domain:badcyber.com
Lykurg
We're all living in Amerika
5m ago
The ‚they‘re obviously not interested in debate‘ talking point is an absurd, but very common justification for censoriousness
It may be petty, but I made one of the very few comments to engage with his claims without going into unsaid implications/communism generally, and he didnt respond.
Im pretty sure I do understand what hes asking for and didnt make a bigger response because its largely pointless, and he really wasnt very clear about what he wanted. The top level was just enough for me to be unsure, and I had to read quite a few of his responses to know, and hes being condescending to everyone for not knowing it right away. I still wouldnt ban someone for one thread like this, and he wasnt: he was warned and then self-deported.
desolation
You shall love your crooked neighbor, with your crooked heart
6m ago
at least in major cities, is no that the public finds public transport “inconvenient”.
Define "major." Living in the NC Triangle, I wouldn't be hanging around the main bus depots for safety/annoyance reasons, but primarily the bus system is kinda useless if you're not going on fairly limited routes or have hours to waste.
When I first moved here from a city with much better transit (SLC, also vastly more bikeable), I tried mapping it out- I could almost walk my commute as fast as the bus system was going to take.
Dean
Flairless
6m ago
Can I extend this to your view on the OP being that it doesn't matter at all that the article that Adam Silver reposted is AI slop, versus your definition of "slop" in general? It doesn't move your priors on Adam Silver (the reposter), X (the platform), or Yahoo Entertainment (the media institution) even an iota?
You can strawman me in whatever way you prefer.
jkf
6m ago
"I am the only guy who can deal with Trump", confidently stated, just swung the Canadian election -- so I don't think it's necessarily plague related.
A pure article of faith, divorced from any call to action or doomsaying.
Isn't this just a fad? Fads are a thing.
TheAntipopulist
Formerly Ben___Garrison
6m ago
Last week there was a conversation on here about a potential peace deal in Ukraine. I claimed that the peace deal seemed fake since if you knew the background on peace efforts, you'd know that both Putin and Zelenskyy were playing a goofy game trying to pin the other one as the one who "doesn't want peace" in the eyes of Trump to try to direct Trump's ire in the other direction.
We now have pretty good confirmation that no peace deal will be forthcoming in the near term. JD Vance has said that the war won't end anytime soon. This backs up further reporting following the mineral deal that Trump's team was looking for ways to compel Russia to come to the table, and didn't really find any options that they liked.
The bull case for a Trump-brokered peace deal was the idea that the US could use its power to demand that both sides come to the table, and if either side tried to walk away then the US could force them back. This worked halfway, as the US has a lot of leverage over Ukraine for things like intelligence gathering, air defense, and to some extent other military deliveries. Much of MAGA hates Zelenskyy personally, and Trump was more than willing to exercise that leverage when Zelenskyy snubbed him at the WH meeting. The problem was that the other half of the puzzle was missing. Some claimed that the US could threaten Russia by promising to "drown Ukraine in weapons" if Russia didn't come to terms. However, Trump has been unable or unwilling to do this, so we had the situation where Trump could compel one side quite effectively, but when the other side did something Trump didn't like all he could do was tweet "Vladimir, STOP".
Peace is good as a general rule, and it would have been good if Trump could have gotten a peace deal along the lines of "ceasefire at current lines of control, Ukrainian defense guaranteed by Europe" so it was worth a shot. But alas, it seems like the war will continue.
thejdizzler
10m ago
I walk to the grocery store and go about once a week. It's about 0.5 miles each way, so it's a bit of a workout on the way back.
If I really need to transport something heavy I'll Zipcar or mooch off of a friend. This kind of stuff is made much more practical by a car. I'm not a car abolitionist, they have their place and their uses and are obviously essential in rural areas. What I'm frustrated by is the desire for many to make the car into the one size fits all transportation model. The actual costs of car use should be internalized by the user: things like congestion pricing seem like a great way to do that. Congestion pricing is not going to affect the ease of me bringing my grill to a friends house, but it might make me change my commuting behavior.
voters-eliot-azure
metapolitical analyst
10m ago
Obviously not, or you wouldn't be making an appeal to elitism as opposed to popular consumption, i.e. the numerically broader basis where 'we all' consensus derives.
I make the appeal to elitism because I don't think popular consumption has shown any evidence of being capable of fighting against manufactured consent. Unless you think otherwise? Personally: I'm making the appeal because I want to live in a world where publishing AI slop is universally seen as low quality as the content in the 90s conspiracy magazines at the grocery store checkout (National Enquirer), and evidence of a media institution using AI slop should create scandals large enough to cause executives to resign. Personally: AI-hallucinated quotes are worse than fabricated quotes, because the former masquerades as journalism whereas the latter is just easily-falsifiable propaganda.
The belief that AI outputs would be equivalent or even higher quality than human writers at election propaganda has been the basis of AI election interference concerns.
I actually haven't seen much in the way of "AI election interference concerns" specifically. There's been a lot of noise around the potential for deep fakes to sway an election, but so far there's been no smoking gun that's been brought to my attention. On the left, I don't think people distinguish much from someone blindly consuming FoxNews opinion propaganda versus X AI bot propaganda (or MSNBC and Reddit, if you prefer the examples for the right). Which kind of plays into your broader point:
There is no russel conjugation in play. It is not your humans produce articles, your opponents' partisans demonstrate bias, and AI make slop. It is nearly all slop regardless.
Can I extend this to your view on the OP being that it doesn't matter at all that the article that Adam Silver reposted is AI slop, versus your definition of "slop" in general? It doesn't move your priors on Adam Silver (the reposter), X (the platform), or Yahoo Entertainment (the media institution) even an iota?
Tree
11m ago
I think you're a reasonable guy, like the two under discussion, so I would never do that.
Dean
Flairless
15m ago
Well, I might have misunderstood the association. Still, and regardless, please keep posting the counter-arguments against 'the Democrat law would totally have reformed immigration, and Republican opposition to it is proof of bad faith' in the future. I find your take more convincing, but couldn't recreate it myself from memory, and I doubt they are going to stop invoking the argument in the future.
Though I hope your boilerplate response doesn't get any wags of the fingers from mods, since I'd appreciate you to keep posting longer than not.
Dean
Flairless
18m ago
Building in stakes for the sake of urgency and invoking emotional rather than deliberate reasoning is a cornerstone of many fraud and propaganda techniques, i.e. human gullibility exploits.
oats_son
18m ago
I like reading car arguments, so I appreciate your input.
I live in a rural area and don't really have any public transport options. Cars are a must in rural areas. I've gotten in arguments with former college peers who were arguing that cars could be eliminated even in the countryside, which was a really bad take to me. However, I have to wonder. When I go grocery shopping, I typically have multiple pretty heavy bags. How do you handle grocery shopping on bikes, public transport, or on foot? Do you just take a ton of trips? What about if you were transporting something else heavy? I wanted to take a portable grill up to someone else's house to grill this weekend, but that kind of thing is only "portable" if you have a car, really.
Lizzardspawn
20m ago
Playstation 2 emulators have become brutal. I have been playing the 2005 God Of War - the game is even better. Played on massive resolution, with quick save and load. Splendid.
TheAntipopulist
Formerly Ben___Garrison
34m ago
This made me laugh.
Tree
38m ago
Right, I disagree that "his comments were pretty obviously unkind and failing to make reasonably clear and plain points, on top of making extreme claims without proactively providing evidence" and 'deleterious to debate'. So at least take out the 'obviously's and 'blatant's.
Else I'd have to report an "attempt to build consensus or enforce ideological conformity." (illustrating the point about the rules applying to whoever we choose).
Loquat
39m ago
Hey, we just got that too! Absolutely gorgeous game, and I really want to see where the plot goes, especially with the hints about how maybe this isn't what the Paintress and her minions want to be doing but they don't know how to change course. But oh man, JRPG gameplay is a slog, even on the lowest difficulty setting.
WandererintheWilderness
40m ago
I don't think COVID stuff can really be used as proof of general human gullibility. "You should deal with COVID a certain way Or We'll All Die" has built-in life-or-death stakes, ie a much greater emotional valence than the average sweeping claim. There might even be specific drives about falling in line with herd behavior if there's a plague going around, if you want to get all evo-psych. To see how much weight the social consensus itself possesses, you would really want to look at something neutral, abstract, with no effects on people's everyday lives. A pure article of faith, divorced from any call to action or doomsaying.
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
42m ago
Ignoring the meat and substance of your post, I think you're right that we compare ourselves to our (grand)parents. Hedonistic treadmills seem to prove to me that all the things we care about like money, leisure, social status, are relative. And self-preservation instincts mean we'll put up with anything. We take our set-point from how (we think) the older generations lived.
"Livable wage" redditors who feel entitled to a certain amount of money and lifestyle are not thinking economically. "Everyone deserves a livable wage" is a moral statement, not an economic one. Their moral intuition is based what the older generations had. You could even call it envy (a pejorative for wanting fairness).
As a mid-20s single white male (what you'd expect from a Mottepoaster and early Scott reader), most of my worldview is driven by the realities of dating. The reason why I feel entitled to marrying a skinny woman is not because it is feasible for me from a (sexual) market perspective. It is a moral opinion first and foremost. I am comparing myself to the generations past. My grandparents could visit the beach without a torrent of obese women assaulting their eyes. I have no such luxury.
It is commonly said that the housing market is insane. Now I think money is boring and I don't know anything about the housing market. But the entire premise is a weird perversion of the is-ought distinction. It doesn't really matter if expensive houses are caused by illegal immigration, zoning laws, lizardmen in skinsuits, whatever. People are angry because they are comparing themselves to the older generations, not because they are thinking in economical or technical terms.
desolation
You shall love your crooked neighbor, with your crooked heart
46m ago
Our educated and wealthy people are only human, and in my experience almost all of them can have their substantive thinking overwhelmed, at least on occasion and maybe more than that, by the need for social signalling. That is a different problem than being morons.
It's been proposed that there is a comforting impulse behind conspiratorial thinking, to think that even if the mysterious Powers That Be are evil, at least they're competent! I propose a parallel here, that thinking of the EHC as morons is more comforting than thinking of their particular brand of disastrous signaling as only human. Perhaps it is that I do not want to think so poorly of humanity in the abstract, and so I want to disconnect the concept of humanity from the cause of their issues.
Lykurg
We're all living in Amerika
52m ago
A quick delve into the article text
Is the joke intended?
ChickenOverlord
54m ago
One of my least favorite memories from when I lived in Seattle was any time there were big events like hempfest and pride, bus transit slowed to a crawl. I worked close to the Space Needle, and lived near 26th and Madison, and the bus already took a slow 30 minutes or so on a good day. On days like when hempfest was going on it was literally faster to walk over Capitol Hill to get home, by a huge margin. Yet even on these days, cars were clearly traveling waaaay faster than the bus.
sodiummuffin
57m ago
Or did hundreds of people read the headline and drop a snarky comment, and not a single one bothered to read the article?
I remember some years back someone posted a fake article headline to /r/politics with a link that just went to a 404 Not Found page on a news website (I think Salon?). It got hundreds of upvotes before people noticed, though it did get voted back down to 0 once the top comments were pointing out the article didn't exist.
07mk
58m ago
Those rules are so vague they can apply to anyone. And when you‘re facing a hostile community, they apply to you.
I don't think those rules are that vague, except by stretching what "vague" means to such an extent that all rules everywhere can be declared "so vague they can apply to anyone." If you don't think that his comments were pretty obviously unkind and failing to make reasonably clear and plain points, on top of making extreme claims without proactively providing evidence, then I don't take your judgment seriously.
The ‚they‘re obviously not interested in debate‘ talking point is an absurd, but very common justification for censoriousness.
I don't care if he was or wasn't interested in debate. What matters is that he was posting text that wasn't conducive to, and actually quite deleterious to, debate.
sodiummuffin
59m ago
Having never read Yahoo Entertainment I have no idea if it's all slop or was semi-legitimate entertainment journalism at some point but I'm going to be extremely skeptical if I see it again.
Yahoo aggregates articles from other sites, with the source displayed in the top left corner. This one is from "Where is the Buzz".
So... What did he buy if the lot no longer exists? Is this a "no refunds" type of situation?
More options
Context Copy link