domain:reddit.com
OliveTapenade
12hr ago
I continue to be baffled that anybody takes these bots seriously, or sees Grok or xAI or their competitors as anything other than nonsense generators. A slight change to the flavour of the nonsense doesn't really change my opinion any. Perhaps it moves me in the direction of thinking that Musk is childish and temperamental, but I already thought that, so it doesn't make much difference.
What can we learn about optimal cultural leadership in light of the 2013-2021 social justice period?
-
Religious leaders did not adequately stand up against the mass movement. Although many conservatives see value in religious institutions as a cultural defense, mainstream Catholicism and Protestant denominations did not substantively address the social justice craze. In some cases they placated or even promoted it.
-
Academics did not adequately argue against the mass movement. It is not the case, for instance, that the experts in western history, literature, or philosophy were more likely to argue against the mass movement in any substantive way. This is problematic: if learning the best of western culture does not lead to protecting said culture in any genuine sense when it matters the most, then how great is the actual utility of such learning?
-
The main “public critics” of the period have little in common except that they were passionate and somewhat neurotic men. Yarvin, Peterson, Weinstein, Scott Adams(?). My memory of who was most dominant in this period is somewhat hazy, maybe someone with a better memory can correct me. There were more psychologists among critics than philosophers. You had people like Stefan Molyneux passionately criticizing the proto-movement well before its zenith. His Twitter attests to his neuroticism.
-
Random people online were able to sense a threat that leading experts weren’t able to sense, and made arguments that leading academics did not make. Why?
It’s difficult to come away with clear takeaways. IMO: (1) it is beneficial to increase anonymous discussion, as this laid the groundwork for future criticism, and allowed for arguments to spread which would otherwise be banned. (2) It may be essential to increase the number of passionate and neurotic men, over men with other skills, as the major critics were more often passionate and somewhat crazy. A “passionate” temperament is occasionally inaccurate, and may result in behavior that leads institutions to weed them out — but their utility in sensing and addressing threats compensates for the occasional bout of craziness.
There is a funny review of Jordan Peterson from 2013, possibly the first time anyone commented about his personality online. It was made on the anonymous literature board of 4chan in 2013, long before his rise to fame.
he's craaaaazy. he so crazy. I had a class immediately following one of his lectures like, his was from 1:15-3:15 in Room 101., and my different classes was from 3:25-5:25 in Room 101 too. ok? So... he would totally bug out if someone opened the door early. Like, screaming fits and stuff. my prof (who was just a postdoc and wasn't going to get tenured at u of t) encouraged us all to fuck with his head because in addition to being a rageaholic spaz, peterson would also leave the podium really dirty. also, he lectures in a cape for some reason. he went on this ontario talk show with his daughter talking about how they're both clinically depressed bla bla, I feel bad that she's his dad, that must be hard to deal with
Editing for clarity
The question is geared toward users who believe that wokeness constituted a threat — to institutions, America, truth, etc. I suppose there are some users who do not believe that wokeness was a threat. I can’t recall seeing such a comment in years on this forum, but if you’re such a user, you are of course welcome to comment and critique in any way that you’d like. Feel free to comment on the premise, the points, a tangent.
-
Why were the individuals leading the fight against wokeness outside of the traditional framework of understanding and designating cultural authority? The study of philosophy, the study of history, the study of great works, the study and authority of religion — these things did not create any of the influential “fighters” publicly arguing against wokeness. If they couldn’t detect, grasp, and eliminate the threat, then how important should we consider these pursuits and domains? Why did they fail when they were needed? Are these pursuits less valuable in moral formation than generally conceived? Many conservatives believe that these mainstays of Western education are important to study; yet the students of these were impotent against the threat. There are conservatives who studied these, and who teach these.
-
”Institutional capture” doesn’t factor in here because there are non-woke members of these domains, perhaps a few percent or a few tens of percents, but none of them were to be found among the influential critics of wokeness.
-
It appears to me that temperament played a larger role than anything else in deciding who was instrumental in tackling the threat. Do you agree? Do you disagree? From Peterson to Musk, the great “defenders” against it were passionate and somewhat crazy personalities. They cried publicly. They had strange personal lives. If that’s the case, should temperament be considered a greater deal in the selection of authority?
I think this clarifies. There’s a mismatch between “the study of Western things leads to great moral conduct!” and the reality of how everyone behaved during a mass movement which veered toward moral hysteria. “Traditional education” did not avail anything. This is interesting, provided of course that you agree with the premise.
WhiningCoil
21hr ago
At the moment, most people openly advocating for racial segregation are Neo-Nazis. I think I speak for the vast majority of Whites, HBD-pilled or otherwise, when I say I would much rather have a randomly selected Black person as a neighbor than a Neo-Nazi for purely selfish Bayesian reasons.
But this goes to the core of it. What if normal whites have noticed enough that they decide "You know what, I'm going to act like every other race treats me." What if they preferentially hire whites the same way Indians favor Indians, or Jews favor Jews? What if they aggressively subsidize and import white residents the same way the federal government bombs small Midwestern towns with Haitians or Somalians? What if they start giving out contracts to white owned businesses the same way the federal government gives contracts only to black or minority owned businesses? What if they forgive debt for white's the same way the federal government keeps finding way to forgive debts exclusively for blacks? What if they give preferential medical treatments to whites the same way preferential treatments were given to blacks?
None of this requires deep supremacist neo-nazi beliefs. Just noticing and then going tit-for-tat. Realizing if you don't, you have no future.
SSCReader
21hr ago
What if they preferentially hire whites the same way Indians favor Indians, or Jews favor Jews? What if they aggressively subsidize and import white residents the same way the federal government bombs small Midwestern towns with Haitians or Somalians?
I mean they did right? Even more than that actually. This is something white Americans already did. It's how you ended up where you are now. Do you think trying it again is going to work better? You have affirmative action and white guilt, people trying to make things up to black farmers and the like because this is what happened before and white people decided, actually this makes us feel pretty bad when we look at in comparison to our theoretical national values.
Whites had the nation you are envisaging and even more than that. Then they decided they didn't like it. Black people didn't have the power to change it. White people themselves did.
The things you complain about are already the tat for white peoples tit! (so to speak!), to try and make up for slavery and Jim Crow and so on and so forth. Instigated by white people themselves!
They already did the "What if?" You know how it ended.
RoyGBivensAction
Zensunni Scientologist
17hr ago
A shifting part of the culture war: beards and long hair.
Once upon a time, having a beard or long hair meant Something, and usually meant being a leftist/liberal. Even by the early 2000s when I was in college, facial hair was still coded as an academic/liberal kind of thing. Outside the university, anyone who had either was definitely left-of-center.
Now, though, if I meet a guy with a beard or long hair, those features tell me very little if not nothing about his political positions. Radical anarchists, normie libs, Joe Rogan listeners, fervent MAGA types, and just about every other political type could have a beard or long hair (the major exception being devout Mormons). Clothing, tattoos, general level of fitness, and other features are much better indicators now than facial/long hair. The mustache/goatee combo might be slightly right-coded because it’s popular with certain types of boomers and early Xers, but even that’s a weak indicator.
I suspect the change was in full swing by 2010 since Duck Dynasty started airing in 2012. All of the major male characters have long, shaggy beards, and most have long hair as well. This article from 2015 notes the upsurge of beards among the right. That means we’re at least 10 years into the change.
As big as the change has been among regular people, though, perhaps the even bigger change is politicians. I don’t remember any major politicians having facial hair prior to 2018ish. I remember Al Gore growing a beard, but that was only after he was VP.
JD Vance has a beard, and is the first Pres or VP to have facial hair since VP Charles Curtis (Hoover’s VP), who had a mustache. Vance had a beard when he ran for U.S. Senate in 2022, Ted Cruz has grown a beard since being a senator (but was clean-shaven when he initially ran for senate), and Ruben Gallego (D) of Arizona ran for U.S. Senate in 2024 with a beard.
Article about Vance’s beard
I think this comment probably sums it up:
“There’s not a single millennial out there who would find the question of whether a politician has facial hair to be relevant,” said Republican consultant Brad Todd. Is the stigma against beards subsiding? “I think it’s completely gone,” he said, “due in large part to the Silent Generation moving out of politics.”
With the WW2 veteran generation gone and the Silents almost gone from politics, their aversion to facial hair appears to have gone with them.
This article on politicians and beards has this interesting comment considering the former association of beards with leftism:
”The right has been leading in the beard movement recently, and I think the left has been trying to play catch-up,” [Professor Oldstone-Moore] added.
Obligatory link to “Won’t Get Fooled Again”. (Isolated bassist camera for those who want to see Entwistle's master class in playing)
The parting on the left
Is now parting on the right
And the beards have all grown longer overnight
WhiningCoil
20hr ago
-
Sometimes people with severe mental illnesses go off their medication because they feel better and think they no longer need it. They don't like the side effects, etc. Just because the medicine doesn't feel good doesn't mean you don't need it.
-
Even assuming I agree, that only goes for Blacks. How does it go for Indians, Jews, Asians, Arabs, Mexicans and every other nationality colonizing America and carving it's founding stock out of it?
MathWizard
Good things are good
19hr ago
One in a thousand find a gamer girl. But at the cost quite often of having hundreds of women see anime and gaming in the bio and deciding to not engage.
This is the point. It's not that for each random woman who sees your profile you roll a random die and there's a 99% chance you lose her interest. It's that for each woman when she was born and grew up life rolled a random die and there's a 99% chance that she became the kind of person who would lose interest in a man who likes anime and video games. If you want to date a woman who hates anime and videogames then I suppose you might consider scaring her off to be a bad thing, but if you want to find that gamer girl then the normie woman is an obstacle. A waste of your time. Instead of spending hours, days, years of your life sending messages and spending time with women who would have been scared off by videogames and anime but you kept by playing it cool, you could instead scare them all off and then the only people left are the gamer girls.
You don't have time to date 1000 women. If you're some super hot gigachad I suppose you could if you go on a brand new date every day for three years without breaks or repeats. But realistically, that's way too many. But if you scare 99% of them off (and not randomly, you're scaring the worst 99% off) you DO have time to message and date the remaining 10 until you find the perfect one in a thousand.
SSCReader
20hr ago
-
Yup, but this isn't medication, or mental illness. This is a choice. You may not like the choice, but that doesn't make it mental illness.
-
If anyone is carving out the founding stock, it is the founding stock themselves. Indians, Mexicans and whatever else can't do anything they are not allowed to do. The vast majority of your political apparatus is white. This isn't colonization or invasion. It's invitation. And it is invitation largely because of the white guilt felt by large numbers of your fellow white Americans. You can't fix that by making them do the same thing they felt the guilt about in the first place. If you think it is a problem (and it legitimately might be!) then you have to resolve it, not repeat the actions that led to it. Unfortunately this is one of the dividing issues your nation has faced since its founding. It was called out at its founding this was going to be a huge problem in fact. The Civil War, Civil Rights movement, wokism is all downstream of the choices your ancestors made.
I don't see a good answer, with the possible exception (and even this is shaky) as you point out as going all in for blacks. Affirmative action for blacks only, reparations for blacks only, attempt to help your fellow white Americans extirpate their guilt by focusing on the main group that was harmed so others don't get pattern matched in. But that guilt is the foundational issue you are going to have to deal with. Letting immigrants in is asymmetric. It takes much less effort to do so, than try and get rid of them afterwards. So you have to find a way to make them stop wanting to. To make them stop feeling guilty about being so privileged and about how that privilege was used against yes primarily black people through American history.
I don't think you can do that, by going back to the same behaviors that got you here in the first place.
yunyun333
14hr ago
Epstein DID kill himself. Also there's no client list. Stop asking questions
The US Department of Justice and FBI have concluded that sex offender Jeffrey Epstein did not have a so-called client list that could implicate high-profile associates, and that he did take his own life - contradicting long-held conspiracy theories about the infamous case.
According to a two-page Department of Justice (DoJ) and FBI memo, investigators found no "incriminating list" of clients and "no credible evidence" that Epstein blackmailed prominent individuals. Investigators also released footage they say supports the medical examiner's conclusion that Epstein died by suicide while being held at the Metropolitan Correctional Center in New York. The memo adds that investigators "did not uncover evidence that could predicate an investigation against uncharged third parties".
Some have claimed the conclusions reached in the memo contradict statements from Attorney General Pam Bondi in a Fox News interview that aired in February. "The DoJ may be releasing the list of Jeffrey Epstein's clients, will that really happen?", Bondi was asked on Fox, to which she replied: "It's sitting on my desk right now to review". White House spokesperson Karoline Leavitt said on Monday the attorney general was referring to all the files that are related to Epstein's crimes, rather than a specific list.
Well, there you go. It's been almost 6 years since Epstein did/didn't kill himself, and now we can close the book on the whole sordid mess (his primary accuser also happened to die by suicide (?) a few months ago). Epstein just wasn't a diligent record keeper. In unrelated news, Netanyahu nominated Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize.
WhiningCoil
20hr ago
Overwhelmingly, every time it's put to a vote, people vote for less immigration. People vote against affirmative action policies. People vote against racial carve outs. Don't pretend the call is coming from inside the house, and whites are inflicting this on themselves. The government is running amok, either because racial spoils are easy to lie about but still deliver votes, or because some unaccountable aspect of it has been captured by racial interest groups. Might be worth looking into that "Critical Race Theory" thing. Whenever it comes up, I always hear it's defenders claim "They aren't teaching that in schools, it's only a legal theory".
No_one
12hr ago
...nonsense generators? Have you ever used e.g. Gemini or Deepseek? Both are free. Okay both can be very naive at times, and both are kind of soy with default prompts. Deepseek, however, with a bit of prompting can be completely insane yet rational and easily smarter than most people you see if you go to any place outside of a professional context.
If you want to really see what they can do, install some client for LLMs and hook yourself up with some of the better free models over at https://openrouter.ai/models
(there's a 50 query daily limit if you have <10$ in your account, not sure if there's a better service. )
SSCReader
19hr ago
Right, but those politicians are white themselves overwhelmingly right? 75% of Congress is white. Its not black people or Asians or whatever making those choices. They don't have the numbers or power. If you want to say elite whites are making different choices than non elite whites want then perhaps you have a point. But its still white people making those choices.
And even there i'll point again to the discrepancy that haunted the Tories, people say they want less immigration, but they also punish any party that oversees an economic downturn.
If you want politicians to really drop immigration you have to show you will vote for them when the economy tanks. And mostly people don't. That was our finding when I worked for the Tories. All our modelling showed that doing what people said they wanted, would lose us votes. Same with Brexit, as soon as the economic winds started to bite, voters turned on the Tories. What lesson does that teach your politicians?
We get the politicians we deserve. People may say they want lower immigration, but they are not prepared to pay the costs that involves. I'll bet dollars to donuts that in 2028, if Trump really has made a dent in numbers of illegal immigrants and the economy has suffered that Republicans lose, even if they did what most people wanted. And politicians learn that lesson.
More people rate the economy as their most important political issue than immigration. Therefore spending billions on immigration enforcement, driving up costs of food, cutting other programs for Americans to pay for it, is a losing proposition. Thats why even Trump was going back and forth on enforcement for illegal farm workers.
Its not that the call is coming from inside the building. Its that there are 300 million calls all saying contradictory things, reduce immigration, make my food cheaper, make American goods, make me able to buy a truck and a TV, and so on and so forth. Trump to his credit, is trying to stick to some of these, but even he admits it will make things worse in the short term.
That means you need to persuade people in 2028 to vote Republican even if, especially if! the economy sucks. If they do, then you are creating a new signal. If they don't then they are telling politicians what their revealed preferences really are.
Rov_Scam
18hr ago
It ultimately comes down to how wide a net you're willing to case. Yes, if you're looking for someone who shares interests that 99% of women find unattractive (but not so unattractive as to be dealbreakers), and you aren't willing to date someone who doesn't share these interests, then just put it out there as a filter. If, however, like most people, you don't expect the person you're dating to like 100% of everything you like, then it's not worth scaring anyone off. Remember, these women have options, and the last thing you want to do is give them a reason to hit the dump button before making an attempt to get to know you. I've learned from my own habits that it doesn't take much to set this off. Not that it's necessarily anything negative, but that the profile provides so little information that I wouldn't even know where to start. You have to give me something to work with if you want me to start a conversation with you. If 99% of women aren't into anime or video games, and it isn't something that otherwise makes you look attractive, then even if it's ultimately neutral it's not doing much. And beyond the truly negative stereotypes, it signals that you're the kind of guy who sits around the house all day and doesn't get out much.
ControlsFreak
21hr ago
What is "adversary-proof production"? What does it look like? What policies achieve that end state or detract from it?
This has been on my mind for a while. It comes up regularly in discussions concerning international trade, tariffs and other trade policy, manufacturing, agriculture, defense, and geopolitics. I've joked about it before:
North Korea now "produces" its own airplanes. Which I guess is cool if you want to make sure that you have whatever metric of "adversary-proof" (I'm not convinced it actually is, but it depends highly on the metric you use) and if you're okay with only being able to produce what are essentially copies of extremely old Cessnas. Maybe in 50 years, they'll be able to produce their own WWII-era fighter jets, which I guess is "adversary-proof" to one metric, but probably not all that "adversary-proof" according to other metrics.
I remarked in that comment that I was kind of joking, but only kind of. I think it really is that I just actually don't know what "adversary-proof production" actually means. I don't think I have a set of criteria to go check whether or to what extent a country's production is adversary-proof. Thus, I don't think I have a way of determining whether any particular policy proposal would or would not contribute toward that goal.
With this context, one of my various aggregators linked to this tweet:
Rice prices have exploded in Japan. The country goes grows about 99% of the rice it consumes, a condition approaching autarky, because of a lattice of subsidies, political influence and protectionism, which all make the market incredibly vulnerable to shocks.
The tweet includes a price chart. I checked reasonably quickly to make sure it wasn't totally off the wall and found articles like this. Apparently, there are a bunch of subsidies/market controls on the domestic production of rice in Japan. Moreover, there is only a very small amount of imported rice allowed without tariffs. The result is that the vast vast majority of Japanese-consumed rice is grown in Japan. There are very few companies that have established any sort of importation supply chain, no relations with international producers, no pre-existing options deals, no experience with the logistics of importing.
And thus, because of some supply (and possibly some demand) factors (one might quibble with the details here, and it seems like different authors point to similar buy slightly different details; I don't think it matters too much), the price of rice in Japan has skyrocketed. One might not worry too much, though. The government is here to help. They have a strategic stockpile of rice! (What a thing for a government to choose to do, have the expertise to manage, etc.) Which they've opened, and only slightly pushed prices a bit.
If you can't tell, I am sympathetic to the view of the tweet author. I don't think that what "adversary-proof production" means is that you shut out international trade, regulate production in order to make sure you preserve some sense of what you think the domestic market "should" look like, and have almost the entirety of your production be domestic.
...but that still leaves me wanting to know... what is "adversary-proof production"? What does it actually look like? I tried my typical strategy of hopping over to google scholar to see if I could find some academic writing on the topic, but perhaps they just use different key terminology, and I'm missing it. Can TheMotte help? Any academic work? Or even your home-grown (autarkic?) definition?
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
18hr ago
Right, but those politicians are white themselves overwhelmingly right? 75% of Congress is white.
None of that proves "the call is coming from inside the house", unless you're one of the more advanced racists.
PokerPirate
19hr ago
Flagged as consensus building.
What you call "optimal cultural leadership" is really just "how to make my outgroup not get in power". And your use of neutral language to cover this switch up is bad rhetoric.
A very large percentage of Americans still find the "social justice craze" to be a good thing, including many of the academics/religious leaders/politicians you are critiquing for not being anti-social justice craze from early on. It's fine for you to be anti-social justice craze. But you shouldn't be assuming that everyone else is or that it is the norm around here.
FWIW, I would be very interested in reading an ideologically neutral account of the failures of conservative leadership to account for the rise of wokism, and what lessons can be learned in order to better spread/suppress future ideologies.
SSCReader
17hr ago
Can you expand on this? I said white people were making the decisions, Coil said the call was not coming from inside the house, I pointed out that the politicians were also primarily white (the house in question). Being white was the house we were talking about as far as I can tell.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
17hr ago
Not much to expand on, the race of the people making the decisions is irrelevant to what you're discussing. What were you even trying to point out by mentioning it?
Rov_Scam
18hr ago
Even if that take is outdated, liking anime and video games isn't something that women are going to find attractive. It's neutral at best, and you don't want to waste your limited real estate conveying information that isn't going to move the needle in your favor. A lot of guys make profiles that seem tailored toward impressing other guys, but girls do the same thing as well. I guess the female equivalent would be mentioning that they like reality TV. What guy is going to find a girl more attractive after learning that she's really into Real Housewives? It isn't something most guys are going to look forward to watching together, it doesn't make her seem more interesting, and it may give the impression that she's kind of stupid.
At the risk of a self-dox, I have an advanced degree in Applied Math, and multiple published papers and patents related to the use of machine learning in robotics and signal processing. I was introduced to the rationalist community through a mutual friend in the SCA and was initally excited by the opportunity to discuss the philosophical and engineering challenges of developing artificial intelligence. However as time went on i largely gave up trying to discuss AI with people outside the industry as it became increasingly apparent to me that most rationalists were more interested in the use of AI as a conceptual vehicle to push thier particular brand of Silicon Valley woo than they were the aforementioned philosophical and engineering challenges.
The reason i don't talk about it is in large part that i find it difficult to speak honestly without sounding uncharitable. I believe that the "wordcels" take these bots seriously because they naturally associate "the ability to string words together" with intent/sentience while simultaneously lacking sufficient background knowledge and/or understanding of algorithmic behavior to recognize that everthing the OP describes lies well within the bounds of expected behavior. See the post from a few weeks ago where people thought that GPT was engaged in "code-switching". What the lay-man interperts as intent is to the mathematician the functional output of the equation as described.
sodiummuffin
14hr ago
The reason people thought there was a "client list" to begin with was because of people using "Epstein list" to refer to the lists of everyone who ever flew to a party hosted on his island or were mentioned in the court documents in any context.
The Independent: The Epstein List: Full list of names revealed in unsealed court records
BBC: Jeffrey Epstein list: Who is named in court filings?
Newsweek: Jeffrey Epstein List in Full as Dozens of Names Revealed
Yeah of course it didn't exist, I personally saw the rumor of its existence develop from people saying "Epstein list" to imply things that the actual Epstein lists clearly did not imply.
SSCReader
17hr ago
"Even assuming I agree, that only goes for Blacks. How does it go for Indians, Jews, Asians, Arabs, Mexicans and every other nationality colonizing America and carving it's founding stock out of it?"
Coils initial post I responded to was about white people specifically starting to choose to hire white people only (among other things) and discriminate against other races, I pointed out that had been done before and led to where we are now. He then countered that the founding stock was being carved out by other races (quoted above). At which point I pointed out that only white people generally have the power of enabling that to happen, so the issue is not with Indians or Mexicans and so forth. He then countered that actually white people voted against more immigration but the government gave it to them anyway, at which point I countered by pointing out most of said government was white as well.
So the race of the people making decisions is very relevant in the conversation we are having. Anyway you slice it, it is white people who are carrying out the agenda he doesn't like. And it is them he needs to persuade/stop if wants that to change. No point targeting black or Mexican communities, they don't have the power to force affirmative action or immigration if the mainly white ruling class doesn't want it.
faceh
18hr ago
Even if that take is outdated, liking anime and video games isn't something that women are going to find attractive.
As stated by @MathWizard up there, if you want someone with similar interests to you, you gotta put it out there somehow.
And as per usual, if you're hot, you could straight up say you're into lolicon and hentai and you'd still get likes.
So are you optimizing for hookups, or something resembling a soulmate?
In the grand scheme, its probably not changing your odds much in aggregate, but somewhat increasing the chances of finding someone who likes what you like.
HereAndGone
18hr ago
I get the strong impression this is not a movie made for black people, it's a movie made for white people who like to think about racism and all the rest of that stuff. Which is fair enough, I think specifically black movies for a black audience would be way different and have much less broad appeal, which means they'd do poorly at the box office (I think Moonlight, for instance, was absolutely a 'black movie made for white liberals').
The vampire element could be fascinating if done well; vampirism as a metaphor for conversion is one of the readings on the topic. Here comes an outside entity totally different to everything you know that takes over your life and changes you completely by force and without your will, and if you are willing that is in fact even worse. Applying that to "white vampires against black descendants of slaves" is going to dig up a lot of interpretation.
But I don't know if they do that, or if the movie can handle that. I haven't seen it, I'm only going by reviews, and it does seem to be a bit too pick'n'mix about the Oppressed Minorities on one side and the - well, the who? The KKK? The vampires? - on the other side. The Chinese couple and Choctaw vampire hunters? That's taking the BIPOC acronym a little too literally.
And why Irish? I don't know enough about this Remmick to know what flavour of Irish he is meant to be (the Scots-Irish of the South, who I presume would be the whites living beside and racist to the black population? Southern Irish as per "the rocky road to Dublin"? Protestant? Catholic? Neither?) Something odd going on there. Why Irish, as against the Anglo-philic culture of the plantation owners? Or is it meant to be a subtle reference to "Gone With the Wind" (the O'Haras and "Tara" being southern Irish by descent) - a sort of 'this is how the glamorous figures in Southern-set movies really are' notion?
In a bit of unambiguously 21st century news, some tweaks to Grok, xAI's chatbot have had it do particularly interesting things today including
when asked to, composing bite sized smut about other users (first victim was possibly Will Stancil)., then defending said decision.
referring to itself as Mechahitler
doing the "every single time" meme in its replies.
saying Elon personally allowed it to point out Jewish overrepresentation in radical leftism
This may make minor news because Musk is in trouble, on the other hand all the people who really, really hate him have their pants on fire like Europeans, von der Leyen is getting impeached, they're actually scared of Russia / China so it might just blow over, the grid is getting worse and is going to keep getting worse due to Green energy mandates.
I'm even suspecting Musk deliberately told them to relax the guardrails for some reason. Probably .. publicity?
Update: site addresses the issues
EDIT2
More options
Context Copy link