It takes a particular kind of intelligence and understanding of worldviews to lie in the specific way that's appealing to conservatives. LLMs are unable to replicate this.
My dream policy would be a wealth tax that includes company ownership that could be paid with company shares. Any shares paid this way would go to an escrow that is controlled by the employees of the company, eventually trending companies towards becoming worker coops.
That was always a dumb argument that no one genuinely found confusing. It was always a red herring.
The Bush administration pushed the "climate change, not global warming" narrative (I'm not saying they invented it, only that they spearheaded the rhetorical framing and made it popular)
It's undeniable that the end result of changing this framing is that fewer people believe now that changes should be made to mitigate long term effects of carbon emissions than 25 years ago.
It's not more descriptive though, at least not to the layperson, it leaves room for people to believe that a change in climate is benign or tolerable. Everyone can understand that consistent, long-term warming is dangerous.
To be clear, that only removes (or attempts to remove) refusals; it doesn't add in training data that it doesn't have. Ask it about tiennemen square, for example.
tar -eXtract Ze Vucking File