You’re right, ha, I’m totally not… they, I mean they are totally not! You got it guy! Everyone listen to this guy! I’d go as far as to say anyone reading this article is innocent of ALL crimes!

.

“Wow Johnson, no matter how much biased data we feed this thing it just keeps repeating biases from human society.”

Sample input from a systematically racist society (the entire world), get systematically racist output.

No shit. Fix society or “tune” your model, whatever that entails…

Obviously only one of these is feasible from a developer perspective.

Another one bites the dust.

I admit it, I once assumed Elon was a genius.
(events happen)
Okay, not a genius, but a good businessman.
(events happen)
Okay, a bad businessman, a good PR person.
(events happen)
Okay, a bad PR person, but not a Nazi.
(events happen)
Well fuck, he’s a Nazi supporting conspiracy theorist.

God damn, if I was that wrong about one person. I’m just gonna stop having opinions about famous people. It’s all smoke and mirrors.

As long as the jackass doesn’t sell, they’re solid.

I had a roommate who invested, when his stuff went down more than 5% he’d sell it, “Don’t wanna be too risky,” he’d say, unaware that he was breaking the cardinal rule of investing…

Then, “Omg it’s up again, I better buy high before it goes higher!” then repeat pattern A again.

Moral of the story, if you actually believe in a stock, unrealized losses are not something to react to. Or do, and become a warning tale told to others, ha. Them -5% hits add up QUICK.

.

.

.

We’ve all done it, I’m sorry if my joke wasn’t apparent as well. Text is dumb.

And no sense of humor over what was clearly a joke comment. Icing on the cake.

Now I believe you now, you do use Nano.

Prefers Nano over Vim? Why’d you have to go and commit a felony. Now I can’t take anything you say seriously. Damnit.

So cool.

I agree with the comedy image.

The only thing worse than the squalor of addiction is the unearned confidence of people with glasses.

It would be more accurate if you said, “This is not about right and wrong (for me).”

If you say it’s not about right and wrong, dead stop, then you are pledging full faith to the institutions, the very ones we are critiquing.

Basically, you are dismissing my opinion as misguided, dismissing me as missing the point and I am telling you it was expressed exactly as intended.

In short, you are arguing on the wrong conceptual meta-level for me to respond without dismissing my own claim. If I take as True that “this isn’t about right and wrong” (it is), then I am setting aside the power I have in a democratic society to say, “Fuck this I’m changing it.” Maybe we’ve just been stuck in gridlock politics, with a ruling class that strips and monetizes every aspect of humanity that the society today doesn’t realize the power citizens wield.

Not sure. Been fun to think and share thoughts with you though. Thanks for your time and have a nice night.

An impasse is a perfectly acceptable outcome on a sane platform like Lemmy.

It’s a quote of an opinion, so in general I ignore them. I’m usually more interested in distilling ideas constructed with some line of reasoning.

But I guess we can look at this one. Find it’s essence. Tho it doesn’t seem very deep…

“Societies with rule of law are dictatorships. How leaders are selected and the existence of fundamental Constitutional rights is not a factor.”

So in short.

Having laws at all is a dictatorship.

Yeah, that is one of the opinions I’d ignore. It’s easy to have that opinion inside the walls of a lawed society.

Luckily it is valid to respond to an opinion with an opinion, and mine is that I imagine everyone (except the strongest with the most resources) would abandon that perspective as soon as they lived in a world with no laws.

I had nothing to say to that. I agree with it.

One paragraph discusses action, the other discusses philosophy. I only took issue with your regressive philosophy. I’m open to correcting misunderstandings, elaborate if you feel I continue to miss something.

“No one should stand up for new rights. Don’t rock the boat bro.”

Your mindset is the road to a dictatorship.

What does the Mafia do? Show up, “Wow you got a lot of valuable things here Be a shame if someone broke them. Best listen to us.”

The Mafia leverages potential of damage to existing value to extract cooperation.

I see very little difference here between the Mafia and the plaintiff.

“Because what is legal is always right.
And what is right is always legal.”

No?

In a fascist state, your mindset is welcome, “Well they broke the rule, they must pay,” but do you never abstract one more level? Is the rule itself breaking something?

Those who downvote you say yes. Nuance is important. The rule has two main affects that I see.

1. Direct effect (the goal) :Publishers maintain a monopoly on bookselling low value books, the structure of their business preventing any competition.

Okay lets think about #1. Is that good or bad?

2. Indirect effect : the members of that society now have a restricted access to knowledge.

Okay lets think about #2. Is that good or bad?

Being critical in thought enough to recognize the flaws of the first quote is key.

…

I hate these bars, I have no idea how anyone tolerates eating it anywhere indoors.