buellerbueller

HRC was also given the power to effectively run the DNC (while a candidate in the primaries!) in exchange for some funraising. There were bunches of other shenanigans.

To me, it all seems to boil down to the notion that Bernie would credibly have "drained the swamp," which would have effectively tanked the careers of a lot of long-serving Democratic folks who were not aligned with his populist/progressive agenda. Simply by hiring people that would have aligned with his vision, this was such a threat to existing power, it had to be stopped. Yes, the Rs are worse (in my opinion), but this gives me plenty of distrust for the Ds. Institutions eventually become more about institutional survival than about their "core mission."

You're right, it is more mainstream than just the "woke".

"The abolition of borders is a basic socialist principle" https://catalyst-journal.com/2019/03/the-case-for-open-borde...

https://www.reddit.com/r/Socialism_101/comments/6poltn/whats...

https://www.leftvoice.org/abolish-ice-and-abolish-the-border...

https://www.caldems.com/smart-ass-fall-2020/2020/10/30/recko...

https://socialistworker.co.uk/teach-yourself-marxism/why-rev...

Convinced yet, or shall I go on?

>I can gauge how much of an authoritarian you are with one simple question, is it immoral to privately own the means of production?

You keep using the term authoritarian but I don't think you actually know what it means.

Why is the paper not available?

The OPs point stands; why would anti-tyranny types want to stand with people who are (in their example) linguistic tyrants and thought police?

But you didn't actually answer the quesion.

There are plenty of open borders folks among the woke.

The hilarious thing is that you believe yours have added understanding.

Narrator: They didn't.

I feel like this is a reasonable but nearly-impossible-to-prove take. Maybe this is why everything goes uniparty.

1. weak.

2. weaker still.

3. you don't own morality, buddy.

4. complete miss; i don' work for a company whose motives i question.

No, they voted to not bring the extension bill to the floor. This was a vote on a house rule, which is necessary to affirm before debating and voting on the bill itself.

The constitution is clear: he had a right to a trial by jury.

Yes, if it truly all data, available to all.

Give data, please. Without it, this assertion is useless:

> There’s still a sizable portion of the [Democratic] party as of right now that is against surveillance powers in a way that doesn’t really exist on the [Republican] side.

Obama certainly was for this; he didn't shy away from extrajudicial assassination of an American citizen in a foreign land, executed by our military.

It is both sides. Wyden is a (welcome) aberration (on this topic).

So many poor arguments and analogies in you master sage comment.

1. No one is surprised when the armaments factory makes bombs; they claim to. Does Meta claim to be an influence factory? Ha! They argue tooth and nail against this fact in every court they've been sued or charged in. Thus, it is certainly surprising when a space for connecting to others makes specific connections, particularly political ones impossible or difficult in the midst of the election. I don't think most people saw that coming; perhaps you did because you are obviously more clever than the rest of us.

2. A zero percent chance versus a close to nil chance are objectively different. Which one is better or worse is of course context dependent.

3. If you work at a company that does bad things and you are trying to steer it away from those bad things, it is not clear that you are becoming complicit. Some could argue that you are the opposite of complicit.

4. Perhaps the point is not merely influencing your employer's business direction, but also that of your colleagues.

Sorry, bud, you didn't clinch it.

Would you prefer the armament factory be staffed by warmongers? That seems objectively worse.

Cant build the matrix without the human-computer interface!

Risk is part of the job profile. We keep trying to lower the risk, but do we lower the benefits accordingly? No.

It's class warfare. A few billionaires and a bunch of millionaires fighting against the other 99.5% of the world, just so they can be even more wealthy.

This is not sacrilege. It is for the common good. Some people, however, would profit off the immiseration of others, by profiting off of charging higher prices for essentials, regardless of the degree to which the buyer can afford the price gouging.

Yes, and Valve has the money and control of the marketplace to do something about it.

They have the money and the margins to do something about it. How about a review process?

Oh, well good thing you feel and assume how I think and debate. Perhaps your invented picture of me is not accurate?

You might not like it, but that doesn't make my argument inaccurate. Every discussion I've had about the topic, anti-AI folks are willing to acknowledge exactly 0 benefits of AI. That is just dumb, because benefits do exist, and it prevents a rational discussion and analysis of costs and benefits.

When a side in a debate cannot or will not acknowledge the strengths of the other side's position, they aren't having an informed argument; they are ranting. (This is also the chief issue with contemporary electoral politics globally, imo. People arguing from principles rather than facts.)

Finally, I don't claim to be the only one who is informed; where did I say that? I didn't even claim that anti-ai people are stupid. I do claim that most anti-ai people are uninformed and this is because in my experience, they are unwilling to acknowledge any benefit of AI. Further, I propose a mechanism for their uninformed opinions: because slop is highly visible, whereas benefits are mostly invisible. As examples, take drug discovery and deeper understanding of maths: do you honestly expect a population where 1 in 5 adults is functionally illiterate and the literacy and numeracy scores of our youth continue to plummet will value those things that are literally not things that can be seen (and rely on very advanced degrees to understand), versus the prevalent and highly visible slop that exists?

Get real.

thats funny, because you are moving the goalposts in the argument i made, which is that people who say they hate AI don't know what AI is and think it is only slop, yet you readily agree that AI is more than slop.

>Telling people to ignore the evidence of their eyes is a hard sell.

Yes, I agree. It took science to prove that life doesn't arise from rotting meat. But the fact that populations (even in developed countries) are rapidly getting less and less educated indicates that people are less and less likely to have the critical thinking skills to understand when their eyes are not adequate instruments of observation.

Also AI slop exists, certainly; people aren't wrong to hate AI slop, but you have to agree that slop isn't the entirety of AI.

Most people only see the slop. They don't have informed opinions. 1 in 5 American adults is functionally illiterate, and they are supposed to have a valid opinion about the usefulness of AI in contexts they can't see?

Most people hate what they (incorrectly) think AI is.

How?

>most people won't read past the headline and will think there's still doubt

Sadly, changing headlines won't solve functional illiteracy, in this case, the belief that the headline is the story.