GoodEye8 @ GoodEye8 @lemm.ee

Posts

0

Comments

1,165

Joined

2 yr. ago

Just pointing out you're the one living in cuckoo land.

I guess next you're going to call AI generation fanfic.

From Gemini:

Is this manifesto political? (removed the manifesto to save space)

Yes, this manifesto has strong political undertones.

Here's why:

        Focus on Systemic Issues: It criticizes the US healthcare system, the dominance of large corporations (like United), and the perceived corruption and greed within these entities. These are all significant political issues.
    Calls for Action: While the author doesn't explicitly advocate for violence, the act itself and the language used ("parasites," "brutal honesty") suggest a desire to disrupt the existing power structures. This implies a call for change, which is inherently political.
    Critique of Power Dynamics: The manifesto highlights the imbalance of power between corporations and the American public, arguing that the public has allowed this imbalance to persist. This analysis of power dynamics is central to political discourse.


  

Disclaimer: This analysis does not condone the actions described in the manifesto.

Note: The indecipherable words make it difficult to fully understand the author's intended message.

Same question with chatGPT.

Yes, Luigi Mangione's manifesto contains political elements. It critiques systemic issues, such as the healthcare system in the United States, corporate power, and societal complacency. By highlighting the disparity between healthcare costs and life expectancy, as well as the influence of large corporations, the manifesto engages with political and economic structures.

However, the political nature of the document is more implicit than explicit—it critiques systemic issues but does not explicitly outline a political ideology or program. The tone also suggests a personal justification for extreme actions, which can blur the lines between political and personal motives.

It's sad when even a braindead AI is smarter than you.

I don't know what you're lacking to not understand his manifesto and I don't care because it's not my job to improve your failed education. I'm not wasting any more time on you.

You said intent not outcome. Him killing only one and it "not having any effect" is an outcome. His manifesto doesn't say he intended to kill only one, his intentions were against the system not a single individual.

Looking at the outcome and saying "that wasn't political" is like saying Jan 6 wasn't political because they failed to overthrow the government.

We have no indications that Luigi wanted anything other than one or maybe a handful more dead CEOs.

But why did he want one or more CEOs dead?

Do you think killing someone is political only if the targets are politicians?

Yeah, not really surprised. The writing has been on the wall, but I was still hoping for Tsunoda to get the seat because he's put in the effort. RB has been shaping him as a driver for 4 years and then instead of promoting him to the main team they essentially pick a reserve driver over him. How shitty is that? It might be understandable if he was better than Yuki, but Yuki is the better driver. And the spat between Perez and Lawson showed that Lawson is also hot headed like Tsunoda. I know Tsunoda had his huge tirade at the start of the year but Ricciardo seemed to set him straight and he has clearly cooled himself off since then.

Anyway, it's a nice finishing touch to the "stupid decisions RBR has made this year" list.

But the reason why they think it had to be done still matters. "This CEO wronged me personally" and "the systemic oppression made me do it" contextualize the act in a very different way. The reason he did this is why it's political. If he had done it because he had a personal vendetta against the CEO or he had some religious beliefs that made him do it or if he was just insane, then it wouldn't be a political reason. But he did it because (paraphrasing his statement) he saw an unopposed corrupt system that needed to be opposed. That is a political reason.

The reason for "it had to be done" is political.

Obviously the problem is more complex, but I do not have space, and frankly I do not pretend to be the most qualified person to lay out the full argument. But many have illuminated the corruption and greed (e.g.: Rosenthal, Moore), decades ago and the problems simply remain. It is not an issue of awareness at this point, but clearly power games at play. Evidently I am the first to face it with such brutal honesty.

He explicitly states that he does not have the "space" nor the qualification to lay out what you want him to lay out, but he pretty much says what you said he should've said for it to be political: "Privatized health insurance is corrupt and greedy, we've known it for a long time and nothing has been done to prevent or stop it, thus I took a more violent approach to do something about the corruption and greed."

I can't wait for a future where the US has fixed its problems. Trump is just a symptom of a deeper issue within the US and when Trump is gone someone else will take his place and it'll probably get worse.

Is he wrong though? Stroll and Alonso have 2 WDCs between them, you even that out and they're both WDC contenders.

I didn't know Bernie was young.

DNC just hates leftists, age doesn't really matter.

My only gripe with the new switch is the lack of ergonomics, which is also the issue with the current switch. But I don't really care because chances are I'm unlikely to be using it in handheld mode with joycons. If I want to take the switch with me it comes along with a pro controller and I use the stand. I guess joycon quality is also relevant question mark.

But yeah, I'm also mostly interest in the software because Switch was pretty barebones. I'm definitely expecting more from Switch 2 (or whatever they'll call it).

My biggest gripe is also the power level. Witcher 3 already sets her potential way above Geralt which means for Witcher 4 they most likely will nerf her powers to not make her a, living god. Personally I would've preferred if they hadn't used Ciri in the first place because it's bound to create retcons.

Or if they wanted to make a story about Ciri they should've focused on who she is (someone with elder blood) not on who she isn't (an actual Witcher). She doesn't need Witcher powers, her innate powers are already way stronger than what a Witcher gets.

I always felt iffy about their pro-XYZ stance as well. I'm not against bringing awareness to bullying or burnout or supporting marginalized groups, but it feels so disingenuous when your game (Destiny) is obviously predatory. I guess getting people addicted and organizing their lives after the game is not something to oppose.

Yeah, that's not the best example. I think the ac-130 mission is a much better example because I don't remember it getting a lot of controversy despite it being pretty non-chalant about you decimating the ground forces like it was just another day in the office (or rather in the air). It's the ultimate "dehumanize the enemy" mission because you could replace the targets with pretty much anyone and the mission would play exactly the same.

My guess is that Trump is collecting "protection" money. It's not racketeering of he's the president, right?

The innocent man also says "I'm not guilty" and my point is that anyone saying they're not guilty is not an indicator of whether they're actually guilty or not. An innocent person is just as likely to say "I'm not guilty" as a guilty person would be. So really the only dumb comments here are yours. You believe a false premise which led you to a false conclusion and instead of accepting you're wrong you're doubling down on that stupidity.

You're free to take your anecdotal evidence and believe stupid shit, but if you're going to say it out loud you better be prepared for the public dunking you're inevitably going to get, because while we can't make you not believe it we can tell you it's a stupid thing to believe.

So what does an innocent man say? "I'm guilty"?