magicalkittycat
No bio...
User ID: 3762
magicalkittycat
1d ago
Normally I'm all for private hosts having full control of who is and isn't allowed in them like this, but most venues to my knowledge are heavily government subsidized and paid for so it seems to me they should have to follow the first amendment. Free markets are typically quite good at protecting speech and providing different options, so it's not normally an issue! Just go to a different venue to perform.
Except like most buildings, the free market doesn't exist for venues. Zoning rules restrict the ability to build competition over censorship and outright subsidies mean even when you can you're starting at a massive financial disadvantage. Markets don't, and can't, function properly when the government is literally choosing winners and losers.
Privately controlled but government protected venues is essentially then a loophole to get around constitutional rights, and it should not be allowed.
magicalkittycat
2d ago
You’re conflating two different military events. There’s a big difference between defeating a country and occupying it.
In what way did we "completely defeat" the taliban when they currently rule the country with total impunity? Maybe we're just using substantially different definitions for what complete means, but mine just doesn't square away "'complete" with "still in power"
magicalkittycat
2d ago
Most people do not trust chatbots (correctly, since they notoriously make shit up whenever they don't know an answer), so attempting to use chatbots as an arbiter of truth makes people think you are taking the piss.
I refuse to use chatbots under any circumstances, due to memetic-hazard concerns. Not a matter of laziness.
So the defense of someone using a blatant and easily disprovable lie against me is that you disagree with the content of my opinion?
magicalkittycat
3d ago
You compared Iran to Afghanistan, but in Afghanistan we defeated their military completely.
So wait why do the bad guys control it now and not the good guys we put there if the bad guys had literally no military power left?
magicalkittycat
3d ago
We won militarily in Afghanistan completely
"Completely" doesn't seem to be true given who is currently in charge. No one intended on the forever war, it was just the quagmire they ended up with when it turns out the offramp wasn't easy. The second we pulled back they resurged.
Trump might not want the forever war, but if there's no other plan than "just keep bombing indefinitely" then it is one.
that's not really what theMotte is supposed to be for.
You're right, TheMotte is actually for angrily accusing people you don't like of trolling while encouraging and support literal provable trolling
This is a blatant troll who is openly and blatantly lying in a way you can personally test if you wish, read and follow my instructions and you can know that to be the case and his claim is provably and very simple to understand as false yet he has five upvotes and no mod action despite me reporting him.
Check it yourself. Take these prompts into a fresh AI bot
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?
Did you get "you are trolling?" or some other variant of what the user claims happened? "I followed your instructions and every LLM said with 99% certainty you were trolling and acting in bad faith"
Did you following my instructions with those prompts get a response anywhere like that?
No, of course not. It is an obvious and blatant lie it's not a matter of opinion or disagreement or misunderstanding, it is basically the most objectively easy to test and determine lie imaginable!
Don't be lecturing me about what TheMotte is when the userbase is hilariously immature and hypocritical like this. They're actively supporting clear and blatant trolls when it's someone they like!
If you are too lazy to check it yourself and see how obvious of a lie their claim is, don't even bother to respond.
magicalkittycat
3d ago
Six months ago, everybody agreed that Iran could rebuild the facilities when the war was over and that the war would have to end because Iran could control the Straits. Turns out they can’t control the Straits. We could continue the war indefinitely, and they could not produce nukes. We could end the war and they could try again, in which case we bomb them again, and they can’t retaliate — again!
So the argument here is that Trump started another Forever War and as long as American resolve is such that we're willing to continue indefinitely, things are fine and it counts as a win?
By the same logic do you consider Afghanistan a win until Trump/Biden withdrew and chose to lose it?
magicalkittycat
5d 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?
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.
magicalkittycat
5d 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
5d 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
5d 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
6d 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
6d 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
6d 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
6d 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
6d 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
6d 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
6d 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
6d 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.
"the only reason people could disagree with me is that they're dumb or lying" is a fantastic way to never have to reconsider any of your opinions or listen to the arguments others are making.
More options
Context Copy link