assessments, stress, or procedural errors.
Therefore, the mere fact that police allegedly confused the victim and perpetrator does not by itself demonstrate that the incident was driven by racial or ideological motives. A non-racial explanation—ordinary police error—is plausible.
However, the commenter's argument does not prove that race or culture-war factors were irrelevant. To establish that, one would need evidence about:
What information officers had at the time.
Whether the racism accusation affected their decision-making.
Whether similar situations involving different racial combinations were handled differently.
The specific cause of the arrest and the subsequent death.
So the commenter's claim is best understood as:
"This incident could be explained by a type of mistake police are already known to make, so we cannot infer systemic anti-white racism from the incident alone."
That is a logically sound caution against jumping to conclusions, but it is not positive evidence that race played no role.
The good news is that I'm not asserting it as positive evidence that race played no role. It could have, I do not know. What I am asserting is the logically sound caution against jumping to conclusions.
So there we go. I tried to be neutral and not let it know which side I wanted and it is a well documented issue.
My point, of course, is not that ChatGPT is a neutral source that supports me. My point is that pretending it's an impartial source is ludicrous, particularly because you personally manipulate your prompts to give the output you want.
That can happen sure! Which is why our little test here and discussion of which prompting is good is useful and why I say to give prompt. Else you can end up accidently giving the wrong view and strawmanning someone. Giving prompt allows for such corrections!
A collaborative effort where you gave your view in a neutral way and I gave mine in a neutral way helps make the accuracy way better.
magicalkittycat
25d ago
Ok sure that's one possible reason.
Would you say that
(I routinely have more important things to do than to be posting here)
Or
There have been times in which I was so occupied
Are also reasons of yours sometimes?
magicalkittycat
25d ago
So again we went from
"Vaguely analogous" to "they didn't handcuff the shooting victim so it doesn't count" right?
magicalkittycat
25d ago
"I don't do that thing either, except on those occasions when I do."
Thanks for spelling that out for me dude, really appreciate it.
Ok let's check.
Why do you sometimes not reply to every comment?
not once, find an instance in which I claimed the reason I could not reply to someone's comment was because I was too busy with my job and family.
I don't do that either, except in the specific situation where someone asked me why I don't reply to everything like their comment.
If I asked you why you didn't reply to a specific comment or question among many, what would your answer be?
Maybe you would say
(I routinely have more important things to do than to be posting here)
Or
There have been times in which I was so occupied
As your response to that question.
Why the stuff about cop beaters? I suppose that is in reference to people attacking cops during the Jan 6th thing. But I wasn't aware of many organizations that claim credit for that surviving until the modern day. I admit to not knowing the status of the proud boys. Though the FBI and CIA are still around and their funding is not linked to this, so that also doesn't make sense to me.
It's unclear who and what will benefit from the fund. Idk if the ambiguity and shadow is intentional or not, but many Republican senators such as Tillis seem to believe that it will be going to Jan 6thers among others, including the specific criminal ones.
A. Nothing happens. B. Punish rule breakers. C. Reward victims.
I am heavily in favor of option B, but no one in power is in favor of that option.
Well do I have good news for you then. The Biden admin prosecuted Charles E Little John (the leaker of Trump's tax records) and secured a felony conviction against him. He wasn't let off lightly either, he got the maximum penalty.
Had the roles been reversed would democrats have done the same?
Well in this specific scenario, we don't even have to ask then! The government under the Biden admin won the case and secured the conviction against the leaker.
No offence (as, apparently, those are magic words that allow you to cause offence), but trying to smear FtttG like this is pathetic.
Well either having a job and family and other hobbies and being busy with them most of the day is a weird thing to do on this site like he claims, or it's not a weird thing and his accusation (that me saying those things is proof I'm some other user who also says those things) doesn't make sense.
It's like if I said
"Sorry, I eat sandwiches for lunch" and he went "you knew who else ate sandwiches? Joe"
Like ok? Tons of people eat sandwiches. That doesn't make sense unless he doesn't eat sandwiches and doesn't think other people do.
That would make sense if me and Joe were the odd guys out for eating sandwiches. It would be wrong, tons of people eat sandwiches but it would make sense as an accusation if that's what he believed.
Like that's fine, I don't judge people who don't eat sandwiches (don't spend lots of their time doing other things and come on here in between stuff on various days (like right now it's decently early before work gets really heavy and sometimes spend days without checking at all.)) He could be a NEET for all I know and care.
But it's still weird to use "you eat sandwiches" as some sort of accusation. That is just telling on yourself.
magicalkittycat
25d ago
I am a well-adjusted individual with an active life.
Damn are you me too then?
(seriously dude, you post an average of 2.5 comments per day here, you're in no position to throw stones),
I also regularly go days without posting too and when I do post it's generally in bursts centered together.
I'm not criticising you for not replying to every comment (I routinely have more important things to do than to be posting here). I'm pointing out that the pattern of behaviour is so uncannily similar that I would be flabbergasted if you aren't yet another Darwin alt/sockpuppet
Woah, you are a Darwin alt. Your pattern of behavior claiming you have other things to do is just what he did! Holy shit.
It's not a "nitpick". It's the exact thing I was repeatedly asking you for, which you have yet to provide.
Incredible. Your issue really is "that doesn't count because the victim was too dead to be handcuffed"?
We went from "vaguely analogous" to "nope, too dead to be handcuffed so doesn't count" and you aren't goal shifting?
The main strategic issue for the right isn’t making it more profitable to be on the right, it’s on making it more personally challenging to be on the left. He needs to much more aggressively steal from and prosecute and expropriate violent leftist activists, make their life hell the way the left did to the right in power. This has far better long term utility. Put people on no fly lists, have banks close their accounts, stop renewing passports and drivers’ licenses.
The Trump admin has been trying to do this, they're not even subtle. James Comey is the most blatant and unarguable example.
Ironically this exact argument is exactly what FIRE, the free speech organization that became famous when it fighting against progressive universities, warns of.
The Department of Justice’s recent indictment of former FBI Director James Comey has been rightly criticized as flimsy and an affront to the First Amendment. This is nothing more than a naked use of federal authority to intimidate a notable critic of President Donald Trump. It’s also something that should make conservatives uneasy.
The Republican Party won’t always control the government, but by treating hostile political symbolism as a threat, the Department of Justice has opened a door that future administrations may be all too willing to walk through.
This is to them, a door that hasn't been opened yet that Trump is opening now and if you want to see what weaponization against conservatives could really look like, then just wait.
Hopefully we don't get 2028 Dem who is that vengeful and abusive, I would like for us to start shutting doors instead of continually opening new ones. But I will at least be glad to point out these "it's ok to do what you want against your enemies" arguments to people who seem to suddenly change their mind in three years.
Thankfully the Trump admin will fail here. And so will the 2028 vengeful Dem. But what a shame that everyone just wants to keep opening doors anyway, eventually we'll cross a threshold where society breaks down.
magicalkittycat
25d ago
So this is exactly what was wanted.
-
White guy shoots (basically equivalent, argubly worse if anything to a stabbing) a black guy illegally.
-
Police are on the scene and they take his self defense claim as legally legitimate and do not arrest or charge him.
-
Republican state attorney handling the investigation believes the evidence is enough to convict and prosecutors take it to trial.
-
At trial he is found guilty by a jury of his peers.
-
At appeal, the conviction is upheld. His claim was not legally legitimate.
A guy who was legally guilty of manslaughter was not arrested on the scene originally.
magicalkittycat
25d ago
If you disagree. I saw you personally didn't, but many others do and the context of the argument is people disagreeing with me on his guilt.
He was guilty.
He was initially not arrested, and then later charged and convicted of manslaughter.
Do you think there is a difference between "found guilty in court" and "I personally looked at the facts and concluded he was guilty"?
Yes there is.
That's also what is to be expected with anyone approaching in even slightly good faith, that any random conviction was done to a truly guilty person since the US legal system is generally reliable.
It's not perfect, every system will have flaws. But the US is good enough that generally "well I don't agree with the conviction" is a sign of bias or misunderstanding rather than a wrong conviction. When you actually look at the legal facts seriously, like you've done here, you should generally come to a conclusion like you have. He was guilty of what he was convicted for.
magicalkittycat
25d ago
Look dude, I'm not gonna continue a conversation where you constantly move the goalposts.
If you can't accept a story where a guy was initially not arrested and charged and then later was convicted of manslaughter by a jury of his peers, then what will you accept?
This was a guilty white man who killed a black guy who was not treated as guilty on the scene but later found guilty so it's not even some theoretical argument.
immediately assumed that the visibly injured brown victim was the aggressor (perhaps because the white aggressor was acting "calmly" or cooperatively, as you claimed) and put him in handcuffs,
The victim was dead then! Your only nitpick here is that the victim was too dead to be put in handcuffs so it didn't count?
As has been explained to you multiple times, by multiple people: "the police sometimes arrest both people in domestic violence" cases has nothing to do with "the police arresting solely the guy who had been stabbed instead of his murderer".
It is not "the police sometimes arrest both in domestic violence" it is it is a common issue that police arrest the victim instead of the perpetrator,.so common that some smarter officers take a specific approach to try to fix the problem through dual arrests.
I genuinely do not know how you are failing to understand this, i said this.
It's common enough to make this mistake that some more experienced officers and departments have adopted the practice of arresting both in response and sorting things out after.
You either chose to not read or are incapable of doing so.
Fortunately, as you continue to pretend not to understand what people are telling you, we can defer to ChatGPT. Normally I wouldn't do this, but you, specifically -- magicalkittycat -- as a poster, have previously claimed that AI output is "impartial" and "neutral", which you then use as evidence for your positions ("the robot agrees with me!"). So let's see what it says:
Incredible strawman,.you don't even realize that if you want to prove you're trying to get a neutral opinion you need to show the prompt. I also assume you did not go on a fresh copy either then.
Let's try with a neutral prompt
The recent Nowak case where police believed the lies of the stabber over the victim who was lying on the ground, how relevant of an example would you say that domestic abuse victims being assumed as the perpetrators makes to the case?
Scroll down to the summary
So I would say the domestic-abuse comparison is moderately relevant if the point being made is:
"Police can sometimes incorrectly identify the victim as the offender when they accept an aggressor's account too readily."
That is a recognizable pattern across different contexts.
How about attempt at a neutral prompt (again, on a completely new instance without memory!) regarding the overall question if this is a known problem
Is it or is it not a known issue in policing that victims are sometimes not believed and perpetrators who remain calm and talk to police first are?
Reply is
Yes. It is a well-documented issue in policing, criminal investigations, and psychology that victims are sometimes disbelieved while perpetrators who appear calm, composed, or credible may initially be believed.
So there we go. I tried to be neutral and not let it know which side I wanted and it is a well documented issue.
So, would you prefer to (a) retract your claim that the domestic violence thing is relevant, or (b) retract your claim that AI is neutral and impartial, and never use it again to try and score points on TheMotte?
Stop strawmanning and start giving your prompts you use on fresh chat without any memory. "AI is a useful tool for a neutral perspective when done properly" is not "AI is always neutral! Just give it whatever answer you wanted to hear, wow so cool"
magicalkittycat
25d ago
Wow incredible! I have a job and family and other hobbies and don't prioritize replying to every single comment here.
I feel like you're telling on yourself, and what you think of the userbase, really hard here if you think being a well adjusted individual with an active life is an odd thing. No offense but you might really need some grass touching dude.
magicalkittycat
25d ago
I think most of the prosecutions were over the top. If you have cops threatening you, it’s not unusual for you to fight back.
Unusual? Yes, people attacking cops (especially in the way you can see on video, beating them while they're on the ground with metal rods and other weapons) is actually pretty rare.
But even if it was not that unusual its still illegal to beat up a bunch on cops. They were tried and convicted under a jury of their peers. A pardon does not change that they were found guilty, it is an act of clemency over the punishment itself.
If you want to take it a "it's normal to take a giant rod and slam it down on a cop while they've been knocked down on the floor" approach feel free to do so, most Americans do not agree.
I live in the East Coast, that was 10:48am my time on a Thursday. I have a job, I had a meeting at 11.
I don't know what time zone you live in but "Hey I have a job that keeps me busy often" and "Hey I have to go during peak job hours at my time zone" should be expected together??
More options
Context Copy link