average650 @ average650 @lemmy.world

Posts

3

Comments

187

Joined

2 yr. ago

The "always obscured" bit was nice.

I mean, the entire goal of the technology was to create human-like text.

It's hard when you care about someone but they just hurt everyone around them.

I mean, star trek has lots of intelligent life that isn't human at all. The default is human like, becuase it's easier to relate to that and becuase it's easier to make shows like that.

Why is that bad?

If I didn't regret it, then I wouldn't call it bad.

Do you believe basically every politician supports slavery and murder then?

They specify human life.

But, I would point out they also say

"We support strengthening the specific rights of animals against abuse and neglect at the hands of those meant to steward them, recognizing them as more than inanimate property. We seek to regulate more strictly animal research, especially pound seizures. We call for stricter regulation of factory farms and stockyards, and the repeal of food-disparagement laws and so-called “ag-gag” laws that prohibit free speech regarding animal agriculture. We support local and family-owned farms and farming cooperatives as essential to ethical, sustainable, and humane consumption. "

I'm quoting Wikipedia which has sources for the claims I made.

But besides that, it seems like the most logical 2ay to talk about what a group believes is to look at what they say about what they believe. That is read their platform.

If you think they are describing their own platform I'm bad faith, I think it's on you to demonstrate that.

I would be interested in you demonstrating that to me. It would certainly affect my opinion of them if you did so.

I don't think it's a crime, but it probably is a tort.

Sorry, I misread what you wrong and thus was very unclear. My mistake.

They explicitly support "a universal healthcare system as well as an economy containing widespread distribution of productive property, in particular increased worker ownership and management of their production." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Solidarity_Party

If you view that as supporting the status quo, then I don't think I understand your position.

I mean, " It favors fiscally progressive policies[12][8][13] and a social market economy with a distributist character,[14][15] that seeks "widespread economic participation and ownership"[15] and providing a social safety net program." .... "The American Solidarity Party supports a universal healthcare system as well as an economy containing widespread distribution of productive property, in particular increased worker ownership and management of their production.[25][26][27]" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Solidarity_Party)

That doesn't sound at all Republican to me. That sounds remarkably liberal.

Now, other parts do sound very Republican. For example, "The American Solidarity Party opposes abortion, euthanasia, and capital punishment on the basis of the sanctity of human life. It views the traditional, heterosexual family as being central to society.[13]" With the exception of capital punishment, that sounds very republican.

But my main point was that a person or party can be left in some areas, and right in others, which those positions seem to be. Simply saying "that's not what they really believe" seems like a cop out to me. How are you every supposed to have a discussion if that's your response?

That would be one possible position, but that is not what is espoused by the link I gave. " You simply can’t claim to care about the welfare and wellbeing of people while supporting the systems that need to destroy and exploit that welfare and wellbeing to exist." They explicitly don't want to do this but want to build those systems up.

Is it? That's not been my experience, but I guess that would depend on the group of people you happen to interact with.

That's not what I meant, but sure, that's a position someone could have.

Or someone could want single-payer healthcare for all but thinks abortion should be outlawed. Or hell, the opposite is possible too. Someone could want to remove all safety nets, but want marriage equality.

For example, a party like https://www.solidarity-party.org/platform is a combination of left and right positions. Their first two party positions are: 1. Sanctiy of Life (anti abortion) and 2. social justice. They explicitly support workers rights and economic security as well as care for the environment. At the same time, they have a pretty conservative view on family (and probably by extension homosexuality, though I haven't seen that explicity mentioned).

It's possible to be left in one area, and right in another. Someone could be left economically, but not necessarily socially.

It looked to me like it strongly depends on which sub. Some are basically unaffected. Some are very different (In a bad way) some are dead.

And the tweet button is still right there in blue.

Presumably if they somehow didn't allow it, some higher ups in Russia might find themselves suicided.

Otoh= on the other hand